Baldonado

MEMORANDUM **

Paul Baldonado (“Baldonado”) appeals the district court’s order dismissing in its entirety his action under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The parties are familiar with the facts of this case, which we repeat here only to the extent necessary to explain our decision. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo the applicability of the Feres doctrine, Dreier v. United States, 106 F.3d 844, 847 (9th *788 Cir.1997), and affirm in part and reverse in part.

As the district court properly held, the injuries Baldonado alleged in his complaint arose in the course of activity incident to military service. Therefore, Baldonado’s claims as alleged in the operative complaint are barred. Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135, 146 , 71 S.Ct. 153 , 95 L.Ed. 152 (1950); see also Jackson v. United States, 110 F.3d 1484, 1489 (9th Cir.1997) (“Feres bars suits for medical malpractice even when the treatment was not for military-related injuries.”).

However, “[djismissal of a pro se complaint without leave to amend is proper only if it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by amendment.” Weilburg v. Shapiro, 488 F.3d 1202, 1205…