Bradley v. Hall

2 Citing briefs

  1. Michael A Trap v. United States of America et al

    NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff's First Amendment Retaliation and Conspiracy Claims

    Filed December 30, 2016

    In reviewing retaliation claims in the prison context, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that “[o]f fundamental import to prisoners are their First Amendment ‘rights[s] to file prison grievances,’ and to ‘pursue civil rights litigation in the courts.’” Rhodes, 408 F.3d at 567 (quoting Bruce v. Ylst, 1283, 1288 (9th Cir. 2003) and Schroeder v. McDonald, 55 F.3d 454, 461 (9th Cir. 1995)) (internal citations omitted); Bradley v. Hall, 64 F.3d 1276, 1279 (9th Cir. 1995) (holding that prisoners have a constitutional right to meaningful access to the courts, and prison authorities may not penalize or retaliate against an inmate for exercising that right). Under the access-to-courts doctrine, “prisoners retain the constitutional right to petition the government for the redress of grievances . . . .” Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 84 (1987).

  2. Roberts et al v. AT&T Mobility LLC

    RESPONSE

    Filed January 4, 2016

    10 See, e.g., Ringgold-Lockhart v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 761 F.3d 1057, 1061 (9th Cir. 2014) (overturning order declaring litigants to be vexatious and imposing pre-filing conditions as violating the Petition Clause); Bradley v. Hall, 64 F.3d 1276, 1281 (9th Cir. 1995) (rule that punished prisoner for using certain language in a written grievance infringed prisoner’s First Amendment right to access courts). See also Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310, 336-37 (2010) (citing examples of statutes that unconstitutionally chilled the right to freedom of speech, despite not outright banning speech).