A federal judge last month rejected an incarcerated plaintiff’s request for a new civil trial in his constitutional rights lawsuit, concluding the jury was not influenced by the man’s appearance in shackles at trial.

This summer, Dean Carbajal received a jury trial on his claim that Colorado Department of Corrections employees failed to protect him against attacks by gang members at Limon Correctional Facility, despite knowing he was in danger. Jurors sided with the defendants, finding they did not violate Carbajal’s Eighth Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment.

Carbajal quickly filed a motion asking for a new trial or for him to prevail as a matter of law. Among other things, Carbajal took issue with the fact that he was required to wear handcuffs and shackles during trial.

“This abusive and prejudicial decision to force Mr. Carbajal to appear in restrains (sic) was devoid of logic or reason,” wrote attorney Kenneth Mark Burton. “The Jury ignored the overwhelming evidence of Defendants failure to protect Mr. Carbajal and his serious injuries because they perceived him as an extremely dangerous person that naturally would have been with dangerous prisoners (and) by extension was unworthy of protection.”

In an Oct. 16 order, U.S. District Court Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer acknowledged the federal appeals court with jurisdiction over Colorado has never addressed whether an incarcerated plaintiff in a civil trial is prejudiced if the jury were to see him in shackles.

Brimmer elaborated that on the first day of trial, when Carbajal asked to be released from his restraints, Brimmer declined to do so because it was protocol to restrain prisoners, jurors were already aware of Carbajal’s incarcerated status and he was sitting “very near to the jury.”

“In explaining its reasoning, the Court noted that violent incidents involving prisoners have occurred in courthouses in recent years, which involved sudden actions without warning,” Brimmer wrote. 

He noted other federal appeals courts have reasoned that an incarcerated plaintiff is not harmed if they are required to wear restraints during their civil trial, as the “nature of the plaintiffs’ claims” already makes it clear they are imprisoned. Although some courts have recognized that restraining a plaintiff is problematic if the case implicates the plaintiff’s own dangerousness, that was not an issue for Carbajal.

Finally, Brimmer observed that he told jurors the dispute was “between persons of equal standing in the community, of equal worth.”

“Thus, the jury was instructed that all prisoners — even dangerous and violent prisoners — have the right to be protected from serious harm under the Eighth Amendment,” he concluded.

Brimmer also rejected Carbajal’s other claims, including that the defendants’ reference at trial to Carbajal’s large number of prior lawsuits compromised the fairness of the trial.

Carbajal is appealing the outcome of the case.

The case is Carbajal v. Falk et al.