Pfieffer

DISCUSSION

25 A. Shackling 26 Under Claiborne v. Blauser, an inmate may only be shackled during a civil proceeding 27 “when there is an ‘individualized security determination[]’ that ‘take[s] account of the 28 circumstances of the particular case.’” 928 F.3d 794, 809 (9th Cir. 2019) (quoting Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622, 632 (2005)). In Claiborne, 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. Claiborne, 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…