United States v. Bourque, 2:17-cr-00131

Defendant Miguel Anthony Borque was ordered restrained by leg shackles by Magistrate Judge Hoffman before a revocation of pretrial release hearing on June 19, 2017.
Borque objected to the shackling; he asserted Ninth Circuit law (Sanchez-Gomez) requires specific conditions be met before shackling.
Magistrate Judge made an individualized finding that shackling was justified by charges including obstruction of justice and fleeing arrest.
The district court later made an independent individualized finding before a subsequent change-of-plea hearing that leg shackles were the least restrictive means to preserve courtroom security.
The district court reviewed the objections de novo under the 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) clearly erroneous/contrary-to-law standard and denied the defendant’s objections.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the magistrate abused discretion by ordering leg shackles without an evidentiary hearing	Shackling was supported by individualized security concerns tied to Borque’s charges and history; magistrate’s order satisfied Sanchez‑Gomez’s individualized-showing requirement	Sanchez‑Gomez requires specific circumstances (e.g., disruptive behavior, escape attempts) and a hearing before ordering shackles	Denied. Court found an individualized determination was made and no hearing is categorically required; shackling was justified as least restrictive means
Whether Sanchez‑Gomez requires a pre‑shackling hearing or particular formalities	Sanchez‑Gomez requires justification tailored to the defendant, not a rote policy; individualized findings can vary in form	Sanchez‑Gomez mandates a hearing and specific findings before shackling	Denied. Sanchez‑Gomez requires individualized justification but does not mandate an evidentiary hearing in every case

Grimes v. County of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236 (9th Cir. 1991) (standard of review for magistrate non‑dispositive orders)
U.S. v. BNS, Inc., 858 F.2d 456 (9th Cir. 1988) (reviewing court may not substitute its judgment for deciding court)
Merritt v. Int’l Broth. of Boilermakers, 649 F.2d 1013 (5th Cir. 1981) (magistrate pretrial orders are not subject to de novo review under §636(b)(1)(A))
U.S. v. Sanchez‑Gomez, 859 F.3d 649 (9th Cir. 2017) (requires individualized justification that shackling is necessary and least restrictive)
Gonzalez v. Pliler, 341 F.3d 897 (9th Cir. 2003) (discusses relative prejudice of restraints and circumstances supporting shackling)
Duckett v. Godinez, 67 F.3d 734 (9th Cir. 1995) (trial court not required to state all reasons on record or hold evidentiary hearing before ordering restraints)
Jones v. Meyer, 899 F.2d 883 (9th Cir. 1990) (court has not held that a hearing is mandated before ordering shackles)