Well, if they were non-living, they would not really have characteristics of living things. Living things use energy, grow, and reproduce (sexually and asexually) unaided.

There may be things that look like there are non-living because they may not be humans or animals, but still are. Or a creature that does not move may be mistaken for non-living.

There are two different types of cells:
eukaryotes and prokaryotes. The main differences are that prokaryotes have no nucleus, are unicellular, don't have a true membrane, and have no mitochondria (the powerhouse of a cell).

So may be some people may confuse prokaryotes to be non-living even if they are living.

Non-living things aren't really defined except as those things that don't share the characteristics of living things, so really your answer is 'no', by definition.

Defining life (and thus non-life) is a tricky business; life contains and passes on information, locally destroys entropy (although it creates it elsewhere), and is self-sustaining. Rocks carry information, lightning locally destroys entropy (by creating it elsewhere), and fire is self-sustaining, but none of these three things has more than just one of the characteristics of life.