Within the State of Oregon, to effectively state a malicious prosecution claim, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must establish State law elements of malicious proseucution and show that defendants, while acting under "color of law" intended to deprive the plaintiff of a constitutional right. See Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 257-58, 98 S.Ct 1042 (1978).

The questions presented are:

1. Was Petitioner unfairly denied redress for a malicious prosecution when the District Court of Oregon granted Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for a failure to meet the "favorable termination" requirement?

2. Was Defendant, Deputy District Attorney, John Gerhard, obligated to respond to Petitioner's lawfully served summons, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A)?

3. Do anti-SLAPP laws offer First Amendment protections to Defendant Annalisa Ball for her filing of a known false police report?

Was Petitioner unfairly denied redress for a malicious prosecution when the District Court of Oregon granted Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for a failure to meet the 'favorable termination' requirement?