Damian Ignacio Cano v. Stephen Navicky

26 F.3d 129 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Damian Ignacio CANO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Stephen NAVICKY, et al., Defendants-Appellees. No. 93-15849. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted May 24, 1994. * Decided June 9, 1994. Before: HUG, D.W. NELSON, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Damian Ignacio Cano appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his civil rights action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Cano claims that the defendants, United States Customs Service Officer Stephen Navicky, United States Marshal Glen E. Robinson, Deputy Marshal James E. Dixon, and Assistant United States Attorneys R. Christopher Locke and John W. Kennedy denied him due process during the forfeiture of his property in 1986. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 , and we affirm. 3 First, Cano contends that the district court erred by treating the defendants' motion…