Pallas v. Faust

972 F.2d 1341 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Peter G. PALLAS; Frances D. Pallas, husband and wife, d/b/a Liberty Video, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. James M. FAUST; Douglas P. Hintze; Drug Enforcement Administration; Robert D. Dreisbach, Defendants-Appellees. No. 91-35461. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted July 7, 1992. Decided July 24, 1992. Before ALARCON, RYMER and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM * 2 Peter and Frances Pallas appeal the Rule 41(b) dismissal of their Bivens action 1 against several agents of the Drug Enforcement Administration. The Pallases claimed violations of their Fourth Amendment rights arising from the DEA agents' seizure of the videotape inventory at Liberty Video & Auto Sales ("Liberty Video") incident to the execution of a search warrant. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . Because the Pallases lack standing under the Fourth Amendment, we affirm. 3 * In October 1987, the…