Whether retaliatory prosecution in violation of the First Amendment and Fourth Amendment is actionable under Bivens when the arrest warrants and prosecution were not supported by probable cause

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether the Seventh Circuit decision conflicts with all Courts of appeals, and Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, 138 S. Ct. 1945 (2018); Manuel v. City of Joliet, Iil., 187 S. Ct. 911 ; (2017); Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (2006)— 28 U.S.C. §292(d)—28 U.S.C. § 455(b)—sealing without a Sealing Order—denying access to the court record—denying a criminal defendant counsel—when law enforcement agents and judicial officers, may be liable under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau : of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), for retaliatory prosecution in violation of the First Amendment and Fourth Amendment when the arrest ; warrants, detention and prosecution was not supported by probable cause? 2. Whether the Seventh Circuit decision conflicts with all Courts of appeals, and this Court’s decisions in Lawson v. FMR LLC, 134 S. Ct. 1158 (2014); Digital Realty Trust, Inc. v. Somers, 138 S. Ct. 767 (2018)—excluding court , records—prohibiting a pro se plaintiffs Rule 60 complaint—contrary to 28 U.S.C. §1915, when the law to that effect was clearly established at the time that retaliatory criminal charges were filed against petitioner, such that respondents are not entitled to qualified immunity.