Aaron Hollier v. Randy Watson, 605 F. App'x 255

Aaron Hollier and family challenged Texas lifetime sex-offender registration, alleging violations of due process, equal protection, double jeopardy, Ex Post Facto Clause, and a failure-to-protect theory; sued state officials in their official capacities.
Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12; local rule CV-7(e) required responses within 14 days. The Holliers did not respond within 14 days.
The district court granted the motion to dismiss as unopposed 18 days after filing (before the 21-day Rule 15(a)(1) period to amend as a matter of course had expired).
Twenty-one days after the motion, the Holliers filed an amended complaint and moved for leave to amend and for reconsideration; the district court denied both and struck the amended complaint, concluding the amended pleading asserted the same claims and defendants.
On appeal, the Fifth Circuit addressed (1) whether the district court erred by applying Local Rule CV-7(e) before the 21-day Rule 15(a)(1) window elapsed and (2) whether the original or amended complaints stated viable claims.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed: it found the premature application of the local rule was erroneous but not reversible because the district court had reviewed the amended complaint and concluded amendment would be futile; substantively, the complaints failed to state cognizable constitutional claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district court erred by granting dismissal before Rule 15(a)(1) 21-day window elapsed	Hollier: premature grant deprived them of the right to amend as a matter of course	Defendants: local rule permits grant as unopposed after 14 days; dismissal proper	Court: Application of local rule was error but not reversible because court reviewed amended complaint and no rights were lost
Whether amended complaint should have been allowed (leave to amend)	Hollier: amended pleading added factual allegations supporting claims (e.g., low recidivism, threats against registrants)	Defendants: amendment was futile; pleading reasserted same claims/defendants	Court: Denial of leave was proper (futility); reviewing de novo, claims are not viable
Whether the complaints state a procedural or substantive due process claim	Hollier: registry infringes fundamental rights (where to live, parental consortium)	Defendants: registration statutes do not violate due process under precedent	Court: Claims fail; sex-offender registration does not violate due process
Whether claims under Ex Post Facto, Equal Protection, Double Jeopardy, and failure-to-protect are viable	Hollier: statutes and application impaired these constitutional protections	Defendants: existing precedent rejects these challenges; failure-to-protect speculative/lacks standing	Court: All these claims fail as a matter of law; failure-to-protect claim lacks standing/speculation

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
Whitley v. Hanna, 726 F.3d 631 (5th Cir. 2013) (standard for reviewing Rule 12 dismissals)
Conn. Dep’t of Pub. Safety v. Doe, 538 U.S. 1 (2003) (sex-offender registration not a punitive deprivation violating due process)
Meza v. Livingston, 607 F.3d 392 (5th Cir. 2010) (sex-offender registry and procedural due process)
Sobranes Recovery Pool I, LLC v. Tood & Hughes Const. Corp., 509 F.3d 216 (5th Cir. 2007) (affirmance possible on any ground supported by record)
Kinsley v. Lakeview Reg’l Med. Ctr. LLC, 570 F.3d 586 (5th Cir. 2009) (local rules cannot conflict with federal rules)
McKinney v. Irving Indep. Sch. Dist., 309 F.3d 308 (5th Cir. 2002) (denial of leave to amend permissible when amendment would be futile)
Stripling v. Jordan Prod. Co., LLC, 234 F.3d 863 (5th Cir. 2000) (futility is a valid ground to deny leave to amend)