Christina St. Clair v. County of Okanogan and Isaiah Holloway

Spokane, Washington, personal injury lawyer represented the Plaintiff on a civil rights violation theory

under 42 U.S.C. 1983.



Christina St. Clair brough claims against Okanogan County Sheriff Deputy Isaiah Holloway and his employer, Okanogan County, based on Holloway's sexual misconduct. St. Clair alleges constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a violation of the Washington Law Against Discrimination, and a civil conspiracy claim against both Holloway and Okanogan County. Her claims against Okanogan County are based on municipal liability under Monell v. New York City Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978). St. Clair also alleges negligent supervision and retention against Okanogan County for its employment of Holloway.



St. Clair alleges that, when Holloway was a sheriff's deputy and detective, he took advantage of her known addiction to methamphetamines and involvement in criminal activity to coerce her into a quid pro quo: In exchange for unwanted sexual contact with him, she would not face criminal investigation. 1 According to the complaint, the conduct began in 2014, when St. Clair was addicted to narcotics and engaging in criminal activity. Holloway encountered St. Clair in his role as a deputy sheriff and began to pressure her into sexual acts. In December 2014, St. Clair's uncle called the Sheriff's Office and reported to both dispatch and a sergeant within the department that he had discovered Holloway engaged in sexual activity with St. Clair. St. Clair's uncle also informed the Sheriff's Office that his niece was involved with the criminal justice system and using drugs. He expressed concerns that Holloway was providing St. Clair favorable treatment in exchange for sex. The Sheriff's Office opened an investigation but did not discipline Holloway; instead, superiors instructed Holloway to stay away from St. Clair and changed his geographic area of assignment. St. Clair alleges that the Sheriff's Office failed to follow up and ensure that Holloway was no longer pursuing St. Clair, either by monitoring his Automatic Vehicle Location logs, directly contacting St. Clair, or other appropriate means.

Holloway's sexual contacts with St. Clair continued.



From 2014 through 2021, they engaged in sexual activity at least twenty times, including communicating over text

message and video conferencing platforms. According to St. Clair, she "did not feel free to refuse or curb the sexual

activity with Holloway[,] who had previously arrested her, knew her to be a drug addict, and knew her to have been

involved in other crimes, as well as involved with other criminals and drug addicts.” In short, St. Clair alleges she

could not consent to sex with Holloway or his sexual advances because she was coerced.



St. Clair alleges that the sexual activity "occurred many times” when Holloway was on duty as a deputy sheriff.

During most of their sexual encounters, Holloway wore his Sheriff's Office uniform and arrived in his department

vehicle. Some of the sexual encounters occurred in his patrol car. He would "grab her breasts aggressively, to the

point her breasts would physically hurt” and "leave hickeys on her breasts.” Holloway predominately communicated

with St. Clair via the mobile phone he was issued by the Sheriff's Office. Holloway also contacted St. Clair through

a fake Facebook profile that he accessed both on and off duty.



Additionally, St. Clair alleges that Holloway used his prior investigation of her involvement in a burglary, for

which she had not been charged, to maintain the sexual relationship. Holloway would remind St. Clair about her

involvement in the burglary and warn her that no one would believe her regarding their sexual encounters due to her

involvement in criminal activity. In fall 2021, Holloway asked St. Clair to meet him for lunch. When they met, he

attempted to hug her, blamed his mental health struggles on her, and guilted her for not having more frequent sexual

contact with him. This encounter was their last meet-up. St. Clair states she only came to understand that she had

been harmed when she read a news article in November 2021 detailing Holloway's inappropriate sexual conduct with

other similarly situated women. She alleges that Holloway, while employed at the Sheriff's Office, engaged in sexual

activities with at least six other women who were using drugs and involved8 ST. CLAIR V. COUNTY OF OKANOGAN

complaint also alleges that three other employees in the Sheriff's Office engaged in sexual relations with women

who used drugs and were involved in criminal activity during the same time period. After learning about Holloway's pattern of behavior, St. Clair realized that he had used "his position of authority to manipulate her and control

her for years.” She "start[ed] experiencing pain, anxiety and other negative effects from her relationship with Holloway,” including "trauma, fear and distrust of authority, anxiety and depression as well as damage to her familial relationships.”



On September 26, 2023, St. Clair filed her initial complaint against Holloway and Okanogan County. After Okanogan County filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(6), St. Clair filed her first amended complaint as of right under Rule 15(A)(1).

Dismissed.



Reversed.