Abney

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Thomas William Abney appeals pro se the district *799 court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, which alleged illegal search and seizure, due process violations, and an unconstitutional taking. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, see Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000), and we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

Abney alleged that defendants Trevino and Richardson illegally searched and seized property beyond the scope of a search warrant, and that none of the seized property was introduced into evidence at trial. The district court erred by dismissing this claim because on the record before us a judgment in Abney’s favor on this claim would not necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 , 114 S.Ct. 2364 , 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994).

Contrary to Abney’s contention, the existence of an adequate, state post-deprivation procedure may satisfy due process where the deprivations are alleged against government officials who are not prison officials. See, e.g., King v. Massarweh, 782 F.2d 825, 826-27 (9th Cir.1986)…