Opinion ID: 2764312
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: conclusion

Text: Because we conclude that the complaint alleges sufficient facts to state a claim, we REVERSE and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 29 28 Southland, 326 F.3d at 682 n.8 (Jones, J., specially concurring). 29 On appeal, Bollinger asserted four alternative grounds for dismissal which we decline to adopt, including its contention that the First Amended Complaint should be dismissed because it refers only generally to “Bollinger” and fails to allege with particularity the specific acts taken by each of the three defendants. The United States argues that its ability to plead the acts of each defendant with greater particularity depends on discovery of facts within Bollinger’s control, and Bollinger has not provided that information in discovery. The district court has not yet addressed this issue, but in the event the district court finds some merit in Bollinger’s argument on remand, it may consider less drastic alternatives to dismissal, including leave to amend, perhaps after additional discovery. See FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a)(2); Grubbs, 565 F.3d at 192 & n.36. 16