Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01401/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01401-32/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

ISAIAH J. PETILLO,

Plaintiff,

v.

REYNALDO JASSO, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:21-cv-01401-SAB (PC)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION FOR SHACKLING OF PLAINTIFF 

DURING TRIAL

(ECF Nos. 75, 93)

Plaintiff Isaiah J. Petillo is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Currently before the Court is Defendants’ motion for shackling of Plaintiff during trial, 

filed August 16, 2023. (ECF No. 75.) Defendants filed a notice of supplemental evidence in 

support of their shackling motion on September 29, 2023. (ECF No. 93.) Plaintiff filed an 

opposition to Defendants’ motion for shackling on November 1, 2023. (ECF No. 101.) 

I.

DISCUSSION

The Supreme Court has recognized and addressed the potential risks prisoner place on 

courtroom security in Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 343 (1970), and stated, “[i]t is essential to 

the proper administration of criminal justice that dignity, order, and decorum be the hallmarks of 

all court proceedings in our country.” In Clairborne v. Blauser, 934 F.3d 885, 895, 901 (9th Cir. 

Case 1:21-cv-01401-SAB Document 107 Filed 11/16/23 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

2

2019), the Ninth Circuit held that an inmate may only be visibly shackled during a civil 

proceeding “when there is an ‘individualized security determination’ that ‘take[s] account of the 

circumstances of the particular case.” There, a state prisoner moved for a new trial on the ground 

that he was visibly shackled in violation of his due process right to a fair trial. Clairborne, 934 

F.3d at 892. The Ninth Circuit ruled that the two-part analysis applicable in criminal cases before 

an inmate may be visibly shackled for a jury trial applies to civil cases involving incarcerated 

plaintiffs. Id. at 897-898. Therefore, the Court must be persuaded by compelling circumstances 

that the measure is necessary to maintain security, and the Court must pursue less restrictive 

alternatives before imposing physical restraints. Id. at 895. Compelling circumstances may 

include a prisoner’s status, propensity for violence, and history of unruly conduct. See Wilson v. 

McCarthy, 770 F.2d 1482, 1485 (9th Cir. 1985). By itself, prisoner status may not warrant 

shackling, but it may justify the court's concern for security. Id. “[S]hackling is proper where 

there is a serious threat of escape or danger to those in and around the courtroom or where 

disruption in the courtroom is likely in the absence of shackles.” Id. (internal citation omitted). 

While such measures carry prejudicial effect, the Court's calculus as to their exclusion must also 

account for security concerns. Morgan v. Bunnell, 24 F.3d 49, 51 (9th Cir. 1994) (“The judge has 

wide discretion to decide whether a defendant who has a propensity for violence poses a security 

risk and warrants increased security measures.”).

Defendants seek to have Plaintiff restrained during trial with leg irons and waist chains, 

and secured to his chair because of his violent history. (ECF No. 75.)

Plaintiff opposes Defendants’ motion and argues that his past violence was in 2019 with 

no physical violent behavior. (ECF No. 101.) 

This is a civil a case and the jury knows that in any Eighth Amendment case the plaintiff 

is (or has been) an inmate. This obviates direct comparison from some of the case law that arises 

from criminal proceedings. See, e.g., Duckett v. Godinez, 67 F.3d 734, 748 (9th Cir. 1995) 

(holding that shackling during the sentencing hearing in the absence of a compelling need and 

consideration of less restrictive alternatives constitutes constitutional error). However, the right to 

a fair trial is fundamental in civil cases just as it is in criminal proceedings. 

Case 1:21-cv-01401-SAB Document 107 Filed 11/16/23 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

3

Plaintiff has a violent history. He is currently serving a life sentence for second-degree 

murder, and received an enhancement for the personal use of a dangerous or deadly weapon. 

(Declaration of Cassandra J. Shryock (Shryock Decl.) ¶ 2.) Further, in 2020, Plaintiff was 

convicted of manufacturing a deadly weapon while incarcerated. (Id.) 

In addition, Plaintiff has no less than 20 disciplinary findings for assaultive or sex-related 

offenses. (Id. ¶ 6.) More specifically, Plaintiff was found guilty of possessing a deadly weapon 

twice in the past 14 months, the most recent time in June 2023. (Id. ¶ 5, Ex. A.) Plaintiff was 

also found guilty of two sex offenses in April and June 2023, and has been found guilty of 

indecent exposure on 11 other occasions. (Id. ¶¶ 5, 6(f).) Plaintiff has assaulted and threatened 

staff, and battered other inmates on multiple occasions. (Id. ¶ 6(a)-(c), (g).) Plaintiff has also 

used and possessed weapons while incarcerated (id. ¶ 6(b), (e); ECF No. 93 at Attach. 1), and 

fought with other inmates on at least 8 occasions (id. ¶ 6(d)). Plaintiff’s repeated, violent 

behavior has resulted in a Level IV status-the highest level within CDCR, reserved for its most 

dangerous and violent offenders. (Id. ¶ 4.) Indeed, Plaintiff’s classification score is almost seven 

times the minimum score to qualify for Level IV status. (Id. ¶¶ 4-5.) 

Based on Plaintiff's history of violence and his status as a Level IV inmate with a lengthy 

sentence, the Court finds that in this case, security and safety concerns compel the use of shackles 

at trial. However, so as to lessen any prejudice to Plaintiff, he should be restrained by use of leg 

irons attached to a cement bucket under the table and not visible to the jury. As long as Plaintiff's 

conduct is appropriate, his hands will not be shackled. In addition, the jury will not be present 

when Plaintiff enters the courtroom or when he takes the stand. However, if Plaintiff's conduct 

warrants, the Court may order him to be further shackled and restrained. Accordingly, 

Defendants’ motion for use of restraints at trial shall be granted.

///

///

///

///

///

Case 1:21-cv-01401-SAB Document 107 Filed 11/16/23 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

II.

ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for use of 

restraints at trial is GRANTED. However, Plaintiff’s hands and arms shall not be restrained 

during the trial and the other restraints will not be observable by the trier of fact as the table at 

which defendant sits is curtained.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 15, 2023 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-01401-SAB Document 107 Filed 11/16/23 Page 4 of 4