Parish

MEMORANDUM **

Harvey Parish appeals the district court’s grant of judgment in favor of the County of Los Angeles. Parish’s $467 tax refund was improperly intercepted by the State of California after the County failed to update its computer system to reflect that Parish no longer had a child support arrearage, and Parish claims that the County is liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . The State returned Parish’s tax refund to him after about three months, and the district court awarded Parish statutory interest. In reviewing a judgment following a bench trial, we review the district court’s *931 findings of fact for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. Tonry v. Security Experts, Inc., 20 F.3d 967, 970 (9th Cir.1994). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Parish contends that the County violated his procedural due process rights. He argues that the tax intercept took place under established state procedure, and thus a pre-deprivation hearing was required pursuant to Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422, 436 , 102 S.Ct. 1148 , 71 L.Ed.2d 265 (1982). We disagree. Contrary to Parish’s assertions, two predeprivation hearings took place. At the…