Brandon Scott Lavergne, Louisiana prisoner # 424229, pleaded guilty to two counts of first degree murder for the murders of Michaela Shunick and Lisa Pate. Thereafter, Lavergne filed a civil rights complaint against the University of Louisiana at Lafayette (ULL). The district court dismissed the complaint as barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), and, alternatively, for failure to state a claim because ULL was immune from suit. Lavergne’s state law claims were dismissed without prejudice.

This court reviews a dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) de novo, applying the same standard that is used to review a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Black v. Warren, 134 F.3d 732, 733-34 (5th Cir. 1998) (per cu-riam). Questions of whether a defendant is entitled to immunity are likewise reviewed de novo. Hale v. King, 642 F.3d 492, 497 (5th Cir. 2011) (per curiam).

Lavergne has not challenged the district court’s determination that ULL was entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity or that it was declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims. Although pro se briefs are liberally construed, even pro se litigants must brief arguments in order to preserve them. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993). Lavergne has therefore failed to show that the district court erred in dismissing his complaint as to these claims. See id.

In his briefs, Lavergne renews his attack on the actions taken by ULL, which resulted in it obtaining a statement from Claire Higgingbottom. He contends that the district court erred in dismissing his claims based on Heck. We disagree. Lavergne specifically alleged that Higgingbottom’s statement “was being used as evidence in a capital murder ease.” If the district court were to award Lavergne damages as to any of his claims, it would implicitly call into question the validity of his murder conviction of Shunick. See Heck, 512 U.S. at 487, 114 S.Ct. 2364; Penley v. Collin Cnty., Tex., 446 F.3d 572, 573 (5th Cir. 2006) (per curiam). In this same vein, any error in denying his motions to amend was harmless because the amendments were futile in light of Eleventh Amendment immunity and the Heck bar. See United States v. Gonzalez, 592 F..3d 675, 681 (5th Cir. 2009) (per curiam). To the extent Lavergne raises new claims on appeal, we do not address them. See Williams v. Ballard, 466 F.3d 330, 335 (5th Cir. 2006) (per curiam).

Lavergne’s motion to appoint counsel is DENIED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.