UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 96-50437
Summary Calendar
_____________________
LONNIE D. CLARK,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
NORTH CENTRAL LIFE INSURANCE,
Defendant-Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
(W-95-CV-47)
_________________________________________________________________
May 22, 1997
Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Lonnie D. Clark pleaded guilty to mail fraud concerning
misrepresentations he made to obtain insurance policies. His
conviction was affirmed by this court. United States v. Clark, No.
94-10833 (5th Cir. 1995) (unpublished). Clark appeals from the
dismissal, as frivolous, of this subsequent action against North
Central Life Insurance Co. as frivolous. Clark contends generally
that his federal constitutional rights were violated by North
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 Local Rule
47.5.4.
Central and that it violated Texas insurance and deceptive-trade-
practices law regarding an insurance policy purchased by Clark.
Clark does not contend that the district court erred by
holding his federal-law claims barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S.
477 (1994). Clark has failed to brief the relevant issue for
appeal regarding those claims. See e.g., Brinkmann v. Dallas
County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987)
(court will not raise and discuss legal issues not asserted by
appellant).
Moreover, Clark has not provided this court with a basis for
finding that the policy on which this action is based is different
from one on which his fraud conviction was based. Clark’s federal
fraud conviction and the facts underlying that conviction would
serve as a successful defense against Clark’s state-law claims.
See Koral Indus. v. Security-Connecticut Life Ins. Co., 802 S.W.2d
650, 651 (Tex. App. 1990). Accordingly, the dismissal of those
claims as frivolous was not an abuse of discretion. See Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992). Clark’s appeal is frivolous;
accordingly, it is DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
As we have done in a separate appeal by Clark decided
contemporaneously with this appeal, Clark v. MIC Life Ins. Co., No.
96-50444 (5th Cir. 1997) (unpublished), Clark is warned that any
additional frivolous appeals filed by him, particularly appeals in
which any of the insurance companies he pleaded guilty to
defrauding are named as appellees, will invite the imposition of
- 2 -
sanctions. We repeat that warning here, and caution Clark that, to
avoid sanctions, he should review any pending appeals to ensure
that they do not raise arguments that are frivolous.
DISMISSED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED
- 3 -