Douglas Laverne Adams v. L. Wainwright, Louis Carmichael, W. Marion Ellis, John L. Townsend, Jr., Michael Odom

Eleventh Circuit

Douglas Laverne Adams v. L. Wainwright, Louis Carmichael, W. Marion Ellis, John L. Townsend, Jr., Michael Odom

875 F.2d 1536, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 9173, 1989 WL 61253

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit·Decided June 27, 1989·No. 87-3865·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The appellant, Douglas LaVerne Adams, alleged that prison authorities transferred him in retaliation for filing lawsuits and unconstitutionally confiscated his legal materials. Adams contends that the district court erred by granting summary judgment to the prison authorities on these contentions.

The evidence Adams submitted refuted the allegations in his complaint. Consequently, Adams failed to present a genuine issue of material fact. See Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2553, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986).

The state urges us to adopt the “but for” standard set forth in McDonald v. Hall, 610 F.2d 16, 18-19 (1st Cir.1979) (prisoner must prove that he or she would not have been transferred “but for” an assertion of constitutional rights). We decline to adopt the “but for” standard. See Hall v. Evans, 86-8782 (11th Cir. March 9, 1988) [842 F.2d 337 (table)] (“To the extent that the ‘but for’ test places a greater burden of proof on the appellant, we decline to follow it.”).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court.

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

The appellant, Douglas LaVerne Adams, alleged that prison authorities transferred him in retaliation for filing lawsuits and unconstitutionally confiscated his legal materials. Adams contends that the district court erred by granting summary judgment to the prison authorities on these contentions.

The evidence Adams submitted refuted the allegations in his complaint. Consequently, Adams failed to present a genuine issue of material fact. See Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2553, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986).

The state urges us to adopt the “but for” standard set forth in McDonald v. Hall, 610 F.2d 16, 18-19 (1st Cir.1979) (prisoner must prove that he or she would not have been transferred “but for” an assertion of constitutional rights). We decline to adopt the “but for” standard. See Hall v. Evans, 86-8782 (11th Cir. March 9, 1988) [842 F.2d 337 (table)] (“To the extent that the ‘but for’ test places a greater burden of proof on the appellant, we decline to follow it.”).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court.

AFFIRMED.

Douglas Laverne Adams v. L. Wainwright, Louis Carmichael, W. Marion Ellis, John L. Townsend, Jr., Michael Odom, 875 F.2d 1536, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 9173, 1989 WL 61253 (11th Cir. 1989).

Pincite

875 F.2d 1536 (Douglas Laverne Adams v. L. Wainwright, Louis Carmichael, W. Marion Ellis, John L. Townsend, Jr., Michael Odom) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related