Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-18-50844/USCOURTS-ca5-18-50844-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Scott Lynn Gibson
Appellant
Francois Jean-Baptiste
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-50844

Summary Calendar

SCOTT LYNN GIBSON, also known as Vanessa Lynn,

Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

FRANCOIS JEAN-BAPTISTE,

Defendant - Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 6:17-CV-42

Before JOLLY, JONES, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Pro se appellant Scott Lynn Gibson appeals the district court’s grant of 

summary judgment in favor of appellee Francois Jean-Baptiste on Gibson’s 

First Amendment retaliation claim. We affirm.

Gibson is a transgender inmate in the custody of the Texas Department 

of Criminal Justice (the “TDCJ”). Jean-Baptiste is a correctional officer in 

Gibson’s unit. This case arises, if only tangentially, from a previous lawsuit 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 29, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 18-50844 Document: 00515399457 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/29/2020
No. 18-50844

2

Gibson filed against the TDCJ, seeking an order compelling the TDCJ to 

evaluate him for sex reassignment surgery. See Gibson v. Collier, 920 F.3d 212 

(5th Cir. 2019) (Gibson I).1 The facts are simple and undisputed. In reference 

to Gibson’s earlier lawsuit, Jean-Baptiste posted two comments on a 

colleague’s private Facebook page. First, Jean-Baptiste stated, “Really, he’s 

still going to fight it[?]” Second, after his colleague responded, “Let the f[. . .]

suffer,” Jean-Baptiste replied, “One to the back of the head.” Based solely on 

those comments, Gibson sued Jean-Baptiste pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 

alleging Jean-Baptiste violated Gibson’s First Amendment rights by 

threatening to kill Gibson in retaliation for pursuing his previous lawsuit. The 

district court found Jean-Baptiste was entitled to qualified immunity. We 

agree.

We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same 

standard as the district court. Brewer v. Hayne, 860 F.3d 819, 822 (5th Cir. 

2017).

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity unless “they 

violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and . . . the unlawfulness of 

their conduct was clearly established at the time.” District of Columbia v. 

Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577, 589 (2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). To 

prevail on a retaliation claim, a prisoner must show (1) the exercise of a specific 

constitutional right, (2) a state official’s intent to retaliate against the prisoner 

for the exercise of that right, (3) a retaliatory adverse act, and (4) causation. 

Morris v. Powell, 449 F.3d 682, 684 (5th Cir. 2006). Only the second and third

elements are in dispute.

1 Consistent with Gibson I and TDCJ policy, we use male pronouns. See id. at 217 

n.2.

Case: 18-50844 Document: 00515399457 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/29/2020
No. 18-50844

3

As to those elements, Gibson argues that Jean-Baptiste’s Facebook 

comments should be interpreted as a death threat and that the comments

provide a “chronology of events” from which Jean-Baptiste’s intent to harm

Gibson in retaliation for filing his previous lawsuit may be inferred. While we 

question whether the comments demonstrate an intent to retaliate, at a 

minimum, Gibson fails to show a retaliatory adverse act.

To begin with, it is not at all clear that the Facebook comments were 

actually a threat. As the district court found, the comments were not 

addressed to Gibson; Gibson learned of them after the fact and indirectly.2 And 

even construing the comments as an implicit threat, this court has long held 

that “mere threatening language and gestures of a custodial office[r] do not, 

even if true” establish Section 1983 liability. McFadden v. Lucas, 713 F.2d 143, 

146 (5th Cir. 1983); Bender v. Brumley, 1 F.3d 271, 274 n.4 (5th Cir. 1993) 

(“Mere allegations of verbal abuse do not present actionable claims under 

§ 1983.”). Accordingly, we have consistently rejected threat-based retaliation 

claims. See Smith v. Hebert, 533 F. App’x 479, 483 (5th Cir.2013); Hudson v. 

Univ. of Tex. Med. Branch, 441 F. App’x 291, 292–93 (5th Cir. 2011); Bell v. 

Woods, 382 F. App’x 391, 393 (5th Cir. 2010); Brown v. Craven, 

106 F. App’x 257, 259 (5th Cir. 2004).3 Gibson nevertheless argues that this 

case is different because of the severity of Jean-Baptiste’s purported threat. 

But we have found similarly severe threats insufficient. See Hudson, 

441 F. App’x at 292–93 (prison official’s threat “to dilute [the prisoner’s] 

insulin with water after [the prisoner] filed a grievance against [the official]”

2 The comments were made in response to an article published in the Texas Observer 

discussing Gibson’s previous lawsuit. Apparently, a reporter that had worked on the piece 

subsequently contacted Gibson and brought the comments to his attention.

3 Although Smith, Hudson, Bell, and Brown are unpublished opinions and are not 

therefore binding on this court, they are useful evidence of this court’s treatment of the issue.

Case: 18-50844 Document: 00515399457 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/29/2020
No. 18-50844

4

was not a retaliatory adverse act). Gibson cannot therefore show that JeanBaptiste violated his First Amendment rights. Jean Baptiste is entitled to 

qualified immunity.

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

Case: 18-50844 Document: 00515399457 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/29/2020