United States v. Rene Sanchez-Gomez, 859 F.3d 649

Background

In 2013 the Southern District of California adopted a district‑wide practice deferring to the U.S. Marshals Service to produce all in‑custody defendants in "full restraints" for most non‑jury pretrial proceedings; most judges followed it and routinely denied on‑the‑spot unshackling requests.
"Full restraints" included closely handcuffed hands secured to a waist chain plus leg shackles; exceptions were limited and some judges could remove restraints at sentencing/guilty pleas or on individual motion.
Four defendants (Sanchez‑Gomez, Patricio‑Guzman, Jasmin Morales, Mark Ring) appeared shackled, objected, and appealed; their individual criminal proceedings concluded before appellate resolution, and they sought district‑wide relief.
The Ninth Circuit construed the appeals as petitions for supervisory mandamus and collateral review, found jurisdiction, and addressed mootness, concluding the case fit a "functional class"/capable‑of‑repetition analysis because the alleged injury is transitory and affects an ever‑refilling group of detainees.
On the merits the court held that presumptively innocent defendants have a Fifth Amendment due‑process right to be free from courtroom shackling in any proceeding unless an individualized determination shows a compelling security need and that restraints are the least restrictive means; routine/delegated policies are unconstitutional.
Because the challenged policy had been voluntarily changed, the court withheld issuing a formal writ but declared the policy unconstitutional and overruled Howard to the extent it permitted routine deference to the Marshals.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Appellate jurisdiction / remedy	Appeals should be heard as immediately appealable collateral orders or mandamus because routine shackling presents an important, separate issue effectively unreviewable after final judgment	Government urged limiting Howard and resisting immediate review of district‑wide policy	Court treated appeals as petitions for supervisory mandamus/collateral review and exercised jurisdiction to decide the district‑wide policy challenge
Mootness / live controversy	Even though named defendants' cases ended, the claim is not moot because the harm is inherently transitory and affects an ever‑refilling class of in‑custody defendants (Gerstein functional‑class reasoning)	Defendants' individual claims are moot; no Rule 23 class or other procedural mechanism joins similarly situated detainees	Court applied functional class/ capable‑of‑repetition reasoning and found a live controversy for supervisory review (despite voluntary cessation)
Scope of right to be free of shackles	Shackling in any courtroom proceeding (pretrial, sentencing, bench) implicates liberty/dignity and requires individualized, on‑the‑record findings showing compelling security need and least‑restrictive means	Government: Deck applies primarily to jury proceedings; Bell v. Wolfish framework for detention facilities/deference to Marshals allows routine restraints in non‑jury settings	Court held the right extends to pretrial, trial, and sentencing proceedings (jury or not); individualized determinations are required and courts may not delegate to Marshals or adopt routine shackling policies
Appropriate standard and deference	Require individualized judicial findings of necessity and least‑restrictive means before shackling; post‑hoc review insufficient	Marshals and correctional expertise justify deference under Bell; security/practical concerns permit routine/precautionary measures in court	Court rejected blanket deference; emphasized judicial (not Marshals') responsibility to make specific, individualized findings balancing security and liberty

Key Cases Cited

Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622 (2005) (visible shackling during trial/penalty phase forbidden absent essential state interest specific to the defendant)
Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979) (pretrial detainee conditions analyzed under whether measures are punishment or reasonably related to legitimate objectives)
Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (1975) (capable‑of‑repetition/ relation‑back rule in inherently transitory class claims)
Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Dist. of Columbia, 542 U.S. 367 (2004) (standards for issuing mandamus; limits on supplanting regular appeals)
United States v. Howard, 480 F.3d 1005 (9th Cir. 2007) (prior Ninth Circuit decision on routine restraint policies; court here limits/overrules its routine‑deference aspects)
Williams v. Woodford, 384 F.3d 567 (9th Cir. 2004) (defendant’s right to be free of shackles in jury presence absent essential state interest)
In re United States, 791 F.3d 945 (9th Cir. 2015) (discussing mandamus and review when claims become transitory)