¶1 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.
¶2 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.
¶3 DeBose’s motion to accept for filing exhibits to his brief is hereby DENIED.
¶4 APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED; MOTION DENIED.