This is an appeal by Charles Thibodeaux (“Thibodeaux”) challenging two district court orders dismissing his Bivens 1 action against defendants for failure to state a claim. In his complaint, Thibodeaux alleges that defendants committed various unlawful acts related to his criminal prosecution and conviction in 1992-93. All of the conduct alleged in the complaint occurred during that time.

Thibodeaux claims that defendants Lester Tamashiro, an FBI Agent, and Marvin Opotowsky, a former United States Attorney, searched his residence without a warrant or probable cause in 1992. 2 He further alleges that Tamashiro lied to a United States Magistrate Judge in order to obtain a warrant, and that Opotowsky violated the ex post facto provision of the United States Constitution by charging him with a crime.

Thibodeaux alleges that defendant Kerry Cuccia, his attorney at the time, told him to plead guilty although he was innocent, and refused to represent him. He also claims that defendant Elizabeth De-Paula, a United States Probation Officer, shared information with his employer that lead to Thibodeaux’s forced resignation. Finally, Thibodeaux asserts that defendant Patrick Williams, also a United States Probation Officer, warned Thibodeaux not to report the incident with De Paula or he would “spend the rest of his life in a Mental Institution.”

The government moved to dismiss Thi-bodeaux’s claims against Opotowsky, De Paula, and Williams, in their individual capacities, as well as Thibodeaux’s claims against the Department of Justice. On March 6, 2013, the district court granted the motion, and dismissed Thibodeaux’s claims against these defendants for various reasons. The court dismissed the claims against the De Paula and Williams as time-barred under the relevant statute of limitations; it dismissed the claims against Opo-towsky under the doctrine established in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), because they necessarily imply the invalidity of his underlying conviction; and it dismissed the claims against the DOJ as barred by sovereign immunity. See Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 486, 114 S.Ct. 996, 127 L.Ed.2d 308 (1994).

Also in its order on dismissal, the district court notified Thibodeaux that it intended to dismiss his claims against his attorney Kerry Cuccia sua sponte because the claims were barred by Heck and the relevant statute of limitations, and because it did not appear that Cuccia was acting under color of law. The court instructed him to file an opposition to such a dismissal no later than March 15, 2013. Thibodeaux filed an “error in dismissal” on March 12, 2013, and the Court, unpersuaded by his arguments, issued an order dismissing his claims against Cuccia on March 14, 2013.

*420 After careful review, we find no error in the district court’s decisions. For the reasons explained by the district court in its orders of dismissal, we hereby AFFIRM. 3