Page

MEMORANDUM

Sammy L. Page appeals pro se the district court’s order dismissing his complaint brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm in part, and reverse and remand in part.

We review de novo dismissals for failure to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . See Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam).

Here, Page alleged that prison officials refused to pay him parole release funds because of his civil confinement status. Because Page had an adequate state-law post-deprivation remedy, the district court properly dismissed his due process claim. See id.

The district court erred, however, by failing to construe liberally Page’s complaint as also alleging an equal protection violation concerning the release of parole release funds to civilly-confined persons. See Fraley v. United States Bureau of Prisons, 1 F.3d 924, 926 (9th Cir.1993) (per curiam) (concluding that equal protec *640 tion rights are violated where petitioner shows that she was being treated differently from “similarly situated” prisoners). Page contends that he is similarly situated to non-eivilly confined parolees. See Page v.…