Summary
holding that there was no prejudice where, "although the stun-belt was activated while the jury was deliberating and Petitioner screamed, Petitioner ha[d] adduced no evidence that the jurors heard or attributed the scream to Petitioner, or were in any way influenced by the activation"
Summary of this case from Calvert v. StateOpinion
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)
Wendell Harrison, Susanville, CA, pro se.
David A. Eldridge, Esq., Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, David A. Eldridge, Esq., for Respondents-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California; Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-03-05005-AWI.
Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
California state prisoner Wendell Harrison appeals pro se from the district court's judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
Harrison contends that his constitutional rights were violated by the use of a stun-belt during trial. We conclude that the trial court properly determined that the use of the restraint was necessary and that Harrison has not shown that he was prejudiced by wearing the restraint. See Gonzalez v. Pliler, 341 F.3d 897, 903 (9th Cir.2003). Accordingly, the state court's decision was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
Harrison's request to broaden the certificate of appealability is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22-1(e); Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.