IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-20825
Conference Calendar
SUZANNE FRAME ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
SUZANNE FRAME,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
ALLAN JAMES ET AL.,
Intervenors-Plaintiffs-Appellees,
versus
S-H, INC., ET AL.,
Defendants.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. CA-H-86-4589
- - - - - - - - - -
October 23, 1997
Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
We must examine the basis of our jurisdiction on our own
motion if necessary. Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 96-20825
-2-
Cir. 1987). The district court’s order declining to disqualify
the appellees’ attorney, declining to cancel the bi-weekly
reporting requirement imposed on appellant Suzanne Frame, and
declining to vacate orders designating Frame’s alter egos is not
within the category of orders regarding receiverships that is
reviewable pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(2). The record does
not indicate that the portion of the district court’s order
regarding the bi-weekly reporting requirement is the type of
discovery order that is appealable. Natural Gas Pipeline Co. v.
Energy Gathering, Inc., 2 F.3d 1397, 1405 n.16 (5th Cir. 1993).
Nor does the record indicate that Frame would lose the
opportunity for appellate review of her contentions regarding the
appellees’ attorney and the designation of her alter egos in a
later appeal from a conclusive judgment in the judgment
creditors’ attempt to collect on the judgment against her should
we now decline to consider her contentions. We lack jurisdiction
to consider Frame’s contentions.
Frame’s appeal is frivolous and is part of a pattern of
abuse of the appeal process. We caution Frame that any
additional frivolous appeals filed by her or on her behalf will
invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Frame is
further cautioned to review any pending appeals to ensure that
they do not raise arguments that are frivolous.
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.