Jones

MEMORANDUM **

Federal inmate John Robert Jones appeals the dismissal of his amended complaint alleging civil rights claims under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 , 91 S.Ct. 1999 , 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, and 18 U.S.C. § 2520 . The district court dismissed his amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292 , and we affirm.

We review a district court’s decision to dismiss pursuant to § 1915A de novo. Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 853 (9th Cir.2003). Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 , 114 S.Ct. 2364 , 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), states:

Id. at 486-87. Heck’s requirements apply equally to suits brought under Bivens. See Martin v. Sias, 88 F.3d 774, 775 (9th Cir.1996).

Jones alleges that the evidence used against him at trial was unconstitutionally seized. This claim implicates the validity of his conviction, and Jones has not proven that his conviction was reversed, expunged, or otherwise called into question. Accordingly, it is barred by *727 Heck. See Harvey v. Waldron, 210 F.3d 1008, 1015 (9th Cir.2000) (stating that a “ § 1983…