Martin-Perez v. Major, 3:18-cv-00996

Petitioners (four criminal defendants) challenged being brought into magistrate court wearing leg restraints during pretrial appearances in May 2018 in the Southern District of California and sought mandamus relief and a stay/injunction.
On May 17–18, some magistrate judges ordered defendants brought in with leg restraints only; objections were raised, one matter was trailed and the defendant later appeared unrestrained, others had motions to remove restraints denied.
Petitioners asked the district court to direct magistrate judges not to use leg restraints absent an individualized determination of need.
The United States Marshals Service has policies authorizing use of restraints; southern border districts handle a high volume of detainees and reported large increases in prosecutions.
The court held a hearing, considered the unsettled precedent after the Supreme Court’s vacatur in Sanchez-Gomez III, and denied the petition and request for stay/injunction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether writ of mandamus should issue to bar leg restraints absent individualized findings	Leg restraints used routinely violate due process and require individualized determinations	Magistrate judges acted within discretion given security needs and unsettled law	Denied — mandamus inappropriate; not clearly erroneous given circumstances
Whether collateral-order review is available for magistrate shackling orders	Petitioners asked court to treat challenge as immediately appealable collateral order	Govt argued such orders are reviewable on appeal from final judgment and collateral-order doctrine is narrow	Denied — court declined to construe petition as collateral-order appeal
Whether emergency stay or injunction should issue pending review	Restraints cause irreparable liberty/dignity harm and likelihood of success on merits	Govt emphasized security interest, volume of cases, and unsettled precedent	Denied — petitioners failed to show likelihood of success and irreparable harm sufficient for relief
Standard required for courtroom restraints in pretrial non-jury appearances	Petitioners urged an individualized, case-specific determination before restraints	Govt and marshals relied on local security needs and operational policies	Court: case-by-case inquiry appropriate; one-size-fits-all policies discouraged but not conclusively unlawful here

Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622 (2005) (holding visible shackling at trial undermines presumption of innocence, right to counsel, and dignity absent an essential, case-specific security interest)
United States v. Sanchez-Gomez, 859 F.3d 649 (9th Cir. en banc 2017) (held due process requires individualized determination before using physical restraints in nonjury or pretrial proceedings)
United States v. Sanchez-Gomez, 798 F.3d 1204 (9th Cir. 2015) (earlier panel decision scrutinizing San Diego restraint policy and requiring justification for full restraints)
United States v. Howard, 480 F.3d 1005 (9th Cir. 2007) (upheld district-wide policy of leg restraints at first appearance based on courthouse-specific security concerns)
United States v. LaFond, 783 F.3d 1216 (11th Cir. 2015) (concluded constitution does not bar leg restraints at sentencing/hearings before district judge without individualized finding)
United States v. Zuber, 118 F.3d 101 (2d Cir. 1997) (upheld use of leg restraints in non-jury proceedings)
Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court, 408 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir. 2005) (sets mandamus/extraordinary-relief factors used to evaluate writ requests)