# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 19

- 30416

**Jonathan Michael Ruiz,**

Plaintiff

— Appellant **,**

versus

**Louisiana State; John Bel Edwards,** Governor **,** Defendants

— Appellees

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:18

- CV

- 11664

Before **Clement, Haynes,** and **Wilson,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *
Jonathan Michael Ruiz , a c urrent ly incarcerated person in the Louisiana prison system, filed a civil rights complaint against the State of Louisiana, Governor John Bel Edwards, and an unidentified John Doe
defendant , complain ing that changes to the state ’s sex offende r reg istration

* Pursuant to **5th Circuit Rule** 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Circuit Rule** 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED June 28, 2021
Lyle W. Cayc e Clerk Case: 19-30416 Document: 00515917542 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/28/2021No. 19

- 30416

2 laws are being applied to him retroactively in violation of his constitutional rights and 42 U.S.C. § 1983

. The district court referred the matter to a magistrate judge, who ultimately determined that the named defendants are entitled to state sovereign immunity . Accordingly, the magistrate judge recommended that
the district court dismiss sua sponte the constitutional claims against them with prejudice as frivolous, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be grante d, and for s eeking monetary relief against immune parties. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1 915(e)(2) (B) , 1915A(b). Ruiz objected to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, asserting that he had learned the names of the individual officers and asking that he be permitted to amend his complaint to
name them as additional defendants. The district court overruled Ruiz’s objections and adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendations in full, dismissing all of Ruiz’s § 1983 claims with prejudice

. Ruiz timely appealed , challenging both the dismissal of his claims and
the denial of leave to amend his complaint

. We review the dismissal de novo , Carlucci v. Chapa , 884 F.3d 534, 537 (5th Cir. 2018) , and the denial of leave
to amend for abuse of discretion , D avis v. United S tates , 961 F.2d 53, 57 (5th Cir. 1991)

. The district court properly dismissed Ruiz’s claims against the named
defendants

. Ruiz raises no issue with the dismissal of his claims against the
State of Louisiana or against the John Doe defendant. Nor does he dispute that Governor Edwards was sued in his official capacity and is entitled to state sovereign immunity

. See Bryant v. Tex. Dep’t of Aging & Disability Servs. , 781 F.3d 764, 769 (5th Cir. 2015) (noting that sovere ign immunity generally shields state officials sued in their official capacity) ; Wallace v. Edwards , No.

93

- 3651, 1994 WL 399144 , at *1 (5th Cir. July 21, 1994 ) (per curiam) (concluding that the Governor of Louisiana was shielded by sovereign Case: 19-30416 Document: 00515917542 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/28/2021No. 19

- 30416

3 immunity)

. Instead, he contends that his claims are not barred by state sovereign immunity because he seeks injunctive relief against Governor Edwards, who, Ruiz claims, has a sufficient connection to enforcement of the challenged laws

. This contention is without me rit. Ruiz has not
demonstrated that Governor Edwards has an adequate connection to
enforcement of the sex offender registration laws beyond having the general duty to see that Louisiana’s laws are implemented. See Tex

. Democratic Party
v. Abbott , 961 F.3 d 389, 400

– 01 (5th Cir.) (explaining th at such a “ general duty” is not enough to invoke the Ex parte Young exception to state sovereign immunity (quotation omitted)), application to vacate denied , 140 S. Ct. 2015 (2020) (mem.)

. Accordingly, t he judgment is affirmed as to the dismissal of
the named defendants

**.**
But b efore dismissing a pro se litigant ’ s c omplaint for failure to state a claim, a district court ordinarily must provide an opportunity to amend the complaint to remedy any deficiencies. Bazrowx v. Scott , 136 F.3d 1053, 1054 (5th Cir. 1998) (per curiam)

. In his objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation , Ruiz requested leave to amend his complaint to assert claims against former governors and other state and local offi cial s who
he claims are responsible for enforc ing the state ’s sex offender registration
laws

. That request was implicitly denied by the district court when it adopted the report and recommendation in full

. See Norman v. Apache Corp. , 19 F.3d 1017, 1021 (5th Cir. 1994) (explaining that a district court may implicitly deny a motion by entering a final judgment).
Certainly, a dding some of those officials

— the former governors

— would be futile for the same reasons previously discussed with respect to
Go vernor Edwards ; the district court need not permit their addition

. See Tex

. Democratic Party , 961 F.3d at 400

– 01 ; Legate v. Livingston , 822 F.3d 207, 211 (5th Cir. 2016) (noting that a district court need not grant a futile motion to
amend )

. But t he district court should have permit ted Ruiz to amend his Case: 19-30416 Document: 00515917542 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/28/2021No. 19

- 30416

4 complaint to assert claims against the other identified officials , or at a minimum, addressed in the first instance why those officials were not appropriate defendants

. S ee Brown v. Taylor , 829 F.3d 3 65, 370 (5th Cir. 2016) (explaining that a district court may dismiss a complaint with prejudice
sua sponte only if “the plaintiff has alleged his best case”) ; Eason v. Thaler , 14 F.3d 8, 10 (5th Cir. 1994) (concluding that the district court abused its
di scretion in failing to provide the plaintiff with an opportunity to amend where the deficiencies in his complaint could have been remedied by “further factual development and specificity”)

. We therefore vacate the judgment in part and remand for further proceedings. We neither express nor intimate any opinion with respect to the merits of Ruiz’s claims or with respect to
whether the proposed defendants are immune from suit ; the district court may resolve those matters in t he first instance, as appropriate

. We therefore **AFFIRM** in part and **VACATE** and **R EMAND**  in
part

. Case: 19-30416 Document: 00515917542 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/28/2021