## Facts

- Creig Matthews and Kim Wozencraft were undercover Texas narcotics officers who worked together in the late 1970s, became romantically involved, and later married and divorced.
- During undercover operations, they used drugs, became addicted, and engaged in misconduct, including creating a false “stash” case and giving false testimony in prosecutions.
- Their investigation led to numerous arrests; during the operation, Matthews was seriously wounded in an attack and later received private assistance for medical care and security.
- After criminal proceedings and imprisonment, Matthews and Wozencraft entered a time-limited agreement with a third party to co-author a book about their experiences.
- After release, Wozencraft wrote *Rush*, a novel based on the events, and sold publishing and film rights to media companies.
- Matthews, publicly associated with the real-life inspiration for a character, received no compensation and sued Wozencraft and the media defendants for using his “life story” and likeness.

## Issues

1. Whether Texas law recognizes a misappropriation (privacy/right-of-publicity) claim for appropriation of a person’s “life story,” or for use of real-life facts in a book and film, absent a qualifying use of name or likeness.
2. Whether the prison-era book contract provided Matthews enforceable rights against Wozencraft’s later publication and film deals, or instead had expired by its terms.
3. Whether claims seeking a share of book and film proceeds as marital property were barred by res judicata due to the prior divorce property division.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for all defendants.
- Texas law did not provide Matthews a claim for appropriation of his “life story,” and he failed to show an actionable commercial appropriation of his name or likeness.
- Any rights Matthews asserted under the co-authoring contract had expired, leaving no contractual basis to challenge later transactions.
- Matthews’s marital-property theories were barred by res judicata because the divorce decree finally resolved property division and related claims that were, or could have been, litigated then.

## Legal Principles

- Under Texas misappropriation doctrine, liability generally requires use of a plaintiff’s name, likeness, or other clear indicia of identity for commercial advantage; use of life events as subject matter in an expressive work is not, by itself, actionable.
- Texas law does not recognize a standalone property right in the facts or narrative of a person’s life that prevents depiction in biographies or fictionalized works.
- First Amendment protections for expressive works limit tort theories that would restrict publication of matters drawn from public events and proceedings.
- A contract that is expressly time-limited confers no enforceable rights after expiration.
- Res judicata bars later litigation of property-division claims that were adjudicated, or could have been raised, in a final divorce judgment.

## Conclusion

The court held that Matthews could not recover for the depiction of shared, publicly known events in a novel and film under Texas misappropriation law, could not rely on an expired co-authoring contract to claim proceeds, and could not relitigate marital-property allocation after a final divorce decree.


Matthews v. Wozencraft, 15 F.3d 432 (5th Cir. 1994)