SELIVANOV v. BECCERA (2019)

MEMORANDUM **

Former California state prisoner Yevgeny Eugene Selivanov appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition for lack of jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(a), and reviewing de novo, see Bailey v. Hill, 599 F.3d 976, 978 (9th Cir. 2010), we affirm.

It is a jurisdictional requirement that “the habeas petitioner be ‘in custody’ under the conviction or sentence under attack at the time his petition is filed.” Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490-91, 109 S.Ct. 1923, 104 L.Ed.2d 540 (1989) (citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241(c)(3) & 2254(a); Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234, 238, 88 S.Ct. 1556, 20 L.Ed.2d 554 (1968) ). It is undisputed that Selivanov was no longer incarcerated or subject to post-release supervision at the time he filed his § 2254 habeas petition, but he contends that he is “in custody” for habeas purposes because he is prohibited from holding public office as a result of his California state conviction for embezzling public funds. Selivanov’s contention is foreclosed by controlling precedent: the inability to hold public office is a collateral consequence that is not itself “sufficient to render an individual ‘in custody’ for the purposes of a habeas attack[.]” Maleng, 490 U.S. at 491-92, 109 S.Ct. 1923; see also Williamson v. Gregoire, 151 F.3d 1180, 1183 (9th Cir. 1998). Selivanov cites no authority to support his argument that this court should recognize an equitable exception to this rule in his case.

AFFIRMED.