Opinion ID: 4346792
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Qualified Immunity, Tucker Act, and FTCA

Text: The Government assumes Blimline has failed to allege facts in his complaint which could overcome qualified immunity. As for Blimline’s alleged noncompliance with the Tucker Act and the FTCA, the Government again relies on Blimline’s failure to allege facts that would demonstrate that he exhausted the remedies those subsections provide. Generally, a district court must not dismiss a pro se litigant’s complaint for failure to state a claim unless it has given the litigant an opportunity to develop the facts and amend his complaint to remedy the deficiencies. Eason v. Thaler, 14 F.3d 8, 9–10 (5th Cir.1994). Blimline did not have such an opportunity in this case because the magistrate judge and district court did not address this ground for dismissal. While the magistrate judge did state that Blimline was not permitted the opportunity to amend his complaint because such amendment would be futile, this conclusion was premised on the magistrate judge’s conclusion that 7 Case: 16-10067 Document: 00514746043 Page: 8 Date Filed: 12/03/2018 No. 16-10067 Blimline’s claims were Heck-barred, not because Blimline’s claims would fail on qualified immunity, Tucker Act, or FTCA grounds.