
    Todd GIFFEN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Barack OBAMA, President; et al., Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 15-15125.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 25, 2015.
    
    Filed Sept. 1, 2015.
    Todd Giffen, Modesto, CA, pro se.
    Bureau of Prisons Regional Counsel, Stockton, CA, for Respondents-Appellees.
    Before: McKEOWN, CLIFTON, 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

Todd Giffen appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition as frivolous. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate and remand with instructions to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction.

Giffen contends that the government has subjected him to civil rights violations, illegal searches and surveillance, and other abuses, including irradiation and electronic warfare. A federal court only has jurisdiction under section 2241 to grant a writ of habeas corpus to a person “in custody” when his writ is filed. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c); Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490-91, 109 S.Ct. 1923, 104 L.Ed.2d 540 (1989). The state court record shows that, at the time Giffen filed his petition, he was not “in custody” because he was not incarcerated, placed on supervised release, or subject to a restraint not shared by the public generally. See Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236, 239-40, 243, 83 S.Ct. 373, 9 L.Ed.2d 285 (1963). Giffen’s allegations of wrongdoing are unsupported by the record and insufficient to meet section 2241’s custody requirement.

Because Giffen was not “in custody,” the district court did not have jurisdiction over his petition. See Maleng, 490 U.S. at 490, 109 S.Ct. 1923. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand with instructions to the district court to dismiss Giffen’s habe-as petition for lack of jurisdiction.

VACATED and REMANDED with directions. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     