The H on or ab l e Tanya W al t on Pr at t, Dis t ri c tJ udge f or the  Uni t ed Sta tes Dis t ri c tCour tf or the So uthe rnDis t ri c tof I ndi ana, i s s i t t i ng by des i gna t i on.



## In the 

# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 11

- 2012 D AVI D L. L EW IS, Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v. L ARRY M IL LS, et a l., D efend a nts-A pp ellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the C entral D istricto f Illino is. No . 2:0 9-cv-02 09 0-MPM

—Mi ch ael P . M cC us key, Judge
.
A RG UE D N OVE MBE R 29, 2011

— D ECI DE D A PRI L 20, 2012

Befo re P O SNER an d K ANN E , C i r c u it Judges, a nd P RAT T, D i s t r i ctJudg e .  P RAT T, D i s t r i ctJudg e . Davi d L. Lew i s is a f or m erpart
tim e p olic e o ffice r for th e V illag e o f B elg iu m , I llin ois

— a t ow n of j u stov er 40 0 p e o p le. O n Jan u ar y 6 , 201 0, L ew is2 N o. 11

- 2012 fi l ed a o ne- count Am ended C om pla i nt ar i si ng under 42 U. S

. C. § § 19 83 a nd 1 98 8 ag ains t f o urde fen d an ts who alle ge d ly p a r tic ip at ed in a co n sp ira c y t o p ro se c u te h im f orvar i ous s exualo ffenses to retal i ate ag ai nst hi m f or co o per at i ngwi tha n F BIi nv es ti g at i o n. The se f ou r de fen dants

— a truly un iqu e w eb o f ch aract ers

— con sist of : ( 1) Larr y M i l l s, the F irs t Assi sta nt S tat e’ s Attor ney for Verm i l i on County, I l l i noi s; ( 2) Todd D am i l ano, a Dep u ty She riff/Inv estig ator for th e Ve rm il ion C ou nt y Sheriff’s Dep ar tm ent ( the “ Sher i ff’ s Depart m ent”) ; ( 3) S cot t Cor ri e, th e fo rm er ow n er of a n ow -d e fu n c t s tr ip clu b in Bel g i um , I l l i no i s, c al l ed th e Pl ay penGent le m en ’ s Cl ub (the “Playp en ”); an d (4) C lint G ray, w ho i s L e w is’s br o th er, Corrie’s fr i en d, a nd a n o cc as i o na lpa tr o n o fthe Pl ay pen . L ew is paints a ta w d ry ta le inv olvi ng dru gs, sex , pow er, cor rupti on, a n d r eve nge, al lcul m i nati ng in a v i ol ati on ofhi s F i rs t Am endm ent c onst i tuti onalr i ghts. Th e d i str i ct cour t obser ved thatal though there was “pl enty ofsm oke ” i n thi s ca se, ther e was no “evi denti ar y fi re , ” o r ev en an “evid en tiary m atch stick.” Citing this lack of evid en tiary supp or t forLew i s’ s cl ai m s, the dist ri ct c ou rt gr anted sum m ar y j ud gm ent foral lf our defe nd ants. Lew i s has n o w a p p e a l e d , a n d w e a ffi r m.

I . B a c kg r o und L e w is w or ke d as a p ar t-t im e p olic e o ffice r in Bel gi um , I l l i noi s fro m O c to b er 20 03 unti lFebruar y 2 007. L ew is a p p ar en tly h ad an u n re m ar ka b l e re c or d u n tilN o. 11

- 2012 3 M ar ch 200 6, wh en nu m er ous wom en

— m ostly da nc ers at the Pl aypen

— b e g a n a c c us i ngh i m o fa wi de v a ri ety ofi napp ro pri ate se xual conduct. S p e c i fi c a l l y, L e wi s ’ s s a g a b e g a n a r o u n d 3 : 1 0 a . m. on M ar c h 1 7, 2 0 0 6. A t t h at tim e, L ew is

— o n duty a nd in fu ll police un iform

— p u lled ov er D an ielle P er ry , a Pl ay penda nc er . S o o n the r eafter, Pe r r y dr o ve o ff, l ea ving L ew is a lon e alongsid e his Vill age of Belgium squ ad car. Roughl y 2 0 h ou rs lat er, at10 : 45 p. m . , Per ryr epor ted to the S he r i ff’ s De pa r t men ttha t, du r i ngthe t r a ffi c s t o p, Lewi s g r ab be d he r, f o r ce d he rt o kiss hi m , a nd put hi s hands down herpants. The Sher i ff’ s Depart m ent Captai n, Rod K aag, l aunched an i nvest i gat i on of Lew i s’ s a l l ege d conduct. On M ar ch 22, 2 0 0 6 , Pe r r y g a v e a r e c o r de d a c c o un t o fwh at t r a ns pi r e d. O n M arch 23, 2006 , K aag p rocu red a grand j ury su bpoena t o o bt ain P er r y ’ s pho ne r ec o r ds to s ee i fthe re cords w er e co nsi ste nt with her ver si on o fev ents. That sam e d ay , K aagadvi sed M i l l s that the S heri ff’ s Depart

m en t w as lau n c h in g an inv es tig at ion ag ain stL ew is base d on Per ry ’ s r epor t. N otably, K aag“di d not a sk M ills for gu i d a n c e, d ire c tio n or a ss ist an c e in th e in ve st ig at i o n. ” M o r eo ve r, Kaa gdo es “ no t recal lha vinga ny o th er di sc us si o ns wi th M i l l s i n 20 06 ab o ut Lew is” and “d id n ota s k M ills to ta ke an y p ro se c u to ria l ac tio n in 2006 vis a vis L ew is.” I n A pri l20 06, two m or e Pl aypen dancer s rep or ted al l eg at i o ns o fa sexu al n atur e i nv o l vingLe wi s. La cr i sh a Carr i gan info rm ed Kaag that, o ne ye area rl i er, Lew i s, whi l e o n duty, sh o wed he r pi ctur es o f hi s g en i ta l i a next4 N o. 11

- 2012
to a b ee r bo tt l e. Re be cc a Lee t o l d Inv es ti g at o rDa m i l an o

— w h o w as w or ki ng under the di re cti on a nd superv i si on ofKaag

— th at s h e g av e L ew is or al s ex to av oid a tr affic tick e t . D am il an o sup p li ed K aag w ith a cop y of L ee’s r e po r t
. Ka a gdi d n o ti mm e di a t e l y p ur s ue c ha r g e s a gai nst Lew i s be cause he had conce rns th at t hese al l ega ti ons, sta nd i ng al one, “would notbe sufficient to co nvi ct O ffice r L ew is.” I t i s p er haps unsurpri si ng tha t a n est abl i shm ent l i ke the Playpen

— w hi ch has si nce cl ose d

— w as a have n f or tr oubl e. Indeed, the “se condaryeffects ” o fst ri p cl ubs ar e w e l l -es ta b lish ed

. See, e . g., Fantasy Ran ch, Inc. v. City of Ar l i ngt on , 45 9 F

. 3d 546, 55 9 ( 5th Ci r. 20 06)

. Pre sum abl y, that i s why, i n J anuary20 06, the Bel gi um P olice Chie f Dal e G hiba udy i ns truct ed hi s o ffi ce r s to a vo i d the Playp en un less they w ere resp ond ing to a call

. H ow ev er, i n Ghiba udy ’ s vi ew, thi s admoni ti o n h ad l i tt l e det er r en t effect on Lewis. Ghiba ud y t est i fi ed i n hi s deposi ti on that he be l i eve d Lew i s r epeate dlyand gros sl y v i ol ate d thi s di re cti ve. On Januar y 1 9, 20 07, A ud re y W hi te

— w h o w or ked f or C l i nt Grayathi s r est aurant, Fa t BoyS ubs

— l odged a co m pl aintwi thGhiba udy a bou t a n inc i den t inv o l ving Lew is th at o cc ur r ed o n De ce m be r2 3 an d 2 4, 2 00 6. S he then f ollow ed this up w i th a re cor ded st ate m ent o n Janu ary 22, 2007
. Spec ificall y, W hite a lle g ed that, hou rs af t e r r unning i nt o Le wi s a t the Pl a y pe n o n the ni g ht o f D ec em b er 23 , 200 6, L ew is a rriv ed ath er h om e in fu ll unifor m , in vi ted heri nto hi s s quad car, dro ve her to a seclud ed area, an d tri ed to ki ss he r.N o. 11

- 2012 5 I n Feb ruar y a nd M ar ch 200 7, Dam i l ano i nter view ed f o u r m o re w om en w h o c laim ed th at L ew is h ad se x u ally vi cti m i zed them . T hree were Pl aypen e m plo yee s ( Ch er yl F o r s hi e r, Amy Do w, a nd J e nn i fe rGa rr et t, wh o a l s o h a ppen s to b e Lewi s’ s si st er - i n- l aw) , a nd o ne was a S te akn’ Shak e e m plo yee ( A shl ey Gri der)

. Fo l l owing th is s pate of a lleg at ion s, K aa g b ec am e “ c on vin c ed th at p ro b ab le cause exi ste d to bel i eve thatLe w is had vi cti m i zed se ve r alwomen an d abus ed hi s po l i ce po si ti o n wi th the V illag e o f B elg iu m .” T h er efo re , he a n d D am ilan o fin ally turned o verthe re sul ts ofthe i nvest i gat i on t o M i l l s. But, no tabl y, i n the mean ti m e, M i l l s ha d b ec o m e th e subj ecto fa s epa r at e i nv es ti g at i o n inv o l vinga l l eg at i o ns o fu ns e e mly cond uc t
. S pe c i fi c a l l y, b e f o r e 2 0 0 6 , the F BI bega n i nvest i gat i ng M i l l s o n suspi ci on that he had provi ded f av o r ab l e dea l s to c r i m i na lde fendant s i n e xchange f or drugs and o ther f avo rs . On D ecem ber13 , 20 06, an FB I Sp ec ial A ge n t an d an Illino is Sta te P olic e In ve st iga to r in te rv iew ed L ew is an d in q u ire d ab ou t M ills. L ew is r es po nde d tha t he ha d no fi r stha nd kno wl edge o fa ny drug tr affi cking o r drug use by M i l l s. Lew i s di d stat e, how ever, that h e had heard “rum ors” con cern ing M il ls’ s “att endance atpart i es, co cai ne use, and possibl y pr ov i di ngdrug s t o fe mal e s wi th di s g r un t l e d husb a nd s an d /or bo yfr ien d s.” A t the end ofthi s inter vi ew , the FBIag ent handed Lew i s his c ard. A t hi s deposi ti on, the I l l i noi s S tat e Police Inv estigator con fi rm ed that Le w is w as no t a pa rtic u lar ly “ sig n ifica n t” o r “ h elp fu l” w itn es s. A fte r th is i nter vi ew , Lew i s di d not have conta ct with anyo ne r e-6 N o. 11

- 2012 g a r d i n gth e i n v e s t i g a t i o n, a tl e a s tu n t i la ft e rh i s o wn i n d i c t me n t, wh i c h i s d i s c u s s e d b e l o w. On D ecem ber17, 20 06, j ust days aft er hi s di scussi on wi ththe F BI, Le wi s al l eg es tha t he ha d a not ab l e co nver sa tio n w i th hi s br othe r, Cl i nt Gray

. Grayapproa ched Lewi s, s tati ngtha t th eyne ede d t o t al ka nd “ y o ur badge needs to st ay i n the car ” be cause “thi s i s be tw een broth er and broth er[. ]” Gray sta ted t h a t he h ad heard that Lew i s had spok en to the FBIand that he w as “m ak in g s o m e v er y p ow er fu l an d d an ge ro u s p eo p le v e r y u n c o mf o r t ab l e . ” Wh e n a s k e d whatt h e F B Ikn e w, Lewi s r es po nde d tha t th e “F BIhas som e co nc erns [ M i l l s] i s i nv o l ved in so m ethi ngno t ex ac tly o n the up an d u p w ith th e P lay p en .” G ra y r e s p o n d ed th at M ills “r uns this c ou nty” because he ha s “ abso l ute power .
. . to say. . . wh o does and doe sn’ t g o to tr i al

. ” Graythen ex pl aine d tha t i n e xc ha ng e f o rwomen an d c o ca i ne fro m Cor ri e, M i l l s pro secute d com peti ng drug deal er s. Gray al so add ed thatLew i s co uld doubl e hi s a nnual i ncom e i fhe w en t alo ng with thi s s chem e. A t the end of thi s co nver sat i on, Grayal l ege dly ask ed Lew i s i fhe was “i n. ” Lewis re sponded thathe woul d not g et i nvol ved an d tha t he was g o i ng t o do hi s j o b. Gr aye nde d the con versat ion cryp ticall y, w arn ing “you know Ic a n’t p ro te c t y ou , righ t.” So on aft er th is a lleg ed co n ve rs at ion w i t h G ra y, L ew is c laim s th at Jen n ifer G ar re tt, h is sist er -in -law , t o l d h im th atCo r r i e k epta n apa rtm en t wher e M i l l s an d the Pl ay penda nc er s ha d s ex a nd us ed co ca i ne . A ccordi ng to Le wi s, s he a l so s ta te d tha t sh e ha d s ex wi thDa m i l an oN o. 11

- 2012 7

on m ult i ple o ccasi ons. Final ly, G ar re tt al l ege dlyadded t h at if sh e h ad lega l p ro b lem s, all sh e h ad to d o is t ell l aw enf or cem ent t o conta ct Dam i l ano. O n M arch 30, 2 0 0 7, a Verm il ion C ou nt y grand j ury conve ned to consi der c ri m i nalch ar ges ag ai nst Lewis. Si x w om en te sti fi ed und ero ath ab ou t thei r encounter s: W h ite , D ow , Pe rry , G ar re tt, C ar rig an , an d G rid er . L ew is cl ai m s th at, i m m edi ate l y b ef or e the gr and j ury hear i ng, M ills as ke d h im w h at h e h ad to ld th e F B I. W h en L ew is fei gned i gnor ance, M i l l s r esponded, “w ro ng answer D av e.” O n A p ril 11 , 200 7, th e gra n d j u ry ch ar ge d L ew is w i th 4 9 fe l o nyc o un t s i nv o l v i ngo ffi c i a lmi s c o nd uct, ar m ed v i ol ence, cr i m i nalse xual ass aul t, ag gr avat ed cri m i nalse xual ass aul t, cr i m i nalse xual abuse, and obstru ct i ngj us ti ce . Le wi s was i nc ar ce r at ed whi l e awai ting tr ial. On Apr i l 3 , 2 0 0 8 , Le wi s ’ s t r i a l o n t wo o f the c ounts

— on e count foro ffi ci alm i sco nd uct and one count for cri m i nalse xual abuse

— c o nv e ne d, a nd h e wa s a c qu i t t e d. N o tabl y, at th e tr i al, Do w re ca nt ed he re ar l i erg r an d j ury tes ti m ony. Speci fi cal l y, Dow te sti fi ed that, i n l ate 200 6 o re ar l y 2 00 7, Co r r i e ca l l ed a m ee tingwi ththe fem al e Pl aypen e m plo yee s an d to l d them theywould not have to pay “house fees ” i f they f abr i cate d st ate m ents ab o ut L ew i s be ca us e Lewi s’ s pr es en ce was ha m per i ng C or rie ’s d ru g t ra d e. (P re su m ab ly, it’s h a r d er to se ll drugs when cops ar e m i l l i ng ab out. ) Dow

— n o t ex ac tly a m odel ofcr ed ibi l i ty

— l at err ec an te d thi s r ec an ta ti o n, lea d in g t o a p erj u ry co n v i c t ion . For w h at it’s w or th , in her deposi ti on forthi s ca se, Dow st ate d that he r 20078 N o. 11

- 2012 g r an d j ur y t es ti m o ny a g ai ns t L ewi s was t r uthfula nd th at h er rec an ta tio n in A p ril 20 08 w as fals e. D ow te s t ifi ed that she c h an ge d her sto ryf orLew i s’ s t ri albec ause ofthr eat s t o her chi l dren, st atin g “ I ’ m notgo i ng to r i sk m y k id s.” Therea fter, o n J une 9, 20 08, a speci alpro secuto r ass i gned to the case d ism i sse d al lo fthe or i gi nalchar ges i n r eturn f o rLe wi s’ s ag r ee m en t to pl ea d g ui l tyt o f o ur cl ass m i sdem eanor s: thr ee c ounts ofo ffi ci alm i sco nd uct and one c ou nt o fo bstructi on o fj usti ce. These charg es a r o s e fr o m L e wi s ’ s a c t i o n s t o wa r d Au d r e y Wh i t e . At the pl ea hear i ng, these tw o charg es w er e desc ribed as “le ss er inc lu d ed offe n se s o f co u n ts alre ad y c h ar ge d .” Lew i s was se ntenced to o ne ye ari n j ai land one yea r of c o n d i t i o n a ld i s c h a r g e , bu tw a s g i v e n c r e d i tf o rt i me ser ved and re l eas ed that sa m e d ay

— afte rs pen di ng 423 day s incar cer ate d. M i l l s, m eanw hi l e, was never charg ed w i th anycr i m es. On Januar y 6 , 20 10, Lew i s filed a one- count Am ended Com pla i nt ag ai nst M i l l s, Dam i l ano, Gray, and Corr i e. Each ofthe f our defe nd ants m ove d forsum m ar y j ud gm en t. T h e d i st ric t jud ge gra n te d th eir m ot ion s in fu ll, rul in g as f ol l ows: ( 1) M i l l s i s e nti tl ed to abs ol ute pr osecutori ali m m unity; ( 2) Dam i l ano i s e nti tl ed to qual i fi ed i m m unity; (3 ) ther e i s no ev i dence thatGrayco nspir ed wi thM i l l s an d Da m i l an o t o ha ve Le wi s p rosecute d; a nd ( 4) notw i thsta nd i ng Dow ’ s Ap ri l20 08 testim ony that Corr i e a ske d the fe m al e e m plo yee s a t the Pl aypen t o fab ric at e e vid en c e a ga in stL ew i s , “[t]h er e is st ill no ev idence that Corr i e acte d in concer t w i th ei ther M ills orN o. 11

- 2012 9 Dam i l ano to fra m e [ Lew is] b ecause [ Lew i s] spok e with th e FB I

. ” T his ap p eal fol low ed

. A d d iti ona l facts a re ad d ed be low as n ee d ed

.

I I . Discussi on A g r a nto fs ummar y j ud gme nti s r e v i e we d deno vo , const rui ng the fact s a nd drawing al lr eas onabl e infe re nces i n the l ight m o stf av o r ab l e to the no n- m o va nt

— inth is c as e, L ew is. Cast ron ovo v. Nat ’ l U ni on Fi reIns . Co. , 57 1 F.3d 667, 671 (7th C ir. 2009) (ci tation om itted ). Furth er, i n a c ase l i ke this, it i s i m port ant t o re m ai n m i nd ful that “nei thert h e m er e e xi ste nce o fso m e a l l ege d fa ctual d i s p u t e b e t we e n th e p a r t i e s . . . n o rthe ex i s t e n c e o fs o me m et aph y si ca ldo ubta s to the mate r i alf ac ts
. . . i s su ffi ci en t to defe at a m ot ion fo r sum m ar y j ud gm ent. ” C hiaram onte v. Fashion B ed Group, Inc. , 12 9 F

. 3d 3 91, 39 5 ( 7th Ci r. 19 97) (citations an d i nt erna l qu otations om itted ). Lewi s’ s cl ai m i s o ne f o rF i r stAm en dm en t r etal i at i o n. I nd eed, “[ a] n i nd i vi du alm ay not b e s ubj ect to cri m i nal pros ecuti on for e xerci si ng hi s r i ght t o fre e s peech. ” P eals v. Ter reHaute P oliceD ep’t, 535 F.3d 621 , 626 (7th C ir. 2008) ( ci tat i on o m i tte d). To e stabl i sh a prim a faciecas e f orthi s type o fcl ai m , a pla i nti ffm ust dem onst ra te that: ( 1) he e ng ag ed i n c o ns ti tu ti o na l l y pr otec te d s pee ch ; ( 2) he suffer ed a depri vati on l i kely to deter th e fr ee ex e r c i s e of h is Fir stA m en d m en t rig h ts ; an d (3) h is speech was a m oti vating f acto r i n the defe nd an t’s re ta liat ion
. See M as s ey v . Johns on , 45 7 F .3d 7 11 , 7 16 ( 7th C i r . 2 00 6); s e eal s o S ur i t a v. Hyde, 66 5 F

. 3d 860, 874 ( 7th10 N o. 11

- 2012 C ir. 2011) (Th e d istri ct j ud g e “ w a s not w rong in referen cing a bu rd en -shifti ng test th at includ ed a plaintiff’s b u rd en to sh o w a m ot iva tin g fa c to r.”). P lac in g h is c laim w i thi n thi s fra m ew or k, Lew i s con te n d s that, i n re tal i ati o n fo rhi s co o per at i o n wi ththe F BI ’ s i nv es tigat i o n a nd hi s re fu salto j oi n i n M i l l s’ s co rr up ti on, the defe nd ants conspi re d to convi ct hi m o ff al se cri m i nalchar ges .

A . M i l l s M i l l s a r g u e s th a th e i s e n t i t l e d t o ab s o l u t e p r o s e c utor i ali m m unity. I t i s wel l

- set tl ed that pros ecu tor s hav e abso l ute i m m unity forthei r cor e pr ose cutor i al a cti ons, see Ha rtm a n v . M o o re, 5 47U. S

. 2 50 , 2 61 -62 (20 06 ) , b ut “the degre e o fi m m unity pr ose cutor s a re affor d ed depend s o n thei r acti vi ty in a par ti cul arcas e. ” Ande rs on v. Si m on , 2 1 7F

. 3 d 4 7 2 , 4 7 5 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 0 )

. Th e S u p r e me Cou r t ha s o ffer ed usefulg ui dan ce i n dr awi ngthi s l i ne ofdem ar cati on. S peci fi cal l y, pro secuto rs a re enti tl ed to abso l ute i m m unity wh en t hey a re per f or m i ng functi o ns

— such as deter m i nin g whether charg es shoul d be bro ught and i n itiati ng a pros ecuti on

— “in tim at ely as so c iat ed w ith th e jud icia l p h as e o f th e c rim in al p ro c es s.” Buckl ey v . Fi tzs i m m ons , 50 9 U.S

. 25 9, 27 0 ( 1993 ) ( ci tat i on an d int er n al q u o t at ion s o m itt ed ); s e eal s o S pi ege l v. R abinovitz , 12 1 F

. 3d 251, 25 7 ( 7th Ci r. 19 97) ( sta te attorney’ s deci si on re gar ding w hi ch of tw o com pla i nts shoul d be pro secute d m er i ted abs ol ute pr ose cutor i al i mm un i ty )

. Bu t, p r o s e c ut o r s ar e n o t enti tl ed to abs ol ute i mm un i ty whe n pe r f o r mi ng “ a c t s o f i nv e s t i g a t i o n or adm i ni str ati on. ” B u c k ley, 5 09 U. S

. a t 27 0 ( ci ta ti o n a ndN o. 11

- 2012 11 i nter nalquotat i ons om i tte d). In other w or ds, “[ w ] hen th e funct i o ns o fpr o se cut o r s an d de te ct i ve s ar e th e sa m e . . . the im m uni tytha t pr o te ct s th em i s al so the sam e. ” Id

. at27 6. So th e q u es tio n aris es : d id M ills ev er d ev iat e fro m h is p rosecu torialfun ct io n s and cross into the i nv estigatory re alm ? Lew i s co ncedes that M i l l s i s i m m une fro m l i abi l i ty “f orta ki ng the cas e t o the g ra nd j ury, f or p u rs u in g a n ind ict m en t a n d fo r p ro se c u tin g L ew is.” H o wev er, Le wi s co nt en ds th atM i l l s cr o ss ed i nt o the i nv es ti g at o r y s phe r e be ca us e h e w as “ i nv o l ve d i n the i nvest i gat i on a nd the f abr i cati on o fev i dence ag ai nst [ Lewi s]

. ” I nde ed, a s ho wi ngtha t a p ros ec ut o ri nvest i gat ed and f abr i cate d evi dence a gainsta tar get wo u l d a u t o ma t i c a l l y d e fe a tab s o l u t e p r o s e c u t o r i a li mm u n i t y , eve n if th at ta rg etw as lat er br ou gh t t o t ria l. Id

. (“A prose cu tor m ay not sh ield his i nv estigative w ork w i th the aeg i s of abso l ute i m m unity m er el y bec au se, afte ra s us pec t i s ev en tu al l y a rr es te d, i ndi ct ed, a nd t r i e d, tha t wo r k may b e r e t r o s pe c t i v e l y de s c r ibed as

‘ prepar ati on’ f ora p os sibl e t ri al ; ev er y pr ose cutor m i g htthe n s hi el d hi m se l ffr o m l i ab i l i tyf o ra ny c o ns ti tu
ti o na lwro nga g ains t i nno ce ntc i ti ze ns b y e ns ur i ng th at th ey go to tri al. ”). To bo l ste r hi s cl ai m ag ai nst M ill s, Lew i s e m phasi zes th r e e s t r a n d s o fe v i d e n c e : ( 1 ) th e t e s t i mo n y o fA my Dow and the sta tem ent of J enni fer Garr ett; ( 2) the tim eline of th e investiga t ion of L ew is; and ( 3) M il ls’ s state m en t to Le w is at the gran d j ury p roceed ings. U nfortunatel y forLew i s, none ofthi s e vi dence shows that M i l l s to o ka n inv es ti g at i ve r o l e i n h i s pr o se cut i o n.12 N o. 11

- 2012 F i r st, Le wi s hi g hl i g ht s the e ve r - va ci l l at i ngt es ti m o ny ofA m y Dow

— spe ci fi ca l l y, the t es ti m o ny fr o m the A pri l20 08 tr i al, w h en she cl ai m ed that Corr i e wanted the fem al e e m plo yee s a t the Play p en to f abr i cate al l ega tio n s a ga i n s t L ew is. Fro m th er e, L ew is h igh ligh ts h is re col l ec tion ofa conve rs ati on he had w i th J enni fer G arrett (a conv ersation th at sh e d e nies ever occ urred ), in w hich sh e stated that she an d other P laype n d an cers woul d m ee t atCo r r i e’ s apa r tment, us e co ca i ne , a nd have sex w i th M i l l s. W hen vi ew i ng these st at em ents to g ethe r, Le wi s ar g ue s, the y “ cl ea r l y l i nkCo r r i e an d M i l l s t o a co cai ne co nspir acy. ” W e are not p ersu ad ed th a t t his evid en ce furth ers Lewi s’ s ca us e. E ven ifAm y Do w’s Apri l2 00 8 te st i m o ny can be c re dit ed ( w hi ch i s uncl ear, gi ven that i t l ate r f o r m ed th e ba si s o f a perj ur y co nv i ct i o n) , su ch testi m o ny n ev er link e d M ills to an y s c h em e t o fra m e L ew is; it o nl y i m pl i ca te d Co r r i e. And, e ve n s et tinga si de se r i o us hear sayco ncer ns, Garr ett ’ s s tat em ent m ay be e vi dence tha tMi l l s i s a n un s a v o r y c ha r a c t e rwh o a s s oci ate s w ith C orri e; how e ver, it does n oth ing to show M il ls’ s parti ci pati on in an e ff or t t o fra m e Lewis. Se c on d , L ew is e m p h as ize s t h e t im el i n e of ev en ts . In doi ng so , he devo tes co nsi derabl e t i m e t o p ok in g ho l es i n the v er ac i tyo fDa ni el l e Pe r r y ’ s al l eg at i o ns

— th e a ll ega ti ons that cata l yze d K aag’s ini ti ali nvest i gat i on o f L ew is. Le w is then em p ha sizes tha t no d iscipli na ry ac ti o n was ta k ena fte rPe r r y, Re be cc a Lee , a nd La cr i sh a C ar rig an lev ele d alleg at ion s a ga in sth im

— a l l befo rehe spoke to the FBI

. Lew i s infe rs thatKaa g’s fa il ure to actN o. 11

- 2012 13 sh ow s t h at h e d id n otfind th es e a lleg at ion s t o b e c re d ible an d th e r e f o r e d i d n o tt a k e th e m s e r i o u s l y . Ac c o r di ng to L ew is, th ou gh , t h is a ll ch an ge d in t h e w ak e o f h is c om m u n ica tio n s w ith th e F B I. O n th is p oin t, L ew is no te s th at “[ t] he i nv es ti g at i o n tha t ha d b ee n do r m an t f or m or e than ei ght m onths becam e re vi ved, L ew is w as tol d by Gra y that he w as m ess i ng with the w ro n g per son ( M i l l s) a nd, a cc o r di ngt o D ow , st r i pper s wer e g i ve n a fi nanci ali ncenti ve by Corr i e t o f abricate e vi dence aga i nst Lewis. ” Lewis ar gues that thi s t i m el i n e is tel l i ng, and that ar eas onabl e j ury coul d i nfe r that M i l l s t oo k p ar t in th e in ve st iga tio n an d co n sp ir e d t o fa b ric at e e vid e n c e a g a i n s th i m. L ew is’s arg u m en t i s m er e s p ec u lat ion, an d it is w ellsettl e d th at “conj ectu re alone can not de feat a sum m ary j ud gm ent m oti on. ” D e l apaz v. R ich ar ds on , 63 4 F

. 3d 895, 901 ( 7th Ci r. 20 11) (ci tat i on o m i tte d). The ev i dence sh o ws tha t, a t al lr el ev an t ti m es , no n- par tyKaa g( an d Kaa g a l o n e ) s p e a r h e a d e d th e i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f L e wi s , a nd M il l s pl ay ed no mean i ng fulr o l e i n thi s o per at i o n. K aag’s te st i m o ny

— w hi ch r em ai ns undisputed

— is th at h e d id not turn thi s m att eroverto M i l l s unti lafterthe i nvest i gati o n was c o m p lete d a nd the c as e was r ea dy f o ra g r an d j ury. T he r e i s n o e v i de nc e , f o ri ns t a nc e , tha tKaag w as tak i ng dire c tio n s fro m M i l l s o r that the tw o had m eani ngful com m unica ti ons about Lew i s ( outsi de of th eir initi al perfun ctory com m un ication th at th e Sh e r iff’ s D ep a r t m en t w ou ld be inve stigating L ew is)

. M oreover, Lewi s’ s chr o no l o g y i g no r es the f ac t th at, a fte rhe spo k e to the F BIi n a b r i efc o nv er sa ti o n in whi chno th i ng me a n i n g fu lw a s c o n v e y e d , fi v e a d d i t i o n a lw o me n c a me14 N o. 11

- 2012 forw ard w ith all egation s a g a inst h im ( W hite, Forshier, G rid er , G ar re tt, an d D ow ). In sh or t, L ew is’s e m p h as is on the ti m el i ne d oes nothel p buil d a l ogi calbr i dge that M i l l s ev erde vi at ed fr o m hi s co r e pr o se cut o r i alfunc ti o n. Fin ally , L e w i s h igh ligh ts th e e x c h an ge be tw ee n h im and M i l l s duri ng the gr and j ury proce edi ngs, i n w hi ch Lew i s fei gned i gnor ance about the F BI’ s invest i gat i on of M ills, an d M ills re sp on d ed “w ro n g a n sw er D a ve .” L ew is c laim s t h at, from t h is s ta te m en t, “[a ] j u ry co u ld cer tainl y c oncl ud e that thi s b i zar re behav i orwas dir ect ev id en c e o f M ills fra m in g L ew is.” E m p h as izin g th is ev id ence contr adic ts a co ncessi on m ade ea rl i erin Lew i s’ s br i ef : thatM i l l s i s i m m une fro m l i abi l i ty “f or ta k i ngthe c a s e t o the g r a nd j ur y, f o rp ur s uinga n i ndi ctm ent a nd f orpro secuting Lew i s. ” S i m plyst ate d, w hen M i l l s m ade thi s st at ement, he w as i n the pr o ce ss o ft ak i ng Lewi s’ s ca se b efo r e a g r an d j ury

— a co re pro secuto ri al func ti o n. I n sum , Lew i s’ s e vi dence does l i ttl e to shed l i ght o n hi s s hadow y c onspi ra cy al l ega ti ons i nvol vi ng M i l l s. Se eEve rs v. Re ak, 2 1 Fe d . A pp x. 44 7, 45 0 ( 7th Ci r. 20 01) (“Va gu e and conc lus o r y a ll egation s of th e existen ce of a con sp iracy are not en ou gh to sust ain a p lai nt iff’s bur den

. . . . ”)

. H er e, th e ev i den ce sh o ws th at, to put i t chari tably, M i l l s w as f ar fro m a sa in t. W hat the e vi dence does not show, how eve r, i s that M i l l s devia te d from h is p ro se c u to ria l role . A c c or d in gly , M ills is e n tit led to ab so lu te p ro se c u to ria l im m u n ity
.N o. 11

- 2012 15 B . Dami l a no A s a n i ni ti alm att er, i t i s worth noting tha t Lewis’ s br i ef f ai l s to de ve l o p a c o g en t ar g um en t ex pl aini ngho w the Sher i ff’ s Depart m ent Invest i gat orDam i l ano fi ts i nto th is c on sp i ra c y. Ins te ad , L ew is m er ely w rit es th at, in ligh t o f th e a b ov e e vid en c e, “a ju r y c ou ld p er m iss ibly concl ud e that Dam i l ano . . . p arti ci pated i n a c onspi ra cy to fr am e L ewi s. ” Gi ve n the c ur so r y na tu r e o fthi s ar g umen t, L e wi s c o mes c l o s e t o wa i v i ngthi s i s s ue f o ra pp ea l. SeeLong v. Teachers’Ret. Sys. of Ill

. , 585 F. 3d 344, 349 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09) ( “[ U ] nsupp orted and und er devel oped ar gum ents ar e wai ved. ”) (ci tat i on a nd i nter nalquotations om itted ). Forthe sake oftho ro ughness, however, we w i l lspeak to thi s i ssue b rie fl y. The S up re m e Cour t has not ed that, un d er certain circu m st a n c es, a claim f or “retali atory i nduc em en t to pr o se cut e” c anb e br o ughta g ains t a no npros ecuto r “w ho m ay have i nfluenced the pr ose cutor i al de c i s i o n b utdi d n o th i mse l fma k e i t [

. ] ” H a rtm an , 54 7 U

. S. at26 2. To pr evai lo n th is cl ai m , the pla i nti ff“m ust show that the nonpros ecuti ng offi ci al acte d in retal i ati on, and m ust a l so show that he i nd uced the pro secuto r to b r i ngc ha r g es tha t woul d no t ha ve b ee n ini ti at ed wi th

ou t his urg i ng. ” Id

. A s s uch, “the causa lco nnecti on r equi r ed he r e i s no t m erel y b etwee n the r et al i at o r y a ni m us o f o ne per so n an d th at per so n’ s o wn i nj ur i o us act i o n, butb etwee n the r et al i at o r y a nim us o fo ne pe r so n a nd the a cti on o fano ther

. ” Id

. S u ffi c e i t t o s a y th a t L e wi s h a s n o t u n e a r th ed an y evi dence showingthatDam il ano posse sse d the r equi si te16 N o. 11

- 2012

an im us f or this typ e of c la im ( let al one eviden ce of a cau sal n e xu s betw een Da m il an o’s anim us and M il ls’ s deci si on t o p ro se c ute)

. Rather, the evi dence shows that, ata l lr el ev an t ti m es , Da m i l ano w o r k ed unde rno nparty K aag ’ s supervi si on. This l ack of evi dence is f atal t o L e wi s ’ s c l a i m.

C . G ray and Corri e L e wi s a g a i n t a k e s a c u r s o r y a p p r o a c h t o h i s c l a i ms aga i nst no n-g ove rnm ent defendants G ra y a nd Cor ri e, si m ply w riti ng tha t, gi ven the ev i dence descr ibed abo ve, “a j ur y c o ul d pe r m i ss ibly c onc l ude tha t
. . . Co r r i e an d G ra y . . . p ar tic ip at ed in a co n sp ira c y t o f r a m e L ew is.” Compl i ca tingmatt er s, Co r r i e an d Gr ayd id notr es po nd wi tha n a ppel l at e br i ef

. M or eo ve r, i n a ne g l i g en t f ashion , t hey a l so f ai l ed to r espond to thi s Court ’ s s how cau se ord er. Th erefore, this ap p e a l w as su bm itted f or a dec isio n w ithout the fi l i ng o fa bri efo r or alar gum ent o n b e h a l fof C or rie an d G ra y. Fo rt u n at ely for th em , th eir failu re d oe s n otch an ge th e o u tc om e o f th is c as e. As t o Gr ay, the r e i s no e vi den ce l i nk i nghi m t o a c o nspi r ac y . Gr ay ’ s al l eg ed i nv o l ve m en t co ns i st s o fwar ni ng Lewi s th athe was “m aking s o m e ve r y po wer fula nd d an ge ro u s p eo p le v er y u n c om for ta b le” an d th at h e c ou ld not “pro tect ” Lewis. These sta tem ents do not connect G ray to a sch em e to fram e L ew is. T he refor e , L ew is’ s cl ai m ag ai nst Gra y f ai l s. N ex t, unl i k e hi s cl ai m s ag ains t M i l l s, Da m i l an o , a nd Gray, Lew i s a rguabl y c an poi nt to ta ngibl e e vi denceN o. 11

- 2012 17 th at C orri e w as ou t to ge t him : sp ecifi cally, Do w ’s A p ril 20 0 8 t es tim on y, w h ich lat er form ed th e b as is of her perj ury convi cti on. I m port antl y, how eve r, to es tabl i sh § 1983 l i abi l i ty thro ugh a c onspi ra cy theo ry, “a pl aint i ffmustde m o ns tr at e th at : ( 1) a s ta te offici ala nd a pri vat e i nd i vi du al ( s) r eached an und er sta nd i ng to depr i ve the pl aint i ffo fhi s co ns ti tu ti o na lr i g ht s, a nd ( 2) tho se i ndi vi dual ( s) w er e wi l l fulpa r ti ci pan t[ s] i n j o i nt a c t i v i ty wi th the S t a t e o ri t s a gents
. ” Rey nol ds v. Jam i s on , 488 F. 3d 756, 76 4 ( 7th C ir. 2 007) ( ci tat i on a nd i nter nal q u o t a t i on s o m itt ed ); see also H ug hes v . M eyer, 880 F. 2d 967, 97 2 ( 7th Ci r. 19 89) (for a pri vate party t o act und er col oro fst ate l aw , “there m ust be a con spi ra cy, an a gr eem ent o n a j oi nt co urse o fact i on in w hi ch the pri vate party and the sta te have a com m on goa l ”) (cit ati on an d i nt erna l qu otations om itted ). Pl ai nl y s tat ed, ther e i s no ev i dence thatCor ri e a c ted i n con c er t w i th a sta te offi ci al

— M i l l s o rDa m i l an o

— to fram e L ew is becau se of his p articipation i n th e FB I ’s i nvest i gat i on. Instea d, the e vi den c e, assum i ng i t ca n be c o n s i d e r e d , o n l y s h o ws th a t Co r r i e w a n t e d t o fr a me Lew i s be cause hi s pre sence at the s tr ip c l ub w as h am peri ng Cor ri e’ s drug busi ness. In other w or ds, because the claim s a gainst M i l l s a nd Dam i l ano have f ai l ed, the c l ai m a g ains t Cor r i e ne ce ss ar i l y s uffer s th e sam e f ate
. F i na l l y, a l th o ugh de fen dan ts di d no t m ak e th i s ar g um ent, the Court w ould be re m i ss not to und er sco re a notab l e f act: Lew i s pl ed gui l ty to cl ass A m isd em eanor charg es ofo bstructi on o fj usti ce a nd o fficia lm i sco nd uct.18 N o. 11

- 2012 B u t, h e r e , a j u d g me n ti n L e wi s ’ s f a v o rw o u l d t o s o me d eg re e v in d ica te h im , give n th at d efe n d an ts al l e g e d ly parti ci pated in a schem e t o f abr i cate ev i dence ag ai nst hi m . I m po r ta nt l y, ho wev er, s uchv i ndi cationi s i nc o nsis te n t w ith h is gu ilty p lea

. O n th is po in t, it is w ellset tl ed that Hec kv . H um ph rey, 512 U

. S. 447 (1994) bars a pl ai nti fffro m m ai ntai ni ng a § 1 983 acti on wh er e a j u d gm en t in fav or of th e p lain tiff w ou ld n ec es sa rily im p ly th at h is c on v i c tio n w as inv alid

. Se eM cCann v. Neilsen , 46 6 F

. 3d 619, 62 1 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06)

. In other w or ds, i n l i ght o fLew i s’ s guil ty ple a, an a rgum en t exi sts that hi s claim s ag ains t defen dan ts wer e do o m ed fr o m the outse t. A t o ra lar gum ents, Lew i s’ s co unselsugg est ed that th e gui l ty ple a — for four class A m isde m ean ors

— i s, i n effect, se ver abl e fro m t h e f arm or e s er i ous o ri gi nal 4 9 fe l o nyc ha r g es. For tun a t e l y, we n e e d n o twa de de e pl y i nto thi s i s s ue , g i v e n the l a c ko fe v i de nc e s up port i ng Lew i s’ s o ver ar chi ng the or y o fa conspi ra cy.

I I I . Concl usio n For the for ego i ng r eas ons, we A FFIRM the de c i si on o f the di str i ct c ourt
.

4- 20- 12