Schoene v. Rasmussen, 3:23-cv-01151

Background

Plaintiff Kimberly Schoene was prosecuted for stalking Greta Sanchez in Hood River, Oregon, after a series of interactions related to suspected child abuse and ongoing custody disputes between Sanchez and Schoene’s former partner.
Plaintiff made numerous reports to DHS about suspected abuse, most of which were investigated and found unsubstantiated.
Defendant Carrie Rasmussen (District Attorney) and law enforcement officials investigated and ultimately charged Plaintiff with stalking, based on her repeated contacts and public communications regarding Sanchez and her child.
The stalking charges resulted in a conditional dismissal with court-imposed limitations on Plaintiff’s contact with Sanchez and the child, expiring March 24, 2024.
Plaintiff filed a complex federal suit against Rasmussen, law enforcement, the City and County of Hood River, and others, raising constitutional and state-law claims, including malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and misuse of federal VOCA funds.
Defendants moved to dismiss all claims, arguing sovereign immunity, lack of private rights of action, and failure to state claims, leading to this opinion.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
§ 1983 Claims Against State Defendants	Rasmussen/HRDA violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights in their prosecutorial actions	Sovereign immunity bars these claims; DA/prosecutor acts as arm of the State; no waiver	Dismissed—Sovereign immunity applies to state entities/prosecutors acting in prosecutorial capacity
Malicious Prosecution Against Frasier	Frasier instigated prosecution without probable cause; report was biased/incomplete	Rasmussen as prosecutor made independent decision to charge; report shows probable cause	Dismissed—Insufficient facts to overcome presumption of prosecutor’s independent decision; probable cause existed
Malicious Prosecution Against County/City/HRPD	Entities responsible for Frasier’s actions through vicarious liability	No respondeat superior under § 1983; police department not a suable entity	Dismissed—No vicarious liability under § 1983, HRPD not a separate entity
VOCA Funds Misuse	VOCA regulations create a cause of action for improper use of federal funds	No express/implied private right of action under VOCA or its regulations	Dismissed—Statute/regulations do not create private cause of action
State Law Claims (Malicious Prosecution, IIED, Abuse of Process, Art. I § 8)	Defendants' conduct as state actors gives rise to state torts and Oregon constitutional claims	Oregon Tort Claims Act limits suits to State itself; no waiver for federal court; sovereign immunity	Dismissed—Sovereign immunity bars in federal court; may refile in state court for some claims
Attorney Fees	Claims raised in good faith; pro se litigant	Lawsuit frivolous, unreasonable, and part of litigation campaign	Denied—Strict standard for pro se; not frivolous enough for fees

Key Cases Cited

Will v. Mich. Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity bars § 1983 actions against states and state officials in their official capacity)
Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of City of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658 (No vicarious liability under § 1983 for municipalities; only for own policies/practices)
Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (Exception to sovereign immunity for prospective injunctive relief against state officials)
Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1 (Sovereign immunity bars suits against state even by its own citizens)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (Standard for complaint plausibility—more than labels and conclusions)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (Complaint must state a plausible claim for relief)
Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (Allegations of negligence do not support a due process violation)
Christiansburg Garment Co. v. Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm’n, 434 U.S. 412 (Attorney fee awards to prevailing defendants require claims to be frivolous or groundless)