Geitz v. Overall, 137 Fed. Appx. 927, 929 (8th Cir. 2005) (unpublished) (“Geitz alleges Barnes intentionally interfered with his legal mail, thereby depriving him of his clearly established right to meaningful access to the courts. Barnes does not contend Geitz’s allegations are insufficient to allege the violation of a federal constitutional right. Indeed, she concedes Geitz has a clearly established right to meaningful access to the courts.”).
Nei v. Dooley, 372 F.3d 1003, 1007 (8th Cir. 2004) (“To be actionable, the retaliatory conduct itself need not be unconstitutional because the constitutional violation lies in the intent to impede access to the courts.”).
Johnson-El v. Schoemehl, 878 F.2d 1043, 1052 (8th Cir. 1989) (“Pre-trial detainees have a right to meaningful access to courts and to judicial process. . . . The City must provide its pre-trial detainees either with ‘adequate law libraries or adequate assistance from persons trained in the law.’ . . . In this case, the City may have sufficiently constrained both avenues so as to violate plaintiffs’ due process rights.”).
Craft v. Wipf, 836 F.2d 412, 419 (8th Cir. 1987) (“It has also long been recognized that state officials may not retaliate against individuals because they exercise their constitutional right to seek judicial relief. . . . This principle is so deeply embedded in the legal and social fabric of our society that no government official could fail to know of it.”).