Alaska Pretrial Detainees for the End of Unwarranted Courtroom Shackling et al v. Johnson et al

Filing 52

ORDER: re Motion for Preliminary Injunction 10 (see order for full details). Signed by Judge Sharon L. Gleason on 05/09/2018. (AEM, CHAMBERS STAFF)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
ALASKA PRETRIAL DETAINEES FOR THE
END OF UNWARRANTED COURTROOM
SHACKLING; JASON MCANULTY; TOBY
SPECE,
Plaintiffs,

Case No. 3:17-cv-00226-SLG

v.
ALASKA COURT SYSTEM ADMIN.
DIRECTOR CHRISTINE JOHNSON;
ALASKA DEPT. OF PUB. SAFETY
COMM’R WALTER MONEGAN,
Defendants.
ORDER RE MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction at Docket 10.1
Defendants opposed the motion at Docket 24. Plaintiffs filed a reply at Docket 35. Oral
argument on the motion was held on February 23, 2018. 2 For the reasons set forth below,
the motion will be denied.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs’ Complaint alleges that Alaska state courts require pretrial detainees to
be shackled together in a “human chain” to enter the courtrooms. 3

Plaintiff Jason

McAnulty was charged with crimes by the State of Alaska and was unable to post bail. 4

1

See also Docket 11 (Mem.).

2

Docket 47 (Minute Entry).

3

Docket 1 (Compl.) at 1–2.

4

Docket 1 at 3, ¶ 14.

He alleges he was handcuffed to other detainees who were unable to post bail and taken
into the courtroom before the Alaska Superior Court. 5 Mr. McAnulty requested that his
handcuffs be removed, but the court denied the request. 6
Plaintiff Toby Spece violated his state probation and was detained when he was
unable to post bail. 7 At Mr. Spece’s hearing, he also requested to the Alaska Superior
Court to have his handcuffs removed. 8 The court deferred to the Judicial Services Officer,
who declined to unshackle Mr. Spece. 9 Neither Mr. McAnulty nor Mr. Spece appealed
the decisions made by the Alaska Superior Court.
On May 31, 2017, the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion regarding pretrial shackling
in United States v. Sanchez-Gomez. 10 The Circuit held that pursuant to the due process
clause of the Constitution, “[b]efore a presumptively innocent defendant may be shackled,
the court must make an individualized decision that a compelling government purpose
would be served and that shackles are the least restrictive means for maintaining security
and order in the courtroom.” 11 This holding extends to “pretrial, trial, or sentencing, with
a jury or without.”
Plaintiffs maintain that after Sanchez-Gomez was decided, the Alaska Superior

5

Docket 1 at 4, ¶ 20.

6

Docket 1 at 4 ¶¶ 21, 23.

7

Docket 1 at 3, ¶ 15.

8

Docket 1 at 3, ¶ 24.

9

Docket 1 at 4, ¶ 25.

10

859 F.3d 649 (9th Cir. 2017).

11

Sanchez-Gomez, 859 F.3d at 661.

Case No. 3:17-cv-00226-SLG, AK Pretrial Detainees, et al. v. AK Court System, et al.
Order re Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Page 2 of 7

Court conducted a “Bench-Bar” meeting in Anchorage to determine whether the Alaska
state court should following the Ninth Circuit’s holding in Sanchez-Gomez. 12 The superior
court decided not to follow Sanchez-Gomez and to continue the current shackling
practice. 13
On October 24, 2017, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint in this Court alleging that
without an individualized finding that handcuffs are necessary, pretrial detainees’
procedural and substantive federal due process rights are violated. 14 Plaintiffs also allege
a cause of action for battery under state law. They seek injunctive and declaratory relief
on behalf of all in-custody defendants in the District of Alaska. 15 On November 24, 2017,
Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction asserting that Plaintiffs are entitled to
preliminary injunctive relief under Sanchez-Gomez. 16
DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs challenge the Alaska state court’s shackling policy and seek an injunction
prohibiting the State of Alaska from “[s]hackling pretrial detainees to each other by the
wrists in court” and “[s]hackling any pretrial detainee in court without a prior judicial factual
determination of necessity to protect the safety of the public and court officers.”17

12

Docket 1 at 3, ¶ 16.

13

Docket 1 at 3, ¶ 17.

14

Docket 1 at 5.

15

Docket 1 at 3, 5–6; Docket 11 at 3.

16

Docket 11 at 4.

17

Docket 10-1 (Proposed Order) at 2. However, Plaintiffs retreated from the injunctive relief
requested in the Proposed Order. At oral argument, Plaintiffs requested the Court issue an
injunction requiring the state court to implement a policy regarding pretrial detainee shackling.

Case No. 3:17-cv-00226-SLG, AK Pretrial Detainees, et al. v. AK Court System, et al.
Order re Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Page 3 of 7

Defendants respond that Plaintiffs “have state-court remedies to address their alleged
harms. Rather than seeking federal-court entanglement and oversight in the
administration and supervision of Alaska’s state courts, plaintiffs should litigate their
claims in the state courts in the first instance.” 18
Defendants rely on O’Shea v. Littleton to support their argument. 19 In O’Shea, a
group of individuals filed a complaint against various state officials, including a state
magistrate and associate judge, seeking an injunction in federal court from “set[ting] bond
in criminal cases according to an unofficial bond schedule without regard to the facts of
the case or circumstances of the individual defendant.” 20 The district court dismissed the
case for lack of jurisdiction; the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded. On appeal to
the Supreme Court, the Court held that the principles of equity, comity, and federalism
precluded the federal court’s equitable intervention. 21 The Court provided the following
discussion as to why federal courts should not generally issue injunctions against state
court officials:
A federal court should not intervene to establish the basis for future
intervention that would be so intrusive and unworkable. In concluding that
injunctive relief would be available in this case because it would not interfere
with prosecutions to be commenced under challenged statutes, the Court
of Appeals misconceived the underlying basis for withholding federal
equitable relief when the normal course of criminal proceedings in the state
courts would otherwise be disrupted. The objection is to unwarranted
anticipatory interference in the state criminal process by means of
continuous or piecemeal interruptions of the state proceedings by litigation
18

Docket 24 at 16.

19

Docket 24 at 15 (citing O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488 (1974)).

20

O’Shea, 414 U.S. at 492.

21

O’Shea, 414 U.S. at 499.

Case No. 3:17-cv-00226-SLG, AK Pretrial Detainees, et al. v. AK Court System, et al.
Order re Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Page 4 of 7

in the federal courts; the object is to sustain the special delicacy of the
adjustment to be preserved between federal equitable power and State
administration on its own law. An injunction of the type contemplated by
respondents and the Court of Appeals would disrupt the normal course of
proceedings in the state courts via resort to the federal suit for determination
of the claim ab initio, just as would the request for injunctive relief from an
ongoing state prosecution against the federal plaintiff which was found to
be unwarranted in Younger. Moreover, it would require for its enforcement
the continuous supervision by the federal court over the conduct of the
petitioners in the course of future criminal trial proceedings involving any of
the members of the respondents’ broadly defined class. 22
Here, Plaintiffs are also seeking equitable relief against state officials and request
an injunction to require the state court not to shackle pretrial detainees to each other by
the wrists and for an individual “judicial factual determination of necessity” for any pretrial
detainee that is shackled. 23 An injunction of this sort would disrupt the normal course of
proceedings in state court and would interfere with the state criminal process as it would
require state courts to make shackling determinations for each individual pretrial detainee.
Moreover, it would likely require this Court to step into the role of ongoing compliance
monitor and enforcer of the injunction in federal court.
The proper forum for Plaintiffs to adjudicate their claims is in Alaska state courts.
The Alaska state courts have already addressed similar claims made in the context of
jury trials. 24 Moreover, Plaintiffs could appeal a potential unfavorable state court decision

22

O’Shea, 414 U.S. at 500 (internal quotation and citations omitted).

23

See Docket 10-1 at 2.

24

See Anthony v. State, 521 P.2d 486, 496 (Alaska 1974) (During trial “guards should remain
outside the observation of the jury, and should deliver the defendant to the counsel table before
the jury’s arrival if necessary; manacles, shackles and other physical restraints are, of course, to
be avoided. Deviation from these standards is justified only to protect the safety and decorum of
the court, to prevent a threatened escape, or to respond to some other manifest necessity. Such
measures should be taken only after the defendant has been given the opportunity for a hearing,
and the restraints imposed should be the least intrusive which will accomplish the desired result.”
Case No. 3:17-cv-00226-SLG, AK Pretrial Detainees, et al. v. AK Court System, et al.
Order re Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Page 5 of 7

to the Alaska Supreme Court.

The Alaska Supreme Court would then have the

opportunity to decide whether to adopt the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning in Sanchez-Gomez.
Should Plaintiffs not obtain a favorable result, Plaintiffs could also seek direct review to
the United States Supreme Court or federal habeas relief. 25
At oral argument, Plaintiffs narrowed their argument and requested the Court to
issue an injunction, requiring the state courts to implement a policy regarding pretrial
detainee shackling. However, requiring the state court to issue and implement a policy
would also interfere with the state court criminal proceedings. And if Plaintiffs were
unsatisfied with the policy that the state court may or may not implement, it would also
require them to seek enforcement of the injunction in federal court.
Plaintiffs assert that “[a]bstention does not apply since no ongoing federal intrusion
with state court cases will be created by the requested injunction.” 26 Plaintiffs cite to
Courthouse News Service v. Planet in support, which states, “O’Shea abstention is
inappropriate where the requested relief may be achieved without an ongoing intrusion
into the state’s administration of justice.” 27 In Courthouse News Service, the plaintiffs
sought an injunction preventing the California state courts from withholding court filing
information to the media under the First Amendment. The Ninth Circuit held that the

(internal citations omitted)); Nason v. State, 102 P.3d 966, 969–70 (Alaska App. 2004) (holding
trial court erred in not holding evidentiary hearing before allowing defendant to be shackled in
front of jury at trial).
25

See O’Shea, 414 U.S. at 502 (“In appropriate circumstances, . . . federal habeas relief would
undoubtedly be available.”).
26

Docket 35 at 9.

27

750 F.3d 776, 790 (9th Cir. 2014).

Case No. 3:17-cv-00226-SLG, AK Pretrial Detainees, et al. v. AK Court System, et al.
Order re Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Page 6 of 7

district court improperly abstained from the case, and the O’Shea doctrine did not apply
because providing same-day access to civil complaint filings posed “little risk that the
federal courts would need to examine the administration of a substantial number of
individual cases.” 28 Here, each pretrial detainee has a different background and criminal
history, requiring a court to apply the shackling requirement on an individual basis.
Moreover, in Courthouse News Service, the court added abstention “is appropriate where
the relief sought would require the federal court to monitor the substance of individual
cases on an ongoing basis to administer its judgment.” 29 As discussed above, the relief
Plaintiffs’ seek would likely require monitoring by this Court in individual cases to
administer the proposed order.
The proper forum for the relief Plaintiffs request is the Alaska state courts. 30
Therefore, the Court will abstain from reaching a decision on the merits.
CONCLUSION
Based on the forgoing, Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction at Docket 10 is
DENIED.
DATED this 9th day of May, 2018 at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Sharon L. Gleason
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
28

750 F.3d at 791; cf. Sammartano v. First Judicial Dist. Court, 303 F.3d 959 (9th Cir. 2002),
abrograted on other grounds by Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008)
(holding plaintiffs had right to injunctive relief, which prevented state court from banning
spectators who wore clothing with symbols of motorcycle organizations in the state courts.).
29

750 F.3d at 790.

30

See Miles v. Wesley, 801 F.3d 1060, 1065 (9th Cir. 2015) (“Out of respect for the independence
of state judiciaries, a federal court cannot substitute its judgment for [state court] resource
allocation choices under these circumstances.”).

Case No. 3:17-cv-00226-SLG, AK Pretrial Detainees, et al. v. AK Court System, et al.
Order re Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Page 7 of 7