U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, 1989

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

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Decided June 27, 1989 · Fay, Hatchett, Hoffman, Per Curiam

875 F.2d 1536; 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 9173; 1989 WL 61253 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Douglas Laverne Adams, Daytona Beach, Fla., pro se., Charlie L. Adams, Jacksonville, Fla., for plaintiff-appellant., J. Craig Myrick and Kimberly J. Tucker, Asst. Attys. Gen., Dept, of Legal Affairs, Tallahassee, Fla., for defendants-appellees.

Cases that cite this one

7 later published cases cite this decision.

Enriquez v. Kearney (United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida 2010)
Pate v. Peel (United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida 2003)
Adams v. James (United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida 1992)
Larson v. Cooper (Alaska 2005)
Osterback v. Kemp (United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida 2003)
Gonzalez v. Monty (United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida 2000)
Castle v. Clymer (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1998)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.