1. 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...

2. 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 "?

3. 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?

Whether the District Court and Fifth Circuit improperly denied Petitioner's opportunity to provide 'clearest proof' that a Texas civil commitment act is actually punitive and criminal in nature