Rawls

MEMORANDUM

Marcus Lee Rawls appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We affirm.

The California Court of Appeal (the Court of Appeal) held that it was clear error to place Rawls in visible restraints during his civil commitment proceeding, but concluded that the error was harmless. Rawls argues that the Court of Appeal’s harmless error analysis was erroneous because it failed to apply the Chapman harmless error standard. See Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967). However, at the time of the Court of Appeal’s decision, it was not clearly established that a jury’s brief view of a defendant in unjustified restraints amounted to constitutional error. See, e.g., United States v. Olano, 62 F.3d 1180, 1190 (9th Cir.1995) (“[A] jury’s brief or inadvertent glimpse of a defendant in physical restraints is not inherently or presumptively prejudicial to a defendant. [Defendant] must demonstrate actual prejudice to establish a constitutional violation.”). Therefore, the failure to apply Chapman was not contrary to clearly established Supreme…