DOUGLAS LAVERNE ADAMS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
L. WAINWRIGHT, LOUIS CARMICHAEL, W. MARION ELLIS, JOHN L. TOWNSEND, JR., MICHAEL ODOM, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the appellant failed to present a genuine issue of material fact and affirmed the grant of summary judgment.
Appellant alleged prison authorities transferred him in retaliation for filing lawsuits and confiscated his legal materials. The evidence submitted by…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Retaliation cases and more on FLexlaw
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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pate v. Peel, 256 F. Supp. 2d 1326 (N.D. Fla. 2003)…ls may still prevail by proving that they would have made the same decision absent the protected conduct for reasons reasonably related to a legitimate peno-logical interest.” Rauser, 241 F.3d at 334. 15 . In Adams v. Wainwright, 875 F.2d 1536, 1537 (11th Cir.1989) (per curiam), a First Amendment retaliation case in the prisoner context, the Government urged the Eleventh Circuit to adopt the "but for” standard set forth by the First Circuit in McDonald, in which the burden remains o…
-
Osterback v. Kemp, 300 F. Supp. 2d 1238 (N.D. Fla. 2003)…th Circuit has not adopted a formal method of analysis of causation as yet, except to say that a prisoner does not have to prove that he would not have been transferred “but for” his assertion of his constitutional rights. Adams v. Wainwright, 875 F.2d 1536, 1537 (11th Cir.1989). It is recommended, however, that in this case the court use the analytical framework adopted by Magistrate Judge Rodgers of this district. See Pate v. Peel, 256 F.Supp.2d 1326 (N.D.Fla.2003) (on consent). Judge Rodge…
-
Adams v. James, 797 F. Supp. 940 (M.D. Fla. 1992)…The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has declined to follow the “but for” analysis in the context of prisoners’ retaliation suits, “to the extent that the ‘but for’ test places a greater burden of proof on the inmate.” Adams v. Wainwright, 875 F.2d 1536, 1537 (11th Cir.1989) (citing Hall v. Evans, 842 F.2d 337 (11th Cir.1988) (table decision vacating district court order granting summary judgment to Defendants based on “but for” analysis)). 2 However, in the prison context, there must b…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986)
- McDONALD v. Hall, 610 F.2d 16 (1st Cir. 1979)