N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
W ILLIE LEE C A RPENTER , Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. A. PFEIL, C orre c tiona l Sgt.; J. GONZALEZ, C /O; J. B AR A JAS, C /O; OR TIZ, C /O; A. SALAZAR ; J. M AR TINEZ; LITTON, De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 14-15739 D.C . No. 1:07-c v-00114-SAB
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia Stanle y Albe rt B oone , M a gistra

te Judge , Pre s iding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M ay

11, 2015 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : B ENAVIDES ** , N.R . SM ITH, a nd OW ENS, C irc uit Judge s . Pla intiff-Appe lla

nt W illie C arpe nte r (“ C arpe nte r” ), a sta te prisone r, brought this a c t ion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1983 a lle ging useof e xc e s sive forc e and fa ilure to 

# F IL ED
JUN 09 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The Honora

ble Fortuna

to P. B e nav ide s, Se nior C irc uit Judgefor the U.S. C ourt of Appe a l s for the Fifth C i rc uit, sitting by de s igna tion.prote c t by

c orre c tiona l offic e rs in viola tion of theEighth a

n d Fourte e nth Am e ndm e nts. On a

ppe a l, C arpe nte r argue s tha t he wa s de nie d

a fa ir tria l for his § 1983 c la im s in a

num be r of way s: (1) the distric t c ourt a llowe d him to be he ld in sha c kle s throughout the

two tria ls without first holding a he aring to de te rm ine whe the r sha c kle s we re ne c e ssa ry ; (2) the distric t c ourt a

buse d its disc re tion in the
m ana ge m e nt of tria l, pa

rtic ula rly by fa iling to inte

rve n e in viola

tions of theFe de ra l R ule s of Evide nc e ; a

nd (3) the distric t c ourt de nie d C arpe nte r’ s re pe ate d re que sts for c o unse l. W e a ddre ss e a c h issue in turn a n d we a ffirm
. 1. As a n initia l m atte r, C arpe nte r did not obje c t to be ing he ld in re stra i nts. C arpe nte r’ s c om

m e nt re ga rding his re stra ints—

whic h he se e ks to c ha

ra c te riz e a s a prope r obje c tion—

wa s not a re que st for m odific ation or re m ova l of the re stra ints. During a side ba r prior to c losing instruc t ions in the first tria l, whe n a ske d by the distric t c o urt whe the r he would a rgue from the ta ble or whe the r he would sta nd, C arpe nte r re sponde d , “ B ut the n the c ha ins going to m ake noise . The y

a lre a dy know I’ m in ja il.” C arpe nte r m a de no m e ntion of the re stra ints during the se c ond tria l . B e c a

use he did not obje c t to theissue he brings on a ppe a l , we re vie w for pla i n e rror. Se e He mmings v . Tidy man’s Inc
. , 285 F.3d 1174, 1193 (9th C ir. 2002). Unde r suc h a

re vie w, we re ve rse “ only whe n the re is (1) e rror that is (2) pla in, 2(3) a ffe c ts substa ntia l rights, a

nd (4) se riously

a ffe c ts the fa irne s s, inte grity , or public re puta

tion of judic ia l proc e e dings.” Unite d State s v . Fly e r , 633 F.3d 911, 917 (9th C i r. 2011) (quoting Unite d State s v . C ruz , 554 F.3d 840, 845 (9th C ir. 2009)). No pla in e rror oc c urre d he re . W e have he ld tha t c rim ina l de fe n d ants m ay not be sha c kle d

during c rim i na l tria ls a

nd se nte nc ing proc e e d ings be fore jurie s without
c om pe lling c irc um sta

nc e s tha t re stra ints a

re ne e de d, a

n d tha t distric t c ourts m

ust pursue le ss re stric tive options be fore im posing re stra ints. Duc k

e tt v . Godine

z , 67 F.3d 734, 747-49 (9th C ir. 1995). W e have a lso re c ogniz e d tha t binding som

e one in re stra ints during a

sta te involunta

ry c om m itm e nt he a

ring, while

in the pre se nc e of the jury , m ay

viola te due proc e ss. Ty ars v . Finne r , 709 F.2d 1274, 1284-85 (9th C ir. 1983). In Ty ars , we a lso note d tha t “ c rim ina l c a se pre c e de nts do not
ne c e ssa rily a pply in a c ivil proc e e ding,” but ne ve rthe le ss a pplie d a sim ila r ba la nc ing te st. Id. at 1285; se e also Duck e tt , 67 F.3d a

t 748 (noting tha

t “ whe n a n individual’ s le v e l of da

nge rousne ss is a

que s tion thejury m

ust de c ide in a

c i vil proc e e ding, it is a

viola tion of theright to a

fa ir tria l to c om

pe l tha t individual to
a ppe ar be fore the jury

bound in phy sic a l re stra ints” ). Howe ve r, we do not ha ve pre c e de nt tha

t e sta blishe s a distric t c ourt’ s dutie s (suc h a s holding a he aring) in de te rm i ning whe the r an inm ate should besha c kle d during a c ivil tria l. This c a se 3doe s not giveus oc c a sion to a dopt suc h a rule
. 1 Eve n we re we to a dopt the
a pproa c h ta ke n by othe r c i rc uits, the re is nothing in the re c ord to show tha

t C arpe nte r wa s pre

judic e d by

be ing he ld in re s tra ints. The re is nothing in the re c ord that indic at e s tha

t the jury c ould se e tha

t C arpe nte r wa s ke pt in re stra ints. Inde e d, his e xpre sse d c onc e rn a

bout thejury

pote ntia lly

he aring the c ha ins, note d a bove , c am e towa

rd the e nd of his first tria

l a nd sugge sts tha

t the jury did not alre a dy know a b out the c ha i ns. Thus, wec onc l ude tha t the distric t c ourt did not c om m it pla i n e rror a s to this first issue
. 2. This C ourt “ will re v e rse a distric t c ourt’ s litiga

t ion m ana ge m e nt de c isions only if it a buse d its disc re tion, or if the

proc e dure s de prive d the litiga nt of due proc e s s of la

w within the

m e aning of theFifth or Fourte e nth Am e ndm e nts.” S. C al.

1 W e note tha

t the distric t c ourts ought to be c o gniz ant of this issue . Othe r c irc uits ha

ve he ld tha

t “ re quiring a

pa rty in a c ivil tria l to a

ppe ar in sha c kle s ‘ m ay we ll de prive him

of due proc e ss unle ss the re s tra i nts a re ne c e ssa

ry .’ ” Side s v . C he rry , 609 F.3d 576, 581 (3rd C ir. 2010) (quoting Dav idson v . Rile y , 44 F.3d 1118, 1122 (2d C ir. 1995)); se e also Le mons v . Sk idmore , 985 F.2d 354 (7th C ir. 1993); H ollow ay v . Ale x ande r , 957 F.2d 529 (8th C ir. 1992). The s e othe r c irc uits have re quire d distric t c ourts to hold proc e e dings to allow pa rtie s to offe r argum e nts on the ne e d for re stra ints, to hold a n e vide ntia

ry he aring if ge nuine and m at e ria l fa c t ua l dispute s e x ist a s to thene e d for re s tra ints, to we igh the ne e d for re stra ints a ga inst potentia l pre

judic e to the inm ate , a

nd to ta ke m e a sure s to m inim iz e pre j udic e to a

n inm ate who m

ust a ppe ar in c ourt in re stra ints. Se e Side s , 609 F.3d at 586; Dav idson , 44 F.3d a t 1122-23, 1125-26; Le m ons , 985 F.2d a t 358-59; se e also Hollow

ay , 957 F.2d a

t 530. 4Edison C

o. v . Ly nc h , 307 F.3d 794, 807 (9th C ir. 2002) (inte rna l c ita t ion om itte d).

“ A distric t c ourt’ s e vide ntia ry rulings a re a lso re vie w e d for a

buse of disc re tion, a

nd the a ppe lla nt is a dditionally

re quire d to e sta

blish tha t the e rror wa s pre

judic ia l.” Tritc hle r v . C nty . of Lak

e , 358 F.3d 1150, 1155 (9th C ir. 2004). C arpe nte r’ s a

rgum e nt foc use s prim arily on the distric t c ourt’ s a llowa nc e of le a ding que stions on dire c t e xam ination by the De fe nda

nts. R ule 611 of theFe de ra l R ule s of Evide nc e sta

te s, “ Le a d ing que s tions should not be use d on dire c t
e xam ination e xc e pt a s ne c e ssa ry to de ve lop the witne ss’ s te stim o ny . ” Fe d . R . Evid. 611(c ). “ R

ule 611(c ) ve sts broa d disc re tion in trial c ourts, a nd we will the re fore
re ve rse on the ba sis of im prope r le a ding que stions only if ‘ the judge ’ s a c tion . . .
am ounte d to, or c o ntribute d to, thede nia l of a fa ir tria l.’ ” Mille r v . Fairc hild Indus., Inc

. , 885 F.2d 498, 514 (9th C ir. 1989) (quoting C l e ary , e d., Mc C ormic k on Ev ide n c e12 (1984) (footnote om itte d)). “ A n a lm ost tota l unwillingne ss to re ve rse for infra c tions ha s be e n m a n ife ste d by

a ppe lla te c ourts.” Fe d. R . Evid. 611 note to subdiv. (c ) (c i ting 3 W igm ore § 770). The insta nt c a se doe s not c a ll for de viating from the sta nda rd pra c tic e of gran ting broa d disc re tion to the distric t c ourt’ s a llowa

nc e of le a ding que stions. The
m ost pote ntia lly c o n c e rning line of que stioning—

re g arding theDe p a

rtm e nt’ s use of-forc e polic y , a ddre sse d to De fe nda nts JoseGonz a l e s (“ Gonz a le s” ), Jua n B ara ja s 5(“ B ara

ja s” ), R ic ha

rd Litton, a

nd M i c ha e l Ortiz

— wa s a lso de ve lope d through nonle a ding que stions to Gonz a le s , B ara ja s, a nd m ost signific antly

by W illia m Ada m s , who wa s te nde re d a s a

n e xpe rt in theDe pa

rtm e nt’ s use of forc e . Se e Mille r , 885 F.2d at 515 (finding tha

t re ve rsa l on theba sis of im prope r le a d ing que stions wa s

“ ina ppropria t e . . . be c a

use the te stim ony

e lic ite d through le a ding que stions did not substa ntia lly e xpa nd or a lte r e arlie r te s tim ony e lic ite d through proper, non-le a ding que stions” ). Thus, a

ny e rror wa s not pre

judic ia l. In a ddition, wefind no a

buse of disc re tion in the

othe r tria l-m ana ge m e nt
c onc e rns ra ise d by

C arpe nte r—

nam e ly , tha

t the distric t

c o urt ina ppropria t e ly
a llowe d re fe re nc e s to C arpe nte r a s “ inm ate ” and did not suffic ie ntly inte rve ne whe n the offic e rs be ga

n “ m a ddogging”the prisone r witne sse s— whic h ha v e not be e n brie fe d in de ta i l. 3. A distric t c o urt’ s de nia l of a m otion for re que st of c ounse l unde r 28 U.S.C
. § 1915 is re vie we d for a

buse of disc re tion. W

ilborn v

. Esc a lde ron , 789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th C ir. 1986). C ounse l m ay be de signa

te d unde r § 1915(e ) only

unde r

“ e x c e ptiona l c irc um sta

nc e s.” Id. “ A finding of e xc e p tiona l c irc um sta nc e s re quire s
an e v a l uation of both ‘ the like l ihood of suc c e ss on them e rits [a nd] the a bility of the p e titione r to a

rtic ulat e his c la im s pro se in light of the c om

ple xity of the le ga l 6issue s involve d ,’ ” ne ithe r of whic h is dispositive
. Id. (a l te ration in origina l) (quoting W

e y gandt v

. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th C ir. 1983)). C arpe nte r urge s the pa

n e l to limit or ove rrule W ilborn . Howe ve r, W

ilborn ha s not be e n ove rrule d by a subse que nt ruling by

this c ourt sitting e

n ba nc or the Supre m e C ourt. Se e Morton v . DeOliv e ira , 984 F.2d 289, 292 (9th C ir. 1993) (“ [O] nly the c ourt sitting e

n ba n c m a y ove rrule a

prior de c i sion of thec ourt.” ); se e also Miller v . Gammie , 335 F.3d 889, 899 (9th C ir. 2003) (e n ba nc ) (“ re c ogniz [ing] tha

t c irc uit pre c e de nt, a

uthorita tive at the tim e tha

t it issue d , c an be
e ffe c tive ly

ove rrule d

by subse que nt Supre m e C ourt de c isions tha t ‘ a re c lose ly on point,’ e ve n though those de c i sions do not expre ssly ove rrule the prior c irc uit pre c e de nt” (quoting Galbraith v. C nty . of Santa C

lara , 307 F.3d 1119, 1123 (9th C ir. 2002))). C arpe nte r re que ste d c ounse l in 13 filings, a nd at the be ginning of e a c h tria l. The distric t c ourt c o nside re d the “ e xc e ptiona l c irc um sta nc e s” sta nda rd and
c onc lude d tha

t the c a s e wa s not c om

ple x a n d did not re q

u ire the a p pointm e nt of
c ounse l. Ha

ving c onside re d the argum e nts of c ounse l, the re c ord, a nd the nature of the p roc e e dings, wefind no a buse of disc re tion.

AFFIRM E D. 7