Roldan v. Stroud, No. 21-2722 (7th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Seventh Circuit US Court of Appeals?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Seventh Circuit US Court of Appeals. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Roldan was convicted of criminal sexual assault. Roldan, then 21, allegedly had sex with an intoxicated 16-year-old noncitizen. The Illinois Appellate Court later reversed the conviction, concluding that the state did not prove that Roldan knew the victim was too intoxicated to consent.
Drawing upon information he learned after trial, Roldan sued Cicero, Illinois police officers under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that the officers failed to disclose an agreement to help the victim apply for an immigration benefit—a U visa—in exchange for her testimony. The officers moved to dismiss the complaint based on qualified immunity. The district court denied the motion on grounds that the Supreme Court’s 1972 “Giglio” decision and related cases clearly established the officers’ duty to disclose the agreement. The Seventh Circuit affirmed that immunity is inappropriate at this early stage but for a different reason. Qualified immunity hinges on a fact that Roldan did not flesh out in his complaint: whether the police officers informed the prosecution about the U-visa agreement with the victim. If the police did, they cannot be liable, for the ultimate disclosure obligation would have rested with the prosecutors.
Download PDF
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 21-2722 LUIS ROLDAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JASON STROUD, et al., Defendants-Appellants. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 1:17-cv-03707 — John F. Kness, Judge. ____________________ ARGUED OCTOBER 4, 2022 — DECIDED OCTOBER 25, 2022 ____________________ Before SCUDDER, ST. EVE, and JACKSON-AKIWUMI, Circuit Judges. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge. Rarely do we see quali ed immunity awarded at the pleading stage. The reason is because determinations of quali ed immunity most often depend on facts a plainti is not required to plead at the outset of litigation to avoid dismissal. This case illustrates the point. 2 No. 21-2722 Luis Roldan sued several police o cers who investigated him for sexual assault. He alleged that the o cers failed to disclose an agreement to help the victim apply for an immigration bene t—a U visa—in exchange for her testimony at his criminal trial. The o cers moved to dismiss the complaint based on quali ed immunity. The district court denied the motion on grounds that the Supreme Court’s 1972 decision in Giglio v. United States and related cases clearly established the o cers’ duty to disclose the agreement. We agree that immunity is inappropriate at this early stage but for a di erent reason. Quali ed immunity hinges on a fact that Roldan did not esh out in his complaint: whether the police o cers informed the prosecution about the U-visa agreement with the victim. If the police did, they cannot be liable, for the ultimate disclosure obligation would have rested with the prosecutors. We therefore a rm and remand for discovery on whether any prosecutor knew about the agreement. I A In 2011 state prosecutors charged Luis Roldan with three counts of criminal sexual assault. See 720 ILCS 5/11–1.20 (2011). The indictment alleged that Roldan, then 21, had sex with an intoxicated 16-year-old noncitizen. In 2013, after a bench trial at which the victim testi ed, a judge convicted Roldan of two of the counts. The Illinois Appellate Court later reversed the conviction, concluding that the state did not prove that Roldan knew the victim was too intoxicated to consent. See People v. Roldan, 42 N.E.3d 836, 843 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015). No. 21-2722 3 Drawing upon information he learned after trial, Roldan later invoked 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and sued several police o cers in the Cicero Police Department. He alleged that the o cers, “in concert with the prosecution,” promised to help the victim obtain a U visa in exchange for her trial testimony but never disclosed that fact to him during the criminal prosecution. Roldan saw this agreement as impeachment evidence that should have been turned over to him under Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972). A U visa is a form of temporary status available to noncitizens who have been victims of certain crimes in the United States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(U) (enumerating U-visa eligibility requirements). Law enforcement must certify that the applicant has been (or is likely to become) helpful in investigating or prosecuting the crime. See id. § 1184(p)(1). Roldan alleged that the police agreed to do just that—certify the victim’s U-visa application on the condition that she testify against him. B The police o cers moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that they were entitled to quali ed immunity. Quali ed immunity is a defense protecting government o cials from both liability and suit. See Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985). To receive quali ed immunity, o cials must show either that they did not violate a constitutional right or that the right was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. See District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577, 589 (2018). The district court denied the o cers’ motion to dismiss. In the court’s view, Giglio and related cases clearly established 4 No. 21-2722 the duty to disclose a promise of assistance with a testifying witness’s U-visa application. The defendants sought immediate review, invoking our jurisdiction under the collateral-order doctrine. See Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299, 306–07 (1996) (explaining that the denial of quali ed-immunity defense at pleading stage is immediately appealable). II In reviewing a district court’s denial of quali ed immunity on the pleadings, we take our own fresh look at the facts, drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of Roldan as the non-moving party. See Reed v. Palmer, 906 F.3d 540, 546 (7th Cir. 2018). A Under Brady v. Maryland, the government violates a criminal defendant’s due process rights when it fails to disclose evidence favorable to the defendant and material to guilt or punishment. 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963). Giglio extended that rule to impeachment evidence—to information calling into question the credibility of a witness. See 405 U.S. at 153. The government runs afoul of Giglio when it suppresses evidence of a material agreement that might have undermined the credibility of a witness. See id. at 153–54; United States v. Jumah, 599 F.3d 799, 808 (7th Cir. 2010). An agreement is material if its disclosure was reasonably likely to change the outcome of the proceedings. See Jumah, 599 F.3d at 808. The question then becomes who on the law enforcement side—police o cers or prosecutors—bears the obligation to disclose. Brady and Giglio are usually understood to impose a duty on prosecutors to make any required disclosure to the No. 21-2722 5 defense. See Carvajal v. Dominguez, 542 F.3d 561, 566 (7th Cir. 2008). But the disclosure obligation sometimes falls to police o cers if they are the only ones who know about the exculpatory or impeachment evidence in question. See id. (citing Youngblood v. West Virginia, 547 U.S. 867, 870 (2006)). O cers typically satisfy this obligation when they disclose evidence to the prosecutor. See Beaman v. Freesmeyer, 776 F.3d 500, 512 (7th Cir. 2015); but see Whitlock v. Brueggemann, 682 F.3d 567, 576 (7th Cir. 2012) (recognizing an exception when police and prosecutors conspire to fabricate evidence). B We agree with the district court that an award of quali ed immunity is inappropriate on the pleadings here, though we take a di erent path to reach that conclusion. Our cases make clear that the motion-to-dismiss stage is rarely “the most suitable procedural setting to determine whether an o cial is quali edly immune.” Hanson v. LeVan, 967 F.3d 584, 589 (7th Cir. 2020). The reason is simple: at the outset of litigation, we often cannot tell from a complaint whether quali ed immunity applies. See Reed, 906 F.3d at 548–49. To survive a motion to dismiss, plainti s need only include “a short and plain statement” of a claim that is plausible on its face and entitles them to relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); see also Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Put another way, plainti s do not have to recite every detail related to their allegations. They just have to include enough facts to present “a story that holds together.” Reed, 906 F.3d at 548 (quoting Catinella v. County of Cook, 881 F.3d 514, 516 (7th Cir. 2018)). 6 No. 21-2722 Quali ed immunity, by contrast, is a defense that “often depend[s] on the particular facts of a given case.” Jacobs v. City of Chicago, 215 F.3d 758, 765 n.3 (7th Cir. 2000). When a defendant invokes quali ed immunity, we do not raise the pleading standard and require plainti s to “anticipate and overcome” that defense. Id. The facts essential to this defense typically emerge during discovery, and so we most commonly see quali ed immunity invoked in a motion for summary judgment. The case before us illustrates the di culty of trying to see the details relevant to quali ed immunity through the lens of a motion to dismiss. Taking Roldan’s allegations as true and drawing reasonable inferences in his favor, we (like the district court) have little di culty concluding that the state suppressed a material agreement that might have undermined the victim’s credibility. See Jumah, 599 F.3d at 808. But remember who Roldan sued—the police o cers. Those o cers ordinarily have a duty to disclose the agreement only to the prosecutors. See Beaman, 776 F.3d at 512. This matters because Roldan alleged that the o cers and the prosecution acted “in concert” with each other to suppress the agreement and that the prosecution “knew or should have known” that the agreement was Giglio material. To our eye, both statements appear to suggest that the prosecution knew about the police’s promise to certify the victim’s U-visa application as long as she testi ed against Roldan. But those allegations are also amenable to a di erent interpretation. Perhaps Roldan mentioned the prosecution simply because of the route disclosure more commonly would have taken: police would have informed the prosecution, who, in turn, would have then disclosed the agreement No. 21-2722 7 to Roldan. See Carvajal, 542 F.3d at 566. At the dismissal stage, however, we cannot draw an inference against Roldan or somehow hold him to a pleading standard beyond Rule 8 just because the defendants invoked quali ed immunity as a defense. C Discovery is needed to shed light on who knew about the alleged U-visa agreement with the victim. If discovery reveals that the prosecution knew of the arrangement, then none of the police o cer defendants could be liable under § 1983 unless the police and the prosecution conspired to fabricate evidence. See Beaman, 776 F.3d at 512 (explaining that police of cers satisfy their duty under Giglio when they inform prosecutors of the impeachment evidence). The disclosure obligation would have instead rested with the prosecutor, who has already been dismissed from this case on grounds of absolute immunity. We leave it to the discretion of the district court how to structure the discovery. See Jacobs, 215 F.3d at 774–76 (Easterbrook, J., concurring) (identifying means by which immunity may be decided without protracted discovery). Early summary judgment proceedings might preserve the resources of both the court and the parties, and nothing would prevent further summary judgment proceedings on other issues later in the case if that proves necessary. For these reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s denial of the defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss based on quali ed immunity and REMAND for further proceedings.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
