Luis Roldan v. Jason Stroud, 52 F.4th 335

Roldan was convicted after a 2013 bench trial for sexual assault; the conviction was later reversed on appeal.
After trial, Roldan learned the victim had allegedly been promised law-enforcement assistance in obtaining a U visa in exchange for her testimony.
Roldan sued several Cicero police officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging they suppressed this Giglio/Brady impeachment evidence and acted “in concert with the prosecution.”
The officers moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) asserting qualified immunity; the district court denied the motion, finding Giglio clearly established a duty to disclose the promise.
The officers appealed the denial (invoking the collateral-order doctrine). The Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial but remanded for discovery to determine whether prosecutors knew of the U-visa promise.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether officers violated Brady/Giglio by suppressing a U-visa promise	Roldan: the promise was impeachment evidence that should have been disclosed	Officers: dispute or point to factual uncertainty about who knew and disclosed	Allegations suffice at pleading stage to plausibly state a suppression claim; not resolved on motion to dismiss
Whether officers are entitled to qualified immunity at pleading stage	Roldan: Giglio clearly established duty to disclose such agreements	Officers: immunity applies because duty unclear or prosecutors, not police, held disclosure duty	Denied — immunity inappropriate on pleadings; factual development required
Who bore the disclosure obligation (police vs. prosecutors)	Roldan: officers acted with prosecution and thus are liable	Officers: Brady/Giglio duties ordinarily rest with prosecutors; if police informed prosecutors, duty satisfied	Court: fact question whether prosecutors knew; if prosecutors knew, officers likely not liable absent a fabrication conspiracy; remand for discovery
Whether the denial of immunity was immediately appealable	N/A (defendants sought review)	Defendants: collateral-order doctrine permits immediate appeal	Court accepted jurisdiction and reviewed the denial on appeal

Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) (extends Brady to impeachment agreements and requires disclosure of material promises to witnesses)
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution must disclose evidence favorable to the defendant that is material)
Beaman v. Freesmeyer, 776 F.3d 500 (7th Cir. 2015) (police typically satisfy disclosure duty by informing prosecutors)
Carvajal v. Dominguez, 542 F.3d 561 (7th Cir. 2008) (Brady/Giglio duties usually imposed on prosecutors unless police are the sole holders of the evidence)
Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299 (1996) (denial of qualified-immunity defense at pleading stage is immediately appealable)
Jacobs v. City of Chicago, 215 F.3d 758 (7th Cir. 2000) (pleading stage is rarely suitable for resolving qualified immunity because facts necessary often emerge in discovery)
Reed v. Palmer, 906 F.3d 540 (7th Cir. 2018) (on review of pleadings, courts draw reasonable inferences for the nonmovant; plaintiffs need only plausible claims)
Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985) (qualified immunity protects government officials from suit and liability)