Ramsey

Ramsey v. Palmateer

Good Law
83 F. App'x 253
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 16, 2003No. 02-35963; D.C. No. CV-00-00259-AJBCalifornia328 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Oregon state prisoner Chad Allen Ramsey appeals the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging his conviction and 1-year sentence for assault on a jail inmate. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.

Ramsey contends the trial court violated his right to a fair trial by requiring him shackled during trial, because it failed to consider less restrictive alternatives. We disagree. The trial court’s determination that some measure was needed to maintain security is supported by Ramsey’s history of escape, attempted escape, failure to appear and violent incidents. See Jones v. Meyer, 899 F.2d 883, 885 (9th Cir.1990) (holding that trial court must be persuaded by compelling circumstances that some measure was needed to maintain security and that court must consider less restrictive alternatives before imposing physical restraints). In response to Ramsey’s objection, the court ordered his right handcuff removed. See Spain v. Rushen, 883 F.2d 712 , 728 n. 21 (9th Cir.1989) (observing that one alternative less restrictive than extensive shackles would be a reduction in the number of chains).

Ramsey further…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.