YEVGENY SELIVANOV V. XAVIER BECCERA, No. 18-56214 (9th Cir. 2019)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FEB 22 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT YEVGENY EUGENE SELIVANOV, Petitioner-Appellant, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 18-56214 D.C. No. 2:18-cv-05200-RSWL v. MEMORANDUM* XAVIER BECCERA, Respondent-Appellee. 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). 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 18-56214

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.