IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-20618

Summary Calendar

SHELTON R. MODELIST,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

ANGELICA M. HERNANDEZ; WILLIAM R. BURKE, JR.; LINEBARGER

GOGGAN BLAIR; ANTHONY W. NIMS; CHRIS STACY,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:11-CV-387

Before JOLLY, JONES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Shelton Modelist appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. 

After losing a tax-collection case in state court, Modelist filed a civil rights action

against the presiding judge in the tax case, the court-appointed tax master (the

judicial defendants), and the lawyers and law firm who represented the taxing

unit (the lawyer defendants). Modelist accused them of conspiring to maliciously

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

November 12, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

 Case: 11-20618 Document: 00512050286 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/12/2012
No. 11-20618

obtain a “fraudulent” and “fabricated” final judgment, in violation of his rights

of access to the courts, due process, and equal protection. 

Modelist’s claims are frivolous because the defendants are absolutely

immune from suit under federal law. See Martinez v. State of California, 444

U.S. 277, 284 n.8 (1980). The judge is absolutely immune from liability for acts

done in his judicial capacity. See Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 9-10 (1991). The

special tax master has the same judicial immunity because he was performing

a judicial function. See Bass v. Parkwood Hospital, 180 F.3d 234, 244 (5th Cir.

1999). Modelist offers a conclusory assertion that the judicial defendants acted

in the clear absence of jurisdiction, but his allegations concern “alleged errors

made by the judge in his judicial role” and thus establish that immunity applies. 

Arsenaux v. Roberts, 726 F.2d 1022, 1024 (5th Cir. 1982). The lawyer defendants

are also absolutely immune because they were performing “functions analogous

to those of a prosecutor.” Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 515 (1978); see Imbler

v Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 420-24 (1976); Green v. State Bar of Texas, 27 F.3d

1083, 1088 & n.7 (5th Cir. 1994).

Moreover, Modelist fails to allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief

that is plausible on its face” against any defendant. Bell Atlantic Corp. v.

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). He points to no specific factual allegation

that, if accepted as true, would support his legal conclusions of fraud and

corruption, and his assertions of legal errors do not allege a conspiracy. See

Arsenaux, 726 F.2d at1023-24. Modelist’s appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. 

This litigation is similar to recent, unrelated litigation Modelist pursued

after he lost a state-court loan foreclosure proceeding. See Modelist v. Miller,

445 F. App’x 737 (5th Cir. 2011). After Modelist lost the foreclosure action, a

federal jury rejected various federal claims against his lender and other

defendants. See id. at 738 (background). Thereafter, Modelist “filed various

lawsuits all of which have, at their core, been based on his apparent belief that

he should have won the original lawsuit.” Id. In Modelist’s federal action

2

 Case: 11-20618 Document: 00512050286 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/12/2012
No. 11-20618

against judges, attorneys, and lenders involved in the foreclosure litigation, we

affirmed a $5,000 sanction award against Modelist under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 11(c)(1), and we told him, “[T]his relentless and repetitive litigation

must end.” Id. at 740-42. Undeterred by the sanction and our admonishment,

Modelist has again accused those involved in prior litigation of conspiring to

violate his constitutional rights. 

Accordingly, as a sanction for repeated frivolous and vexatious litigation,

we ORDER Modelist to pay $500 to the clerk of this court. Until he pays the full

$500, Modelist is BARRED from filing any pro se civil appeal in this court or any

pro se initial pleading in any court which is subject to this court’s jurisdiction. 

The clerks of this court and all federal courts within this circuit are hereby

directed to return to Modelist, unfiled, any attempted submissions that do not

comply with this court’s order.

Modelist’s motion for sanctions against a deputy clerk of this court is

DENIED.

3

 Case: 11-20618 Document: 00512050286 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/12/2012