Zermeno-Gomez v. United States District Court for the District of Arizona
868 F.3d 1048
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Petitioners are three defendants in Arizona federal cases whose requests to be unshackled were denied based on a stayed mandate in Sanchez-Gomez.
- This court en banc held that before placing a defendant in shackles, a district court must make an individualized, compelling purpose, least-restrictive means determination.
- The district court had not complied with Sanchez-Gomez due to the stay and a district-wide procedure that paused action pending mandamus review.
- Petitioners sought mandamus relief to compel compliance with Sanchez-Gomez across the District of Arizona.
- The panel granted emergency relief previously and issued a memorandum directing compliance pending mandamus decision, which prompted further dispute.
- This decision grants mandamus and requires Arizona judges to comply with Sanchez-Gomez.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus relief is warranted to enforce Sanchez-Gomez binding authority | Zermeño-Gomez argues district judges are bound by Sanchez-Gomez | U.S. District Court asserts stay of mandate affects binding status | Yes, mandamus granted to enforce binding authority |
| Whether a published decision remains binding on lower courts despite a mandate stay | Zermeño-Gomez asserts binding authority persists despite stay | District judges claim stay alters binding status | Yes, binding authority remains until overruled |
| Whether Bauman factors support mandamus relief here | Bauman factors favor relief due to ongoing disregard | Bauman factors not satisfied without clear error | Yes, Bauman factors weigh in favor of relief |
| Whether the district-wide procedure complies with Sanchez-Gomez | Procedure aims to implement Sanchez-Gomez | Procedure insufficient without mandamus mandate | Not dispositive; mandamus relief granted to ensure compliance |
| Whether the government’s arguments affect the outcome | Government argues stay preserves discretion | Government contends no binding obligation | Rejected; relief granted |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Sanchez-Gomez, 859 F.3d 649 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc holding that individualized shackling decisions required)
- Bauman v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 557 F.2d 650 (9th Cir. 1977) (Bauman factors for mandamus relief)
- Gonzalez v. Arizona, 677 F.3d 383 (9th Cir. 2012) (law-of-the-circuit binding authority binding until overruled)
- Wedbush, Noble, Cooke, Inc. v. SEC, 714 F.2d 923 (9th Cir. 1983) (stay-of-mandate does not destroy finality for stare decisis)
- United States v. Ruiz, 935 F.2d 1033 (9th Cir. 1991) (earlier decision not fixed as settled Ninth Circuit law)