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, “custo *805 dy,” 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.