DeBose v. Lain

Fifth Circuit

DeBose v. Lain

95 F. App'x 97

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedApril 19, 2004

Docket03-30800

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 95 F. App'x 97 (DeBose v. Lain) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

DeBose v. Lain, 95 F. App'x 97 (5th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Willie G. DeBose appeals the district court’s dismissal of his petition for lack of *98 subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. He asserts that the state court’s rejection of his legal malpractice claim violated his constitutional rights. This is an insufficient basis for federal-question jurisdiction and DeBose has suggested no other jurisdictional basis. See Liedtke v. State Bar of Texas, 18 F.3d 315, 317 (5th Cir.1994). As the parties are not diverse, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the district court did not err in dismissing DeBose’s petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

DeBose has failed to raise an issue of arguable merit. His appeal is therefore dismissed as frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.1983). The filing of frivolous appeals in the future could subject DeBose to sanctions.

DeBose’s motion to accept for filing exhibits to his brief is hereby DENIED.

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED; MOTION DENIED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under *98 the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

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

PER CURIAM: *

Willie G. DeBose appeals the district court’s dismissal of his petition for lack of *98 subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. He asserts that the state court’s rejection of his legal malpractice claim violated his constitutional rights. This is an insufficient basis for federal-question jurisdiction and DeBose has suggested no other jurisdictional basis. See Liedtke v. State Bar of Texas, 18 F.3d 315, 317 (5th Cir.1994). As the parties are not diverse, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the district court did not err in dismissing DeBose’s petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

DeBose has failed to raise an issue of arguable merit. His appeal is therefore dismissed as frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.1983). The filing of frivolous appeals in the future could subject DeBose to sanctions.

DeBose’s motion to accept for filing exhibits to his brief is hereby DENIED.

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED; MOTION DENIED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under *98 the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

95 F. App'x 97, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/debose-v-lain-ca5-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack