Whether the district court and court of appeals properly applied the requirements for pleadings as applied in most circuits

QUESTION PRESENTED On October 27, 2015, the immigration judge of the Dallas Immigration Court (IJ) based his decision to remove Vetcher on the law precedent established by Mellouli v. : Lynch 1385 S. Ct. 1980 (2015) pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)G). The immigration judge misapplied precedents established since 1990 by the US Supreme Court and 5th Circuit Court of Appeals (COA). Vetcher was not able to rebut. He was denied access to the Méellouli v. Lynch case law even though he specifically requested it prior to the hearing. Vetcher filed suit in the Northern District of Texas for denial of access to court by Defendants with a timeline of facts regarding the ruling made by IJ. The district court of the Northern District of Texas (DC) dismissed Vetcher’s access to court claim based on Mellouli with prejudice. District court then denied Vetcher leave to amend. COA upheld the district court’s dismissal and denial of leave to amend. District Courts may dismiss with prejudice where the plaintiff acted irresponsibly or in bad faith, or where rehearing the claim would burden the court system. DC did not state clearly any of the common reasons for dismissal with prejudice. The reason given for the DC’s dismissal was that Vetcher’s claim was conclusory, failing to adequately identify the acts or events that would entitle him relief from Defendants. The common practice for dismissal of conclusory allegations is to dismiss without prejudice and permit the litigant to correct his claim. If the dismissal is with prejudice, then the order should state a specific reason why the plaintiff’s further claim was futile. Did DC and COA properly apply the requirements for pleadings as applied in most circuits? _ Vetcher timely filed to amend with DC alleging claims and facts related to the previous violation.In 2017 COA changed its binding categorical approach holding, requiring Vetcher to show that the mismatch of 188 listed on Texas Controlled Substance list (and not federal) was actually prosecuted by the state. During his detention, Vetcher notified Defendants he needed arrest/conviction records to challenge his detention and pending deportation. The Defendants did not provide the information. Subsequently, Vetcher was deported. Vetcher asked for leave to amend to include these new facts. District court denied Vetcher's motion although claims where timely on their own. COA upheld DC's ruling. Did DC and COA deny Vetcher’s right to amend? 3