Holmes

MEMORANDUM *

Joel Holmes appeals the district court’s dismissal of his habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253, and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Holmes’ habeas petition because Holmes was not “in custody” for purposes of habe-as jurisdiction at the time he filed his petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ; Bailey v. Hill, 599 F.3d 976, 978-79 (9th Cir.2010). The “in custody” requirement is met when a petitioner “is subject to a significant restraint upon his liberty ‘not shared by *661 the public generally.’ ” Wilson v. Belleque, 554 F.3d 816, 822 (9th Cir.2009) (quoting Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236, 240 , 83 S.Ct. 373 , 9 L.Ed.2d 285 (1963)). The state court’s order that Holmes “shall have no contact with” the victims of his harassment did not place a “severe” and “immediate” restraint on Holmes’ individual liberty, Hensley v. Municipal Court, 411 U.S. 345, 351 , 93 S.Ct. 1571 , 36 L.Ed.2d 294 (1973), and thus does not render him “in custody” for habeas purposes. See Williamson v. Gregoire, 151 F.3d 1180, 1183 (9th Cir.1998) (collecting cases holding that the imposition of a fine, suspension of one’s driver’s license, revocation…