Case Name: James Martin HUDSPETH, Appellant, v. Donald FIGGINS, Sergeant Nesselrodt, Correctional Officers of Virginia Department of Corrections Field Unit # 30, Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1978-10-05
Citations: 584 F.2d 1345
Docket Number: No. 77-1442
Parties: James Martin HUDSPETH, Appellant, v. Donald FIGGINS, Sergeant Nesselrodt, Correctional Officers of Virginia Department of Corrections Field Unit # 30, Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 584
Pages: 1345–1350

Head Matter:
James Martin HUDSPETH, Appellant, v. Donald FIGGINS, Sergeant Nesselrodt, Correctional Officers of Virginia Department of Corrections Field Unit # 30, Appellees.
No. 77-1442.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Argued Jan. 10, 1978.
Decided Oct. 5, 1978.
K. K. Hall, Circuit Judge, dissented and filed opinion.
Noel H. Thompson, Arlington, Va., for appellant.
Burnett Miller, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., Richmond, Va. (Anthony F. Troy, Atty. Gen. of Virginia, Richmond, Va., on brief), for appellees.
Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, and BUTZNER and HALL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Hudspeth's § 1983 complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. We reverse, for, liberally construing Hudspeth's pro se complaint, as we must under Haines v. Ker-ner, 404 U.S. 519, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972), we think he stated a claim of constitutional deprivation.
Hudspeth, a Virginia prisoner, claims that the two defendants, institutional officers, interfered with his access to the courts, placed his life in danger, and subjected him to cruel and unusual punishment. These claims arise out of two incidents. The first one is described in the complaint in the following language:
I was standing on the front steps of field unit # 30, Fairfax, Virginia, when penal system officer, Donald Figgins, related the following to me:
"The courts are not going to rule in your favor. Before they will do that, they will pay five thousand dollars to an officer to shoot you and make it look like an accident."
He then emphasized his point by putting forth his left hand and slapping it with his right hand saying:
"Yes, five thousand in the hand and one morning you'll get orders to report to work on a gun gang."
Then he patted his side where a firearm is normally worn and turned and walked away.
Hudspeth's hearing was impaired. Allegedly because of that, Hudspeth was assigned to an unguarded work detail within the correctional institution. He alleges, however, that, as predicted by Figgins, Sergeant Nesselrodt ordered him transferred to a road gang under the supervision of two armed guards. He alleged that he feared for his life as a result of an "accident" while working with the road gang, that the threat and the transfer were intended to limit his right of access to the courts, to endanger his life, and to subject him to mental anguish.
There was an institutional investigation which resulted in a determination that allegations about the conversation with Figgins were based upon actual fact, and that Fig-gins' employment by the Department of Corrections had been terminated. Those and all other allegations must be accepted as true since the complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 89 S.Ct. 1843, 23 L.Ed.2d 404.
When a court is asked to appraise the legal sufficiency of a complaint by a motion under Rule 12(b)(6), it must follow the accepted rule that "a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Hospital Building Co. v. Trustees of Rex Hospital, 425 U.S. 738, 746, 96 S.Ct. 1848, 1853, 48 L.Ed.2d 338 (1976); Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957). This "concededly rigorous standard," Hospital Building Co., supra, applies to pro se inmate complaints filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Haines v. Kerner, supra; Gordon v. Leeke, 547 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978); Wirth v. Surles, 562 F.2d 319, 321 (4th Cir. 1977); Johnson v. Mueller, 415 F.2d 354, 355 (4th Cir. 1969). A pro se complaint must be read liberally, and such persons are not held to the strict pleading requirements otherwise required of attorneys. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106-07, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976); Haines v. Kerner, supra. Thus the power summarily to dismiss a prisoner's pro se complaint is limited.
State prisoners have a constitutional right of meaningful access to the courts which a state may not abridge nor impair; nor may it impermissibly burden its exercise. Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 823-24, 97 S.Ct. 1491, 52 L.Ed.2d 72 (1977); Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 576, 579, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974); Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319, 321, 92 S.Ct. 1079, 31 L.Ed.2d 263 (1972) (per curiam); Johnson v. Avery, 393 U.S. 483, 485-87, 89 S.Ct. 747, 21 L.Ed.2d 718 (1969); Ex Parte Hull, 312 U.S. 546, 549, 61 S.Ct. 640, 85 L.Ed. 1034 (1941); Blanks v. Cunningham, 409 F.2d 220 (4th Cir. 1969); Coleman v. Peyton, 362 F.2d 905, 907 (4th Cir. 1966). 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).
With the liberal construction to which it is entitled, we think the complaint states a claim against Figgins for his threat of physical harm if Hudspeth pursued his judicial remedies and, in light of that earlier threat, against Nesselrodt for transferring him to the road gang under the supervision of armed guards, if it can be proven that Nesselrodt knew of Figgins'- threat.
But, of course, there would be no claim if Figgins intended his remarks as a joke, and Hudspeth understood them not to have been serious. If that were the case, however, it is unlikely that Figgins' employment would have been terminated.
Moreover, there may be a claim based upon the Eighth Amendment prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. If Figgins and Nesselrodt were acting in concert, intentionally placing Hudspeth in fear for his life if he pressed his court actions that would inflict such suffering as to amount to unconstitutional punishment. The life of a prisoner is a dreary one of suffering, but the Constitution prohibits the infliction upon a prisoner of unnecessary suffering which is inconsistent with contemporary standards of decency. If Hudspeth can prove his claim, if Figgins and Nesselrodt were working in concert and Hudspeth's fear was real, the punishment inflicted was entirely gratuitous and unnecessary.
Of course, we hold only that Hudspeth should be given an opportunity to prove his claims. Whether or not he is ultimately entitled to any relief can then be determined upon an evidentiary record.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.