Samuel San Miguel v. Greg Abbott, Governor of Texas, et al.

If Texas declares... that the Act which they confined Petitioner under (after he completed his prison sentence) is "civil," but it is actually "criminal," and if... the Supreme Court has clearly established. "A court will reject the legislature’s manifest intent only where a party challenging the Act provides the clearest proof that the statutory scheme is so punitive in either purpose or effect as to negate the State’s intention.” Did the District Court unfairly deny Petitioner an opportunity to provide the "clearest proof’ by not considering any of the proof presented and dismissing his complaint as a “facial” challenge, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed?, and if not...

Is there a proper way (and did petitioner present it here), to bring anything other than a “facial” challenge to the Act, and actually review the objective proof of the purpose and effect of the act to determine whether it is “Civil or “Criminal”?

Did the Appeals Court overlook an abuse of discretion by affirming the District Court’s denial of Petitioner’s request for a single opportunity to amend his complaint via a Rule 59(e) motion, as argued in his Appeal Brief, and should Plaintiff be given at least one opportunity to amend his complaint prior to dismissal with prejudice, in this case? Please, just one honest look please. Petitioner does not deserve nor seekfavor from the Court -nor could he, would he, or is he- implying leniency for any sex offences committed Just please let the law prevail.