Roldan v. Stroud

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendants-police officers’ motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds plaintiff’s section 1983 action alleging that defendants had failed to disclose existence of agreement between defendants and non-citizen victim to help victim apply for U visa in exchange for victim’s testimony at plaintiff’s criminal trial. Ct. of Appeals held that finding of qualified immunity was not appropriate at early stage of instant lawsuit, where it was not evident based on allegations in complaint that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity, and where discovery was necessary to determine whether defendants had informed prosecution about alleged agreement. In such case, Ct. of Appeals held, defendants could not be liable, since ultimate disclosure obligation would have rested on prosecutors and not on defendants.