Durand

*544 MEMORANDUM **

Edwin Durand and Madelaine Durand appeal pro se from the district court’s orders dismissing their action against the United States Customs Service, an arm of Customs and Border Patrol (“CBP”), and various entities and individuals alleging that their constitutional rights were violated when they attempted to import a Mercedes-Benz from Germany. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo the district court’s dismissal orders. See Hicks v. Small, 69 F.3d 967, 969 (9th Cir.1995) (dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6)). We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion for reconsideration. School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir.1993). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the Durands’ constitutional tort claims against the CBP and the Treasury based on sovereign immunity. See Arnsberg v. United States, 757 F.2d 971, 980 (9th Cir.1985) (rejecting Bivens claim against the federal government and its agencies absent waiver of sovereign immunity). The district court’s dismissal of common law tort claims against the CBP and the…