Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05005/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05005-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WENDELL HARRISON, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

YARBOROUGH, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:03-cv-05005-AWI-SMS-HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 25)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO ENTER

JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF RESPONDENT

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On September 21, 2005, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and 

Recommendations that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be

DENIED, and that judgment be entered in favor of Respondent. These

Findings and Recommendations were served on all parties and

contained notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty

(30) days from the date of service of that order. On October 11,

2005, Petitioner filed objections to the Findings and

Recommendations.

Case 1:03-cv-05005-AWI -SMS Document 28 Filed 03/22/06 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 In the § 2254 context, Ninth Circuit precedent is persuasive authority in

determining what is clearly established federal law. See Duhaime v. Ducharme, 200

F.3d 597, 600-01 (9th Cir. 1999) (stating that Ninth Circuit case law may be used

to help determine clearly established federal law.) 

2

 With regard to the pursuit of less restrictive alternatives, although it is

not entirely clear from reviewing the record, it appears that a lesser restraint

was not considered because Petitioner objected to all forms of restraint and, at

2

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of the case. 

Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Petitioner's

objections, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper

analysis. Petitioner's objections present no grounds for

questioning the Magistrate Judge's analysis.

In his objections, with respect to Petitioner's due process

challenge to the imposition of the stun-belt placed upon Petitioner

during trial, Petitioner contends that the trial court did not make

the requisite factual finding that the restraint was necessary. As

stated in the Findings and Recommendations, the trial court

conducted a hearing, albeit after the restraints were placed on

Petitioner, and determined that based on the fact that the

restraint was not visible, Petitioner had "previously engaged in

assaultive behavior while in custody, had glared at the prosecutor

during trial, and did not maintain a good working relationship with

the bailiff in the courtroom," the restraint was justified. (F&R at

14.) 

Even if the trial court's justification is questionable under

existing Ninth Circuit authority, i.e. Gonzalez v. Pliler, 341 F.3d

897 (9th Cir. 2003),1 there is no resulting prejudice and

Petitioner's claim fails on that basis.2 Under Brecht v.

Case 1:03-cv-05005-AWI -SMS Document 28 Filed 03/22/06 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 Petitioner's request, the shackles and handcuffs were removed. See RT 184.

3

Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 113 S.Ct. 1710 (1993), the error must

have had a “substantial and injurious effect or influence in

determining the jury’s verdict.” Brecht, 507 U.S. at 623(quoting

Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 776, 66 S.Ct. 1239, 1253

(1946)). In order for an error to have a “substantial and

injurious effect or influence,” it must have “affected the

verdict.” O’Neal v. McAnnich, 513 U.S. 432, 115 S.Ct. 992, (1995).

Petitioner has made no showing that he suffered any prejudice

as a result of the stun-belt being placed upon him. As stated in

the Findings and Recommendations, although the stun-belt was

activated while the jury was deliberating and Petitioner screamed,

Petitioner has adduced no evidence that the jurors heard or

attributed the scream to Petitioner, or were in any way influenced

by the activation. In fact, as noted in the Findings and

Recommendations, all evidence indicates the activation had no

impact on the jury's verdict. Subsequent to the activation, the

jurors requested read-back of several witnesses testimony and

review of exhibits and, at one point, indicated that they were

dead-locked. (F&R's at 15, n.7.) This conduct greatly diminishes

Petitioner's claim that he was somehow prejudiced by the accidental

activation. 

In the objections, Petitioner again states that he was

psychologically restrained by the stun-belt. This bare

allegation is insufficient to show prejudice. Plaintiff fails to

provide evidence as to what information he could have relayed to

his attorney or the court that would have affected his case had he

Case 1:03-cv-05005-AWI -SMS Document 28 Filed 03/22/06 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

not been placed in the stun-belt. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed September 21,

2005, are ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED; and,

3. The Clerk of Court enter judgment in favor of Respondent.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 21, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05005-AWI -SMS Document 28 Filed 03/22/06 Page 4 of 4