Hudspeth v Figgins - threat of retaliation actionable - regardless of the success of the threat

Hudspeth v. Figgins, 584 F.2d 1345 (4th Cir. 1978). Stating

Once judicial proceedings have been commenced, the state may not punish a prisoner for having sought judicial remedies. Russell v. Oliver, 552 F.2d 115, 116 (4th Cir. 1977); Haymes v. Montanye, 547 F.2d 188(2d Cir. 1976).

A threat of physical harm to a prisoner if he persists in his pursuit of judicial relief is as impermissible as a more direct means of restricting the right of access to the courts. Nor is it necessary that the prisoner succumb entirely or even partially to the threat. It is enough that the threat was intended to impose a limitation upon the prisoner's right of access to the court and was reasonably calculated to have that effect. See Lingo v. Boone, 402 F.Supp. 768, 775 (N.D.Cal.1975).

Threat to deny monies if suit is filed

Silver v. Cormier, 529 F.2d 161, 163 (10th Cir.1976) (recognizing right of access claim arising from threat to withhold monies if suit filed)

McKay v Hammock - a threat to retaliate if civil rights claim is filed.

McKay v. Hammock, 730 F.2d 1367, 1375 (10th Cir.1984) (remanding for consideration of right of access claim where state officer threatened retaliation if civil rights claim filed)

Threats may deny access to the court and warrant punitive damages

In Silver v. Cormier , 529 F.2d 161 (10th Cir. 1976),

The court noted that "... Access to the courts of the United States is a constitutional right guaranteed by the due process clauses of the fifth and fourteenth amendments."

As such the court found... " A public official's threats to a citizen to withhold monies due and owing, should legal proceedings on an independent matter be instituted, burdens or chills constitutional rights of access to the courts."

And this is true although the threat is not actually effective."

The court also found that threats by public officials to block access to the courts meets manifests a reckless indifference to the property rights of others, ill will, a desire to injure or malice sufficient to award Punitive damages, and cites several cases allowing recovery of Punitive damages in a section 1983 actions provided such aggravating circumstances are found.

Spence v. Staras, 7 Cir., 507 F.2d 554, 558; Morales v. Haines, 7 Cir., 486 F.2d 880, 882; Smith v. Lossee, 10 Cir., 485 F.2d 334, 345, cert. denied, 417 U.S. 908, 94 S.Ct. 2604, 41 L.Ed.2d 212; McDaniel v. Carroll, 6 Cir., 457 F.2d 968, 969 cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1106, 93 S.Ct. 897, 34 L.Ed.2d 687. Recovery of punitive damages has been held to be permitted in actions under section 1983 even in the absence of actual loss. Spence v. Staras, 7 Cir., 507 F.2d 554, 558; Fisher v. Volz, 3 Cir., 496 F.2d 333, 346-47; Stolberg v. Members of Board of Trustees, 2 Cir., 474 F.2d 485, 489; Basista v. Weir, 3 Cir., 340 F.2d 74, 88.