April 16, 2026 – Federal Court Permits Key Claims to Proceed in Domestic Violence Survivor’s Lawsuit
A federal judge has cleared the way for a domestic violence survivor’s lawsuit against the City of Lake Stevens and several of its officers to advance, rejecting arguments that the case amounts to abusive litigation.
U.S. District Judge Barbara J. Rothstein issued a significant ruling allowing the core claims of retaliation and malicious prosecution to move forward in the case brought by Gina Bloom.
Bloom’s legal battle stems from years of reporting domestic abuse to the Lake Stevens Police Department, only to face pushback that escalated after she began speaking publicly about her experiences and filing formal complaints against the department.
Her federal complaint is rooted not only in interactions with local law enforcement but also in a highly contested family court proceeding, where appointed officials played a prominent role.
Critics in Clallam and Snohomish counties have increasingly voiced concerns about the family court system, with particular attention focused on individuals such as Brian Parker.
Parker served as guardian ad litem during Bloom’s divorce and became a focal point for criticism due to his involvement in assessing her fitness as a parent.
Though not a licensed mental health professional, Parker issued assessments of Bloom’s psychological state and raised questions about her reasons for reporting abuse—actions that drew both support and criticism from observers.
The defense sought dismissal of the entire federal case, labeling it “abusive litigation.” Judge Rothstein disagreed, finding Bloom’s factual allegations sufficient to support multiple legal theories.
A central pillar of the lawsuit is the claim that officers deliberately omitted favorable evidence during criminal proceedings, resulting in prosecution without adequate grounds.
The court determined these allegations meet the threshold for proceeding, citing Bloom’s assertion that material exculpatory information was withheld or obscured.
In her order, the judge stated that Bloom “has plausibly alleged both the absence of probable cause and a causal connection between the defendants’ conduct and the prosecution.”
She also affirmed the viability of Bloom’s First Amendment retaliation claim, emphasizing that initiating and maintaining criminal charges—especially when motivated by retaliatory intent and lacking probable cause—constitutes a recognizable form of government action capable of infringing constitutional rights.
The defense had also urged the court to grant qualified immunity to the individual officers involved.
Rothstein declined to do so at this stage, concluding that if proven, the officers’ conduct—including the withholding of evidence or misrepresentations to prosecutors—would violate rights that were clearly established at the time.
Accordingly, the court held that the individual defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity on the malicious prosecution and retaliation claims.
While some claims were dismissed—including those under the Equal Protection Clause, Due Process Clause, and municipal liability theories—the court indicated these dismissals were largely procedural and subject to further development.
The case is now positioned for continued discovery and potential motion practice as Bloom seeks accountability for the series of actions she says were taken in response to her efforts to report abuse and advocate for herself.
The presiding judge indicated that numerous counts in the case have been dismissed without prejudice, allowing the plaintiff to revise her filing. If she wishes to proceed, Bloom has a 45-day window to submit an amended complaint that includes more precise factual details.