Opinion ID: 201350
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Powell's Constitutionally Protected Right to Petition the Courts for Redress of Grievances

Text: 63 As the district court recognized, [o]ur constitutional system gives every citizen the right to seek redress in the courts... without fear that recourse to the law will make that citizen a target for retaliation. Powell, 221 F.Supp.2d at 121. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides, in relevant part: Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. For decades, the Supreme Court has consistently recognized the right to petition all branches of the government, including the courts, Cal. Motor Transp. Co. v. Trucking Unltd., 404 U.S. 508, 510, 92 S.Ct. 609, 30 L.Ed.2d 642 (1972), for redress of grievances as among the most precious of the liberties safeguarded by the Bill of Rights. United Mine Workers, Dist. 12 v. Ill. State Bar Ass'n, 389 U.S. 217, 222, 88 S.Ct. 353, 19 L.Ed.2d 426 (1967). 17 The Supreme Court has also identified the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation — and their ideas from suppression — at the hand of an intolerant society. McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U.S. 334, 357, 115 S.Ct. 1511, 131 L.Ed.2d 426 (1995). 64 Claims of retaliation for the exercise of First Amendment rights are cognizable under § 1983. See, e.g., Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 97 S.Ct. 568, 50 L.Ed.2d 471 (1977) (school board's refusal to renew untenured teacher's contract in retaliation for exercise of right to free speech actionable). Retaliation, though it is not expressly referred to in the Constitution, is nonetheless actionable because retaliatory actions may tend to chill individuals' exercise of constitutional rights. ACLU of Md., Inc. v. Wicomico County, 999 F.2d 780, 785 (4th Cir.1993). Retaliation for the exercise of the right to petition the courts for redress may take many forms, ranging from potential negative treatment for the mere threat to file suit in the future, see, e.g., Poole v. County of Otero, 271 F.3d 955, 960 (10th Cir.2001) (recognizing retaliatory prosecution claim where police instituted criminal charges after receiving indication of plaintiff's intent to file civil suit), to actual economic injury following the filing or pursuit of grievances, see, e.g., Collins v. Nuzzo, 244 F.3d 246, 251 n. 2 (1st Cir.2001) (treating claim that license application was denied because of applicant's exercise of right to appeal prior denial of license renewal as an ordinary claim of unconstitutional retaliation for protected speech in violation of the First Amendment); Fishman v. Clancy, 763 F.2d 485, 486-87 (1st Cir.1985) (attempts to terminate public school teacher who had filed more grievances than any other ... teacher had ever filed and who had engaged in other First Amendment activities cognizable under § 1983). 65 In order to prevail on a § 1983 claim of retaliation for First Amendment activity under the legal standard enunciated in Mt. Healthy, a plaintiff must first show that his conduct was constitutionally protected, and that this conduct was a `substantial factor' or ... a `motivating factor' for the defendant's retaliatory decision. 429 U.S. at 287, 97 S.Ct. 568. The defendant may then avoid a finding of liability by showing that it would have reached the same decision ... even in the absence of the protected conduct. Id. 18 66 In this case, the district court concluded: 67 There is no question that Powell engaged in constitutionally protected conduct by filing the 1991 lawsuit against Pittsfield, its officials, and police officers. Defendants have not alleged that Powell's 1991 litigation was baseless and therefore not within the shelter of the First Amendment, see Bill Johnson's Restaurants, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 461 U.S. 731, 741, 103 S.Ct. 2161, 76 L.Ed.2d 277 (1983), or otherwise unprotected. Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 148 n. 8, 103 S.Ct. 1684, 75 L.Ed.2d 708 (1983) (right to protest racial discrimination [is] a matter inherently of public concern). Given the substantial settlement obtained by the plaintiff in 1993, any argument that the 1991 lawsuit was baseless would be frivolous. 68 Powell, 221 F.Supp.2d at 140-41. The court found that Powell's lawsuit alleging racial discrimination created hostility in the police department, id. at 124, which Alexander represented as City Solicitor, and that she was aware that his return to the police force would cause friction. Id. The district court then concluded that, more likely than not, Alexander and the Mayor retaliated against Powell for his constitutionally protected conduct because they knew that if [he] was reinstated and thereafter filed another lawsuit, they would have to deal with it. Id. at 142. 19 69