584 Fed.Appx. 804 (Mem)
This case was not selected for publication in West’s Federal Reporter.
See Fed. Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 generally governing citation of judicial decisions issued on or after Jan. 1, 2007. See also U.S.Ct. of App. 9th Cir. Rule 36-3.
United States Court of Appeals,
Kay LEWIS, Petitioner–Appellant,
WHITE MOUNTAIN APACHE TRIBE, Respondent–Appellee.
Submitted Sept. 12, 2014.*
Filed Sept. 16, 2014.
Attorneys and Law Firms
David Robert Jordan, Esquire, The Law Offices of David R. Jordan, PC, Gallup, NM, for Petitioner–Appellant.
George Randall Hesse, George Hesse PLLC, Pinetop, AZ, Richard James Palmer, Jr., White Mountain Apache Tribe, Whiteriver, AZ, for Respondent–Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Susan R. Bolton, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 3:12–cv–08073–SRB.
Before: BEA, IKUTA, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Kay Lewis appeals the district court’s dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 25 U.S.C. § 1303, the Indian Civil Rights Act. We affirm.
The district court could not grant Lewis habeas relief unless he was in “detention,” § 1303, or its functional equivalent, “custody,” *805 Jeffredo v. Macarro, 599 F.3d 913, 918 (9th Cir.2010). Custody involves “severe restraints on [a person’s] individual liberty,” Hensley v. San Jose Dist. Mun. Ct., 411 U.S. 345, 351, 93 S.Ct. 1571, 36 L.Ed.2d 294 (1973), including restraints that fall “outside conventional notions of physical custody,” Edmunds v. Won Bae Chang, 509 F.2d 39, 40 (9th Cir.1975).
The district court correctly held that the White Mountain Apache Tribe’s refusal to permit Lewis to run for election to the Tribal Council was not a sufficiently severe restraint on his liberty to constitute custody. The restriction of Lewis’ candidacy does not create a deprivation of liberty similar to the types of infringement on personal movement previously recognized as establishing federal habeas corpus jurisdiction. See Hensley, 411 U.S. at 351, 93 S.Ct. 1571 (release on own recognizance with restrictions on movement); Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236, 237, 241–42, 83 S.Ct. 373, 9 L.Ed.2d 285 (1963) (parole restrictions); Poodry v. Tonawanda Band of Seneca Indians, 85 F.3d 874, 879, 893–95 (2d Cir.1996) (banishment).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. The Tribe’s “Motion to Strike Part of Appellant’s Reply Brief for Matters Not in the Record” is DENIED.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36–3.