Yevgeny Eugene Selivanov v. Xavier Beccera

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YEVGENY EUGENE SELIVANOV,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
XAVIER BECCERA,
Respondent-Appellee.
No. 18-56214
D.C. No. 2:18-cv-05200-RSWL
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Ronald S.W. Lew, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 19, 2019**
Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
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
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
FEB 22 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-56214
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 (1989) (citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241(c)(3) &
2254(a); Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234, 238 (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; 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.

-- 2 of 2 --