Luis Roldan filed a lawsuit against several police officers, alleging that they failed to disclose an agreement made with the victim of his sexual assault case, in which the officers promised to assist her in obtaining a U visa in exchange for her testimony. The officers sought to dismiss the case, claiming qualified immunity. The district court denied this motion, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Giglio v. United States, which established the obligation to disclose such agreements. However, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, while agreeing that qualified immunity was premature at this stage, emphasized that the determination of qualified immunity depends on whether the police officers had informed the prosecution about the U visa agreement. If they did, liability would not rest with the officers, as the ultimate responsibility for disclosure would lie with the prosecutors. The appellate court affirmed the district court's decision and remanded the case for further discovery to determine if any prosecutor was aware of the agreement. Roldan's criminal case had previously involved charges of sexual assault that were later overturned on appeal due to insufficient evidence regarding the victim's capacity to consent. The U visa, meant for noncitizen victims of certain crimes, requires law enforcement certification of the victim's cooperation in investigations or prosecutions. The police officers argued for dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), asserting their entitlement to qualified immunity, which protects officials from liability unless they violated a clearly established constitutional right.
Defendants requested an immediate review based on the collateral-order doctrine, citing that the denial of qualified immunity at the pleading stage is appealable. In reviewing the district court’s denial, the court independently assessed the facts, favoring Roldan as the non-moving party. Under Brady v. Maryland, the government violates due process by failing to disclose evidence favorable to a defendant, with Giglio extending this obligation to include impeachment evidence related to witness credibility. The government is in breach of Giglio when it withholds material agreements that could affect a witness's credibility, with materiality defined as information likely to change case outcomes. Typically, the duty to disclose falls on prosecutors, but it can also lie with police if they possess the relevant evidence. Disclosure obligations are usually satisfied when officers inform prosecutors, although exceptions exist when there is collusion to fabricate evidence.
The appellate court concurred with the district court that qualified immunity should not be granted at the pleading stage, emphasizing that this procedural stage is generally unsuitable for determining qualified immunity. Litigants are not required to provide exhaustive details in their complaints, only to present plausible claims. Qualified immunity often relies on specific case facts that emerge during discovery, making it more appropriate for summary judgment motions. The current case demonstrated the challenge of addressing qualified immunity through a motion to dismiss, as Roldan's allegations suggested that the state suppressed a critical material agreement affecting the victim’s credibility.
Roldan's lawsuit targets police officers who typically have a duty to disclose agreements only to prosecutors. He alleges that the officers and the prosecution acted "in concert" to suppress an agreement, claiming the prosecution was aware it was Giglio material. His assertions imply that the prosecution knew of a promise made to the victim regarding her U-visa application contingent upon her testimony against him. However, this could also suggest that Roldan included the prosecution due to the standard disclosure process where police inform prosecutors. At the dismissal stage, Roldan cannot be held to a higher pleading standard merely because the defendants invoked qualified immunity. Discovery is necessary to determine the extent of the prosecution's knowledge regarding the U-visa agreement. If it is found that the prosecution was aware, the police officers would not be liable under Section 1983 unless there was evidence of a conspiracy to fabricate evidence. The prosecutor, who has been dismissed on absolute immunity grounds, would bear the disclosure responsibility. The district court has discretion in structuring discovery and may consider early summary judgment to conserve resources. The court affirms the denial of the defendants’ motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity and remands for further proceedings.
