Eleventh Amendment Dismissals Must Be Without Prejudice; Conclusory Pleadings Cannot Sustain Claims Against State Officials — Commentary on Preziosi v. Louisiana DCFS (5th Cir. 2025)

Introduction

In an unpublished, per curiam decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Preziosi v. Louisiana Department of Children and Family Services (No. 25-30021, Nov. 5, 2025) addressed the intersection of Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity and federal pleading standards. Plaintiff–Appellant Stephen Paul Preziosi sued the Louisiana Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) and several of its officers, alleging constitutional violations arising from long-running domestic relations disputes and public-records requests. The district court dismissed all claims, holding that DCFS is immune under the Eleventh Amendment and that the complaint lacked factual allegations tying the officers to any actionable misconduct.

On appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the substance of the dismissal, but modified an important detail: because Eleventh Amendment immunity is jurisdictional, dismissals on that ground must be without prejudice. The court also affirmed dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) because Preziosi’s claims against individual officers were conclusory and failed to state a plausible claim.

The case is a clear reminder of two core doctrines: (1) Eleventh Amendment immunity deprives federal courts of subject-matter jurisdiction over claims against state agencies and state officials in their official capacities unless a waiver, abrogation, or Ex parte Young exception applies; and (2) conclusory allegations, without specific, well-pleaded facts, cannot survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.

Summary of the Opinion

The Fifth Circuit held:

DCFS, as a state agency, is entitled to Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity; no waiver or congressional abrogation applied. All claims against DCFS were properly dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Official-capacity claims against the officers were also barred, as the complaint did not allege enforcement of an unconstitutional state law or an ongoing violation of federal law sufficient to trigger the Ex parte Young exception.
Because sovereign immunity is jurisdictional, dismissals on that ground must be without prejudice. The district court erred by dismissing those claims with prejudice; the Fifth Circuit modified the judgment accordingly.
Individual-capacity claims failed under Rule 12(b)(6) because the complaint stated only conclusory allegations devoid of specific facts, and the appellant failed to cure or meaningfully brief such deficiencies on appeal.
Other issues—such as public-records/FOIA assertions, appointment of counsel, supervisory liability, alleged improper case transfer, and discovery rulings—were deemed forfeited for inadequate briefing and/or failure to remedy procedural deficiencies.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Role

City of Austin v. Paxton, 943 F.3d 993 (5th Cir. 2019): Reaffirmed that the Eleventh Amendment generally bars private suits against nonconsenting states in federal court. It also underscores that suits against state officials in their official capacity are, in effect, suits against the state.
Healthy Vision Ass’n v. Abbott, 138 F.4th 385 (5th Cir. 2025): Restated the core rule: federal courts lack jurisdiction over suits against a state, its agencies, or officials acting officially unless the state has waived immunity or Congress clearly abrogated it. Also tied the jurisdictional bar to the well-known Ex parte Young exception allowing prospective relief against ongoing violations of federal law.
Moore v. Louisiana Bd. of Elementary & Secondary Educ., 743 F.3d 959 (5th Cir. 2014): Cited for the immunity/waiver/abrogation framework adopted in Healthy Vision.
Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908): The foundational exception to sovereign immunity: plaintiffs may obtain prospective injunctive relief against state officials for ongoing violations of federal law. The opinion quotes the principle that a state official enforcing unconstitutional law is “stripped” of sovereign status for purposes of such relief.
Jackson v. Wright, 82 F.4th 362 (5th Cir. 2023); Haverkamp v. Linthicum, 6 F.4th 662 (5th Cir. 2021) (per curiam): These cases reinforce the contours of the Ex parte Young pathway, emphasizing the need to identify a violation of federal law to bypass Eleventh Amendment immunity.
McLin v. Twenty-First Judicial District, 79 F.4th 411 (5th Cir. 2023); Ramming v. United States, 281 F.3d 158 (5th Cir. 2001): Standards of review: de novo review for 12(b)(1) jurisdictional dismissals; courts must consider jurisdiction before merits.
McKay v. LaCroix, 117 F.4th 741 (5th Cir. 2024); Petrobras Am., Inc. v. Samsung Heavy Indus. Co., Ltd., 9 F.4th 247 (5th Cir. 2021): De novo review of Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals.
Dorsey v. Portfolio Equities, Inc., 540 F.3d 333 (5th Cir. 2008); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009); Edmiston v. Borrego, 75 F.4th 551 (5th Cir. 2023): Pleading standards. Courts accept well-pleaded facts as true but disregard legal conclusions and naked assertions; a complaint must allege enough facts to state a plausible claim.
Spivey v. Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana, 79 F.4th 444 (5th Cir. 2023); United States v. $4,480,466.16 in Funds Seized from Bank of Am. Account Ending in 2653, 942 F.3d 655 (5th Cir. 2019): Critical to this appeal: dismissals for sovereign immunity are jurisdictional and thus must be without prejudice. The appellate court reviews with/without prejudice decisions for abuse of discretion—here correcting the error.
Rollins v. Home Depot USA, 8 F.4th 393 (5th Cir. 2021): A party forfeits issues not adequately raised or briefed; this supported the panel’s conclusion that several of Preziosi’s arguments were waived on appeal.

Legal Reasoning

The Fifth Circuit’s reasoning proceeds in two tracks: jurisdiction under the Eleventh Amendment and merits sufficiency under Rule 12(b)(6).

First, as to jurisdiction, the court applied the canonical Eleventh Amendment framework. DCFS, an arm of the State of Louisiana, is presumptively immune absent consent or congressional abrogation. The court found neither. Accordingly, all claims against DCFS were jurisdictionally barred. The same analysis applied to the officers in their official capacities: unless an Ex parte Young exception applies, official-capacity suits are treated as suits against the state. The court emphasized that the Ex parte Young exception turns on the plaintiff pleading an ongoing violation of federal law (or enforcement of an unconstitutional state law) by a state official and seeking prospective relief. Preziosi, however, did not identify any unconstitutional law or specific ongoing unconstitutional enforcement action by the officers. The complaint asserted constitutional violations in conclusory terms without specifying operative facts or a legal theory fitting the Ex parte Young rubric. Consequently, sovereign immunity barred the official-capacity claims.

Crucially, the panel corrected the district court’s disposition on those sovereign-immunity grounds: because immunity is a limitation on subject-matter jurisdiction, the proper disposition is dismissal without prejudice, not with prejudice. The court relied on Spivey and $4,480,466.16 to modify the judgment.

Second, as to the individual-capacity claims, the court affirmed dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6). Applying the Iqbal/Fifth Circuit plausibility framework, the panel held that Preziosi offered only conclusory allegations “bereft of any specific facts” showing what each officer did that violated a constitutional right. The appellant also focused his briefing on sovereign immunity rather than curing or defending the sufficiency of his factual allegations. On that record, dismissal for failure to state a claim was proper.

Finally, the panel deemed other complaints—concerning public-records or FOIA requests, appointment of counsel, supervisory liability, alleged improper reassignments, and discovery management—waived or otherwise nonviable given the failure to brief or remedy identified deficiencies.

Impact

Although unpublished and nonprecedential under Fifth Circuit Rule 47.5, the decision carries practical significance:

Reaffirmation of the remedy for sovereign immunity dismissals: District courts must dismiss claims barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity without prejudice. This preserves the jurisdictional nature of the bar and prevents erroneous claim-preclusion effects that might attach to a dismissal with prejudice on the merits.
Clarification of the Ex parte Young pathway: Plaintiffs seeking prospective relief against state officials must identify a concrete, ongoing violation of federal law (or enforcement of an unconstitutional state law) and plead specific facts. Generic accusations of “constitutional violations,” without detail, will not suffice.
Pleading rigor in individual-capacity claims: The case underscores that plaintiffs must connect each named officer to specific, well-pleaded acts that plausibly amount to a constitutional violation. Conclusory narratives and generalized grievances will be dismissed.
Appellate waiver for inadequate briefing: The Fifth Circuit continues to strictly enforce briefing requirements. Claims not developed in the district court or adequately briefed on appeal are deemed forfeited.

For practitioners, the decision is a procedural roadmap: identify the proper defendants and capacities, craft an Ex parte Young theory where appropriate, and meet plausibility standards with particularized factual allegations. Where state agencies are defendants, anticipate sovereign immunity and tailor relief accordingly.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Eleventh Amendment Sovereign Immunity: A constitutional doctrine that prevents private parties from suing states, state agencies, and state officials (in their official capacities) in federal court unless (a) the state consents; (b) Congress clearly abrogates immunity under a valid power; or (c) the suit fits the Ex parte Young exception.
Ex parte Young Exception: Allows suits against state officials in their official capacities for prospective injunctive relief to stop ongoing violations of federal law. It does not permit damages against the state, nor does it allow retrospective relief for past conduct. A plaintiff must plausibly allege the ongoing violation and seek forward-looking relief.
Official vs. Individual Capacity: - Official-capacity suits are effectively against the state; sovereign immunity applies unless an exception exists. - Individual-capacity suits target the official personally, seeking damages for their own unlawful conduct; sovereign immunity does not shield individuals in this posture, but plaintiffs must still meet the plausibility standard (and, in many cases, overcome qualified immunity, though that doctrine is not discussed in this opinion).
Rule 12(b)(1) vs. Rule 12(b)(6): - Rule 12(b)(1) addresses subject-matter jurisdiction. If sovereign immunity applies, the federal court lacks power to hear the case at all, and dismissal must be without prejudice. - Rule 12(b)(6) addresses whether the complaint states a legally sufficient claim. Dismissal under this rule is on the merits of the pleading and may be with prejudice if amendment would be futile.
Pleading Standards (Iqbal): A complaint must contain factual matter that, accepted as true, states a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Conclusory statements and legal labels are disregarded.
“With Prejudice” vs. “Without Prejudice”: - With prejudice: the claim is dismissed on the merits and generally cannot be refiled. - Without prejudice: the dismissal is not on the merits; the plaintiff may refile the claim (subject to other bars like statutes of limitations or other doctrines).
FOIA Note: The opinion references “FOIA” requests. As a general matter, the federal Freedom of Information Act applies to federal agencies, not state agencies. State-level records are typically governed by state public-records laws. The court here did not resolve a FOIA claim on the merits; it deemed related issues forfeited.

Practical Guidance and Takeaways

When suing a state agency (like DCFS): Expect an Eleventh Amendment challenge. Unless the state has waived immunity or Congress has abrogated it for your cause of action, the federal court lacks jurisdiction.
If seeking prospective relief against state conduct: Consider an Ex parte Young theory. Identify: - the specific state official(s); - the ongoing violation of federal law or enforcement of an unconstitutional statute/policy; and - the precise prospective relief sought to halt the violation.
Plead facts, not conclusions: Tie each defendant to specific actions, dates, and conduct that plausibly violate an identified constitutional or statutory right. Avoid broad accusations without detail.
Mind the remedy alignment: Damages are generally unavailable against states and state officials in their official capacities. Injunctive or declaratory relief is the usual route for official-capacity claims; damages are typically sought in individual-capacity suits, which require robust factual allegations and often implicate qualified immunity defenses.
Preserve and brief issues: Arguments not properly raised below or adequately briefed on appeal are forfeited. Develop the record and briefing with specificity.
Effect of “without prejudice” modification: A jurisdictional dismissal does not adjudicate the merits and does not trigger claim-preclusion on the substance. Plaintiffs may assess refiling strategies consistent with jurisdictional constraints and applicable statutes of limitations.

Notes on Issues Not Reached

The panel decided the case on sovereign-immunity and pleading grounds. It did not address other doctrines that sometimes arise in domestic-relations-adjacent federal suits, such as the domestic relations exception, Rooker–Feldman, or abstention doctrines. Practitioners should evaluate those independently in similar litigation.

Conclusion

Preziosi reinforces two bedrock rules in the Fifth Circuit: (1) Eleventh Amendment immunity is jurisdictional, so dismissals on that basis must be without prejudice; and (2) conclusory allegations cannot sustain constitutional claims against state officials, especially in individual-capacity suits that require defendant-specific factual detail. While unpublished and nonprecedential, the opinion offers clear, practical guidance for structuring complaints against state entities and officials and for aligning requested relief with the appropriate jurisdictional and doctrinal frameworks. Litigants should heed the court’s insistence on precise pleading and on the proper use of Ex parte Young when seeking prospective relief against ongoing violations of federal law.

Precedential status: This opinion is not designated for publication under 5th Cir. R. 47.5; it is not binding precedent but may be cited for its persuasive value.