Case No. 17-312 | 9th Cir.
United States v. Sanchez-Gomez involves a government appeal of the Ninth Circuit’s decision to rule on the claims of four individuals who objected to being placed in hand, leg, and waist restraints during pretrial proceedings, even though the underlying criminal prosecutions in all four cases had already been settled.
The dispute began when the respondents, Rene Sanchez-Gomez, Moises Patricio-Guzman, Jasmin Morales, and Mark Ring, were arrested in California for various crimes over a two-year period. For their court appearances, the respondents were each placed in so-called “five-point restraints” (that is, a combination of hand, leg, and waist restraints), Brief of Respondents at 3, United States v. Sanchez-Gomez, No. 17-312 (U.S. filed Feb. 21, 2018), pursuant to a policy of the United States Marshals Service for the Southern District of California.
The respondents each protested the use of the restraints, challenging the district policy as unconstitutional. When the district court dismissed their challenges, the respondents each appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
Before the court of appeals could rule on the issue, the criminal cases against the respondents were brought to a close. Nevertheless, the Ninth Circuit saw fit to rule on the respondents’ claims, relying on the collateral-order doctrine. See Brief of Petitioners at 8-9, United States v. Sanchez-Gomez, No. 17-312 (U.S. filed Jan. 22, 2018). The Ninth Circuit also stated that although the criminal charges against the respondents had all been settled, their claims related to the restraints were not moot “because the cases were ‘capable of repetition, yet evading review.'” Brief of Respondents at 10, United States v. Sanchez-Gomez, No. 17-312 (U.S. filed Feb. 21, 2018) (quoting United States v. Howard, 480 F.3d 1005, 1009 (2007)). Regarding the use of five-point restraints, the court found the district’s policy unconstitutional. The Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, affirmed all of these decisions, but ruled that mandamus and not the collateral-order doctrine was the proper justification for the exercise of appellate jurisdiction.
In its appeal, the government challenges the Ninth Circuit’s findings regarding appellate jurisdiction and mootness. If the Court decides to affirm the decision below, it could call into question not only the restraint policy in the Southern District of California, but also similar policies in other districts.