Case ID: f-appx_584/html/0804-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Kay LEWIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WHITE MOUNTAIN APACHE TRIBE, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 13-15467.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 12, 2014.
    
    Filed Sept. 16, 2014.
    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 Respondenb-Appellee.
    Before: BEA, IKUTA, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Kay Lewis appeals the district court’s dismissal of his petition for a writ of habe-as 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,” 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 Apaché 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. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.