
    Harold B. MASON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Stan STANART, County Clerk; Scott Hilshire, Assistant County Attorney; Vince Ryan, County Attorney; Terrance L. Smallwood; Veronica L. Smallwood; Wells Fargo Mortgage Hazardous Loss Division, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 12-20725
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    June 3, 2013.
    Harold B. Mason, Albany, GA, pro se.
    Before SMITH, PRADO, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Harold Mason appeals a judgment dismissing his civil action as frivolous. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)®, the district court is required to dismiss civil actions that are deemed to be frivolous or malicious. A complaint is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or in fact. Berry v. Brady, 192 F.3d 504, 507 (5th Cir.1999). We review the judgment for abuse of discretion. Id.

Apparently, Mason was a party to a legal action related to a contractual dispute with several of the defendants, and he is unhappy with the result and with the actions of various state and local officials who were involved in that matter. Mason wants the district court to enforce a Texas constitutional provision for the removal of county officials for cause.

Federal courts will not review a state court’s interpretation of its own laws and do not sit as “super state supreme court[s]” to review errors of state law. Dickerson v. Guste, 932 F.2d 1142, 1145 (5th Cir.1991). Although Mason invokes the Equal Protection Clause, his conclu-sional assertions do not show that he has a non-frivolous constitutional claim. No abuse of discretion has been shown. See Berry, 192 F.3d at 507. The appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See 5th CiR. R. 42.2.

Mason is cautioned that the filing of frivolous pleadings will invite the imposition of sanctions, which may include dismissal, monetary penalties, and restrictions on his ability to file pleadings in this court and any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction. 
      
      
         Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     