
    Evan DOSS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ronald McALPIN, Office of the United States Trustee, Eileen Shaffer Bailey; United States Trustee, DefendantsAppellees.
    No. 03-60826.
    Conference Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided Dec. 16, 2004.
    Evan Doss, Jr., Port Gibson, MS, pro se.
    
      Eileen Newton Shaffer, Jackson, MS, pro se.
    David N. Usry, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Missisippi, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before KING, Chief Judge, and DeMOSS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Evan Doss, Jr., appeals the dismissal of his civil rights complaint against Eileen Shaffer Bailey, bankruptcy trustee for the estate of the Evan Doss, Jr., Corporation; Ronald McAlpin, Assistant United States Trustee; and the Office of the United States Trustee. Doss’s complaint alleged that Bailey and McAlpin engaged in “fraud, misrepresentation, and collusion” in their assignment of assets belonging to the bankruptcy estate of the Evan Doss, Jr., Corporation; that they wrongfully assigned certain corporate bankruptcy assets; and that their mishandling of the corporate bankruptcy estate caused Doss to be convicted of bankruptcy fraud.

Although the district court dismissed Doss’s complaint for lack of standing and on grounds of res judicata, we note that Doss’s complaint implicates the validity of his criminal conviction and that it is, therefore, barred under Heck v. Humphrey. See Randell v. Johnson, 227 F.3d 300, 301 (5th Cir.2000). We AFFIRM the dismissal of Doss’s complaint as premature under Heck. See Bickford v. Int’l Speedway Corp., 654 F.2d 1028, 1031 (5th Cir.1981).

As this complaint is Doss’s third attempt to litigate the legality of the bankruptcy proceedings of the Evan Doss, Jr., Corporation, we WARN Doss that future merit-less filings concerning this issue will result in the imposition of sanctions.

AFFIRMED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     
      
      512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994)
     