2015 Ninth Circuit

Annual Report
The Office of the Circuit Executive would like to acknowledge the following for their 

contributions to the 2015 Ninth Circuit Annual Report:

Chief Judge Sidney R. Thomas

Chief District Judge Ann L. Aiken, District of Oregon

Cathy A. Catterson, Circuit and Court of Appeals Executive, Ninth Circuit

Molly C. Dwyer, Clerk of Court, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Susan M. Spraul, Clerk, Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel

Mary Lou Moran, Clerk of Court, District of Oregon

Gina Faubion, Chief Pretrial Services Officer, Eastern District of California

David Sultzbaugh, Chief Probation Officer, Southern District of California

Ninth Circuit Library Staff

Cover Image: The lobby of the Mark O. Hatfield United States Courthouse in Portland, Oregon, 

features a portrait of Judge Matthew Paul Deady, the first judge of the Oregon federal court.
Voting members of the Judicial Council of the Ninth 

Circuit are Chief Judge Sidney R. Thomas, Senior Circuit 

Judge William C. Canby, Jr., *Senior Circuit Judge J. 

Clifford Wallace, Circuit Judge Richard A. Paez, *Circuit 

Judge Richard C. Tallman, Circuit Judge Consuelo M. 

Callahan, Circuit Judge N. Randy Smith, Circuit Judge 

Mary H. Murguia, Chief District Judge Raner C. Collins, 

Chief District Judge George H. King, Chief District Judge 

B. Lynn Winmill, Senior District Judge Susan Y. Illston, 

*Senior District Judge Anthony W. Ishii

Observer members of the Judicial Council of the Ninth 

Circuit are Chief District Judge Ann L. Aiken, *Chief 

District Judge Ralph R. Beistline, *Chief District Judge 

Susan Oki Mollway, District Judge Anna J. Brown, 

*District Judge Robert S. Lasnik, Senior District Judge 

Claudia Wilken, *Chief Bankruptcy Judge Frank R. 

Alley, III, Chief Bankruptcy Judge Laura S. Taylor, Chief 

Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Smith, District Court 

Clerk Mary Moran, *District Court Clerk Terry Nafisi, 

Bankruptcy Court Clerk Mary Ann Schott, *Bankruptcy 

Court Clerk Wayne E. Blackwelder, Chief Probation 

Officer David Sultzbaugh, *Chief Probation Officer Felix 

S. Mata, Chief Pretrial Services Officer Gina Faubion, and 

*Chief Pretrial Services Officer David L. Martin.

*Term expired in 2015

MISSION STATEMENT

The mission of the Judicial 

Council of the Ninth Circuit 

is to support the effective and 

expeditious administration of 

justice and the safeguarding of 

fairness in the administration of 

the courts within the circuit. To 

do so, it will promote the fair and 

prompt resolution of disputes, 

ensure the effective discharge of 

court business, prevent any form 

of invidious discrimination, and 

enhance public understanding of, 

and confidence in the judiciary.

judicial council of

the ninth circuit
table of contents

SPACE & SECURITY

50 Federal Court Has Long Presence in Portland

54 Art Exhibit Recalls Trauma of Internment

55 Ninth Circuit Staff Plays Key Role in

Judiciary’s Effort to Reduce Energy Costs

55 Dedication Ceremony Held for New

Courthouse in Northern California

56 Courthouse Under Construction

WORK OF THE COURTS

58 Court of Appeals Reports Slight

Decrease in New Appeals

62 District Courts

66 Bankruptcy Courts Report Fewer Cases

68 Bankruptcy Appellate Panel

70 Magistrate Judges

72 Sentencing Change Causes Caseloads 

to Rise for Most Federal Defenders

74 Probation Officers

77 Pretrial Services Officers

80 Juror Utilization

81 Court Interpreters

82 District Caseloads

NINTH CIRCUIT OVERVIEW

1 Foreword

3 Ninth Circuit Overview

4 Judicial Council, Advisory Groups 

and Administration

JUDICIAL TRANSITIONS

8 New Judges

9 Judicial Investiture in Fresno

13 Senior Judges

14 In Memoriam

NINTH CIRCUIT HIGHLIGHTS

18 New Judicature Has Ninth Circuit Flavor

19 Ninth Circuit Judge Edward Leavy Receives

Prestigious Devitt Award

21 Ninth Circuit Breaks New Ground with 

Corrections Summit

23 Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference

25 Civics Gets Its Due at the Circuit Conference

27 Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference Awards

29 Ninth Circuit Welcomes New Judges

30 Northern California Federal Bar Luncheon

31 In Stockton, Justice Sotomayor Talks of Life, 

Learning and Leadership

32 Northern District of California’s Longest Serving 

Judge Retires

33 Ninth Circuit Welcomes Ugandan Visitors

34 Appellate Panels Travel the West for Special Sittings

35 Montana Celebrates Famed Jurist

36 Quackenbush Lecture Series Draws Top Speakers

37 Lecture Named for Ninth Circuit Jurist, Spouse

38 Judges, Staff Find Merit in Jury Summit

39 Magistrate Judges Focus on Legal Impacts of Technology

41 Ninth Circuit Courts Pursue ADR

43 2015 Award Recipients

44 Ninth Circuit Holds Annual Law Clerk Orientation

45 District Courts Staffs Get National Recognition

46 Administrative Changes Around the Circuit
1

I am pleased to provide you with 

the 2015 Ninth Circuit Annual 

Report. The Report highlights 

events and activities involving 

and affecting judges and judicial 

staff in nine western states and 

two Pacific Island jurisdictions 

and provides statistical summaries 

of the work done by our courts. 

This is my second report as 

Chief Judge, and I am happy to 

advise that our courts once again 

provided exceptional services to 

litigants and the general public.

The United States Court of 

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 

remains the nation’s busiest federal 

appellate court with 22.5 percent of 

all new appeals nationally. While 

our docket reflects the full scope of 

federal law, immigration matters 

and appeals brought by inmates in 

state or federal prisons accounted 

for 53.3 percent of new filings. Just 

under half of all new appeals to the 

court involved at least one litigant 

not represented by a lawyer.

In the 15 federal trial courts of the 

circuit, new criminal cases were 

down 4.9 percent, due in part to 

the changes in federal prosecution 

priorities. The District of Arizona, 

one of two Ninth Circuit border 

courts, continues to lead the nation 

in number of defendants charged 

with drug offenses and ranks 

second nationally for defendants 

charged with immigration offenses. 

New civil cases in the circuit 

declined by 7.7 percent. About one 

in five of new civil cases is being 

brought by a prison inmate.

The rebounding economy has 

meant fewer bankruptcy filings in 

the Ninth Circuit and the nation. 

New filings in the circuit were 

down 18.2 percent from the prior 

fiscal year. The Central District 

of California, which experienced 

a drop of almost 20 percent, 

nonetheless remains the busiest 

bankruptcy court in the country. 

Appeals to the Ninth Circuit 

Bankruptcy Appellate Panel also 

fell by 20 percent.

This year’s report from the 

Circuit’s federal public defenders, 

who represent indigent 

defendants, proved unusual: New 

case openings were down circuitwide while actually increasing 

in most districts. The overall 

decrease stems from a very steep 

drop in one district, while the 

increases in the other districts 

are due to the reopening of 

closed drug cases to determine 

eligibility for a retroactive 

sentence reduction instituted by 

the U.S. Sentencing Commission. 

The change has resulted in early 

release of some offenders, which 

has been successfully managed 

by our United States Probation 

Services offices.

The Ninth Circuit Court 

of Appeals enjoyed its full 

complement of 29 active judges for 

most of the year. A new vacancy 

occurred in December when our 

friend Judge Harry Pregerson of 

Woodland Hills, California, took 

senior status. District Judge Lucy 

H. Koh of San Jose, California, 

has been nominated for the seat. 

Following a wave of judicial 

confirmations in 2014, the only 

new district judge to be seated in 

2015 was District Judge Dale A. 

Drozd of the Eastern District of 

California. The year ended with 

five vacancies among the district 

courts of the circuit, three of 

them in the Central District of 

California. The court of appeals 

appointed five new bankruptcy 

judges, while districts courts 

appointed 11 new magistrate 

judges.

This past year saw the passing of 

a number of distinguished jurists. 

While all of them are recognized 

elsewhere in this report, I would 

be remiss not to mention the loss 

of my Ninth Circuit colleague, 

Senior Judge Arthur L. Alarcón, 

the first Hispanic to sit on our 

court, and Senior District Judge 

Lawrence K. Karlton, a legendary 

foreword

chief judge

sidney r. thomas
2

jurist in the Eastern District of 

California. Both of these judges 

were dedicated servants of the law 

and role models for generations of 

colleagues.

Over the course of the year, we 

celebrated the accomplishments 

of a number of judges. Heading 

the list is Senior Circuit Judge 

Edward Leavy, one of Oregon’s 

most admired jurists, who 

received the 2015 Edward J. 

Devitt Distinguished Service 

to Justice Award, the judiciary’s 

highest honor. The award was 

presented during a special dinner 

at the U.S. Supreme Court in 

Washington attended by Chief 

Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and 

Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, 

Sonia Sotomayor and Clarence 

Thomas. Judge Leavy was also 

honored by his Ninth Circuit 

friends and colleagues at a special 

session in his hometown of 

Portland.

At the 2015 Ninth Circuit Judicial 

Conference, the American Inns of 

Court for the first time selected 

two recipients for its prestigious 

Ninth Circuit Professionalism 

Award, honoring Senior District 

Judge Robert J. Bryan of the 

Western District of Washington 

for judicial leadership in the 

Pacific Northwest, and Phoenix 

attorney Larry A. Hammond, 

one of the deans of the Arizona 

criminal defense bar. Attorney 

Judy Clarke, another renowned 

criminal defense lawyer, received 

the 2015 Ninth Circuit John Frank 

Award recognizing outstanding 

lawyering in the federal courts of 

the western states. A full list of 

other judges being recognized can 

be found elsewhere in this report.

Court staff from the Ninth 

Circuit received awards from the 

Administrative Office of the U.S. 

Courts. A Director’s Award for 

Excellence in Court Operations 

were presented to court staff from 

the District of Nevada and the 

Southern District of California for 

developing the eVoucher System, 

which automates the process of 

billing and disbursing payments 

for indigent defense under the 

Criminal Justice Act. Clifford 

Harlan, assistant circuit executive 

for space and facilities in the 

Office of the Circuit Executive, 

also received the same award 

for his contributions to an intergovernmental effort to reduce the 

judiciary’s energy use and costs.

Federal judges in San Francisco, 

meanwhile, noted the retirement 

of the longest-serving judge 

in the history of the Northern 

District of California. Senior 

District Judge Samuel Conti, 93, 

stepped down in November after 

celebrating his 45th year on the 

Northern California bench. One 

would have to look back more 

than a century to find a judge 

with a similar tenure.

In the space and facilities realm, 

good progress was made during 

the year on construction of a 

new courthouse in Los Angeles, 

a priority project scheduled 

for occupancy by the Central 

District of California in fall 2016. 

Judges of the Northern District 

of California held a dedication 

ceremony in March for a new 

courthouse in McKinleyville, 

near Eureka, which will house 

a courtroom and chambers for a 

magistrate judge and space for 

the bankruptcy court, probation 

office, U.S. attorney, and the U.S. 

Marshals Service.

Because our judges and staffs 

are willing to consider new 

approaches to challenging 

problems, federal courts of the 

Ninth Circuit are frequently 

trailblazers. This past year 

provided another example of 

that with the Ninth Circuit 

Corrections Summit. This was 

a first-of-its-kind gathering of 

important stakeholders in the 

difficult area of prisoner litigation, 

including representatives of state 

attorneys general and corrections 

departments from all of the states 

that comprise the circuit. Judging 

by the feedback from attendees, 

the time spent discussing ways 

to improve the operations of both 

the courts and our prisons was 

well spent, and we look forward 

to continuing the dialogue in 

the future. I congratulate and 

commend all of the organizers.

Our magistrate judges continue 

to make vital contributions to the 

courts. In addition to yeoman’s 

work in the courtroom, they 

are contributing to our overall 

understanding of the law as it 

pertains to law enforcement 

requests to obtain cellphone 

and other electronic data. The 

Magistrate Judges Executive 

Board and its Education 

Subcommittee produced a 

helpful booklet on the subject 

and organized a supplemental 

program at our circuit 

conference.

We invite you to review 

this report further for more 

information about the work of the 

federal courts in the West.
3

The United States Courts for the Ninth Circuit consists 

of the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

the Ninth Circuit, the federal 

district and bankruptcy courts 

in the 15 judicial districts within 

the circuit, and associated 

administrative units that provide 

various services to the courts.

Judicial districts within the Ninth 

Circuit include the districts 

of Alaska, Arizona, Central 

California, Eastern California, 

Northern California, Southern 

California, Hawaii, Idaho, 

Montana, Nevada, Oregon, 

Eastern Washington, Western 

Washington, the U.S. Territory 

of Guam and the Commonwealth 

of the Northern Mariana 

Islands. The establishment of 

the Ninth Circuit in 1866 began 

the development of the federal 

judicial system for the western 

United States. It is the largest and 

busiest federal circuit in the nation.

Judges serving on the circuit 

and district courts are known as 

Article III judges, a reference to 

the article in the Constitution 

establishing the federal judiciary. 

Nominated by the president 

and confirmed by the Senate, 

Article III judges serve lifetime 

appointments upon good 

behavior. The Ninth Circuit 

Court of Appeals is authorized 

29 judgeships and ended 2015 

with one vacant position. For 

most of the year, the district 

courts of the circuit were 

authorized 112 judgeships, five 

of which were vacant at the end 

of 2015.

Federal courts also rely on senior 

circuit and senior district judges 

to assist with their workload. 

These are Article III judges who 

are eligible to retire but have 

chosen to continue working 

with reduced caseloads. On the 

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, 

15 senior circuit judges were at 

work for most of the year, sitting 

on motions and merits panels, 

serving on circuit and national 

judicial committees, and handling a 

variety of administrative matters. 

In the district courts within the 

circuit, 60 senior judges were at 

work, hearing cases, presiding over 

procedural matters, serving on 

committees and conducting other 

business in 2015. 

In addition to Article III judges, 

the federal bench includes Article 

I judges, who serve as magistrate 

judges in the district courts 

and bankruptcy judges in the 

bankruptcy courts. Bankruptcy 

judges are appointed by judges of 

the courts of appeals and serve 

terms of 14 years. Magistrate 

judges are appointed by the 

judges of each district court and 

hold their positions for eight 

years. Bankruptcy and magistrate 

judges may be reappointed.

In 2015, bankruptcy courts in the 

Ninth Circuit were authorized 68 

permanent and five temporary 

judgeships. The district courts 

were authorized 105 full-time and 

9 part-time magistrate judges, 

and one combined position of 

part-time magistrate judge/clerk 

of court. Several courts also 

utilized recalled bankruptcy and 

recalled magistrate judges.

Overall, the Ninth Circuit courts 

experienced reduced caseloads 

in 2015. Unless otherwise 

noted, statistics in this report 

cover fiscal year 2015 ending 

September 30. 

MONTANA

IDAHO

NEVADA

ARIZONA

OREGON

ALASKA

HAWAII

GUAM

NORTHERN

MARIANA 

ISLANDS

SOUTHERN 

CENTRAL 

CALIFORNIA

NORTHERN

EASTERN

WASHINGTON

EASTERN

WESTERN ninth

circuit

overview
4

judicial council,

advisory groups &

administration

The Judicial Council of 

the Ninth Circuit is the 

governing body for federal district 

and bankruptcy courts in nine 

western states and two Pacific 

island jurisdictions. The judicial 

council has statutory authority 

to “make all necessary and 

appropriate orders for the effective 

and expeditious administration of 

justice within its circuit.”

The judicial council also has been 

delegated responsibilities by the 

Judicial Conference of the United 

States, the national governing 

body for the federal courts. These 

responsibilities include authorizing 

senior judge staffing levels and 

pay, and managing the judicial 

misconduct complaint process.

The judicial council is chaired 

by the chief judge of the circuit 

and relies on advisory groups 

and committees to accomplish 

its governance goals. Chairs of 

three advisory groups attend 

council meetings as observers 

and sometimes as voting 

members. Committee chairs 

report to the council as needed.

Newly appointed in 2015 as 

voting members of the judicial 

council were Senior Circuit Judge 

William C. Canby, Jr., Circuit 

Judge N. Randy Smith, and Chief 

District Judge Ann Aiken of 

the District of Oregon. Newly 

appointed in 2015 as observers 

include Senior District Judge 

Claudia Wilken of the Northern 

District of California, Chief 

District Judge Ralph R. Beistline 

of the District of Alaska, Chief 

Bankruptcy Judge Laura S. Taylor 

of the Southern District of 

California, District Court Clerk 

Mary Moran of the District of 

Oregon, Bankruptcy Court Clerk 

Mary Ann Schott of the District 

of Nevada, Chief Probation 

Officer David Sultzbaugh of the 

Southern District of California, 

and Chief Pretrial Services Officer 

Gina Faubion of the Eastern 

District of California.

Under the Rules for JudicialConduct and Judicial-Disability 

Proceedings, the Judicial Council 

of the Ninth Circuit considers 

petitions for review of the 

chief judge’s orders in judicial 

misconduct complaints. In 2015, 

there were 42 petitions for review 

filed and all 42 petitions were 

resolved by the judicial council.

Conference of Chief 

District Judges

The Conference of Chief District 

Judges advises the Judicial Council 

of the Ninth Circuit regarding 

the administration of justice in 

the circuit’s 15 district courts. The 

conference, which meets twice a 

year, is comprised of the chief 

district judge of each district. 

Chief District Judge Ralph R. 

Beistline of the District of Alaska 

served as chair from March 

2015 to December 2015. He was 

succeeded by Chief District Judge 

Ramona Villagomez Manglona, 

who will chair the conference until 

January 2017.

Elevated to chief district 

judge during the year were 

Judges Timothy M. Burgess 

of the District of Alaska and 

J. Michael Seabright of the 

District of Hawaii.

Conference of Chief 

Bankruptcy Judges

The Conference of Chief 

Bankruptcy Judges advises the 

Judicial Council of the Ninth 

Circuit on the administration of 

the bankruptcy courts within the 

circuit. The conference, which 

also meets twice per year, consists 

of chief bankruptcy judges 

from each district, the chief 

bankruptcy judge of the Ninth 

Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate 

Panel and a recalled bankruptcy 

judge representative. Chief 

Bankruptcy Judge Frank R. Alley, 
5

III, of the District of Oregon chaired 

the conference from October 2014 to 

September 2015. He was succeeded 

by Chief Bankruptcy Judge Laura 

S. Taylor of the Southern District 

of California, who will chair the 

conference until September 2016.

Elevated to chief bankruptcy judge 

in 2015 were Judges Roger L. 

Efremsky of the Northern District 

of California, Sheri Bluebond of the 

Central District of California, Bruce 

Beesley of the District of Nevada, 

Trish M. Brown of the District of 

Oregon and Ronald Sargis of the 

Eastern District of California.

Magistrate Judges Executive Board

The Magistrate Judges Executive 

Board communicates to the Judicial 

Council of the Ninth Circuit 

on behalf of the more than 120 

full-time, part-time and recalled 

magistrate judges serving in the 

district courts. The 15-member 

board meets twice a year and 

holds a session with all magistrate 

judges at the Ninth Circuit Judicial 

Conference. Chief Magistrate Judge 

Deborah M. Smith of the District 

of Alaska has served as chair since 

August 2014.

Clerks of Court

Daily management of the courts rests 

with the chief judges and clerks and/

or district executives of the court of 

appeals and each of the district and 

bankruptcy courts of the circuit. The 

clerks’ offices process new cases and 

appeals, handle docketing functions, 

respond to procedural questions 

from the public and bar, and provide 

adequate judicial staff resources. The 

clerk of court for the court of appeals 

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

OFFICE OF THE CIRCUIT EXECUTIVE

Cathy A. Catterson

Circuit & Court of Appeals Executive

JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Chief Judge Sidney R. Thomas

LIAISON 

COMMITTEES

• District Clerks

• Bankruptcy Clerks

• Chief Probation & 

Pretrial Services Officers

ADVISORY & STANDING COMMITTEES

• Advisory Board

• Alternative Dispute Resolution

• Capital Case

• CJA Oversight

• Court-Council Committee on 

Bankruptcy Judge Appointments

• Courts and Community

• Federal Public Defenders

• Fairness

• Information Technology

• Jury Instructions

• Jury Trial Improvement

• Ninth Circuit Judges Education

• Pacific Islands

• Pro Se Litigation

• Space & Security

• Wellness

ASSOCIATIONS OF JUDICIAL OFFICERS

• Conference of Chief District Judges

• Magistrate Judges Executive Board

• Conference of Chief Bankruptcy Judges

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

• Lawyer Representatives 

Coordinating Committee
6

also supervises the work of the 

Circuit Mediation Office and the 

Office of the Staff Attorneys, 

which includes the research, 

motions, case management and 

pro se litigation units. The Office 

of the Appellate Commissioner, 

also in the Ninth Circuit Court 

of Appeals Clerk’s Office, reviews 

Criminal Justice Act vouchers for 

cases that come before the court 

of appeals.

Associated Court Units

Ninth Circuit courts also 

rely on several critical courtrelated agencies to ensure the 

fair administration of justice. 

The district courts maintain 

oversight of U.S. Probation and 

Pretrial Services offices. Pretrial 

services officers are responsible 

for background investigations 

and reports on defendants 

awaiting trial, while probation 

officers supervise persons 

convicted of federal crimes after 

their release into the community. 

All but one judicial district in the 

circuit is served by either federal 

public defender or community 

defenders, who represent 

indigent defendants unable to 

afford private counsel. Indigent 

defendants in the District of 

Northern Mariana Islands are 

represented by private attorneys 

provided by the District of 

Guam and paid through the 

federal Criminal Justice Act.

Circuit Libraries

The Ninth Circuit Library 

System assists judges, attorneys, 

court staff and the public 

through a network of 24 law 

libraries housed in courthouses 

throughout the western states. 

The primary mission of court 

librarians is to provide research 

services to judges and their 

staff. Research librarians assist 

law clerks on case-related 

research by providing guidance 

and recommendations, offering 

training opportunities, and 

performing direct research on 

more complex topics. Librarians 

also conduct research to assist 

court executives and judges in the 

administration of local courts and 

on matters involving committees 

of the Judicial Council of the 

Ninth Circuit and the Judicial 

Conference of the U.S. Library 

resources are also made available 

to the bar and public with the 

level of access determined by 

local judges.

Office of the Circuit Executive

The Office of the Circuit 

Executive provides staff support 

to the Judicial Council of the 

Ninth Circuit and implements 

the council’s administrative 

decisions and policies. By statute, 

the circuit executive is the 

administrative assistant to the 

chief judge of the circuit and 

secretary to the council. The 

circuit executive and her staff 

assist in identifying circuitwide needs, conducting studies, 

developing and implementing 

policies, and providing training, 

public information and human 

resources support. Circuit 

executive staff also coordinates 

building and automation projects, 

and advises the council on 

procedural and ethical matters. 

The Office of the Circuit 

Executive provides management 

and technical assistance to courts 

within the circuit upon request. It 

also administers the Ninth Circuit 

Judicial Conference.

Lawyer Representatives

Judges of the Ninth Circuit Court 

of Appeals and of each of the 

15 district courts of the circuit 

appoint lawyer representatives. 

Lawyer representatives serve 

as a liaison between the federal 

bench and bar, fostering open 

communications between judges 

and lawyers, and providing 

support and advice in the 

functioning of the courts within 

the circuit. Attorneys serving 

as lawyer representatives 

work closely with district, 

bankruptcy and magistrate 

judges in their home districts. 

They participate as members on 

various committees and help plan 

local district conferences, often 

serving as speakers or facilitators. 

Lawyer representatives also help 

plan the Ninth Circuit Judicial 

Conference, which is convened 

“for the purpose of considering 

the business of the courts and 

advising means of improving the 

administration of justice within 

the circuit,” pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 333. 
Judicial

Transitions

Outside the Jury Assembly Room is a bas relief image of 

Senior District Judge Malcolm F. Marsh, who was primarily 

responsible for court input into the Hatfield Courthouse design.
8

District Judge

Dale A. Drozd 

was confirmed 

by the Senate 

to serve as a 

district judge 

for the Eastern 

District of 

California on 

October 5, 2015, and received his 

judicial commission on November 

2, 2015. Prior to his appointment, 

he had served as a magistrate 

judge for the Eastern District of 

California since 1997. Judge Drozd 

engaged in private practice in 

Sacramento, California, from 1986 

to 1997, and in San Francisco, 

from 1982 to 1985. He received 

his B.A. from San Diego State 

University in 1977 and his J.D. 

from the University of California, 

Los Angeles, School of Law, 

in 1980. Following law school, 

he clerked for Judge Lawrence 

K. Karlton of the U.S. District 

Court for the Eastern District of 

California from 1980 to 1982. He 

maintains chambers in Fresno.

Bankruptcy Judges

Christopher 

M. Alston was 

appointed as 

a bankruptcy 

judge for 

the Western 

District of 

Washington 

on July 1, 2015. Prior to his 

appointment, Judge Alston was 

with the law firm of Foster 

Pepper PLLC in Seattle, where he 

had chaired the firm’s Creditors’ 

Rights and Bankruptcy Group 

since 2010. He joined the firm 

as an associate in 1989 and 

became an equity partner in 

1997. Judge Alston served as 

a lawyer representative to the 

Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference 

for the Western District of 

Washington. He had served as a 

mediator for the district’s Judge 

Thomas T. Glover Mediation 

Program since 2012 and on its 

Executive Committee since 2014. 

Judge Alston received his A.B. 

from Princeton University in 

1985 and his J.D. in 1989 from 

the University of Michigan Law 

School, where he was awarded a 

Clarence Darrow Scholarship. He 

maintains chambers in Seattle. 

Martin R. 

Barash was 

appointed as 

a bankruptcy 

judge for the 

Central District 

of California 

on March 26, 

2015. Prior to his appointment 

to the bench, Judge Barash had 

been a partner at the law firm of 

Klee, Tuchin, Bogdanoff & Stern 

LLP, in Los Angeles since 2001. 

He joined the firm as an associate 

in 1991. He also worked as an 

associate at Stutman, Treister & 

Glatt P.C. in L.A., from 1994 to 

1998, and served as an adjunct 

professor of law at California State 

University at Northridge, from 

1998 to 1999. Judge Barash earned 

his A.B. in 1989 from Princeton 

University, where he graduated 

magna cum laude, and his J.D. 

in 1992 from the University of 

California, Los Angeles, School of 

Law, where he served as member, 

business manager, symposium 

editor and editor of the UCLA 

Law Review. Following law school, 

he clerked for Judge Procter R. 

Hug, Jr., of the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 

from 1992 to 1993. He maintains 

chambers in Woodland Hills.

Christopher 

D. Jaime was 

appointed as 

a bankruptcy 

judge for the 

Eastern District 

of California 

on January 5, 

2015. Prior to coming onto the 

bench, Judge Jaime had been the 

vice-president and a shareholder 

at Maupin, Cox & LeGoy in 

Reno, Nevada, since 1998. He 

joined the firm as an associate in 

1992. Judge Jaime received his 

B.S. from St. Mary’s College of 

California in 1989 and his J.D. in 

1992 from Willamette University 

College of Law, where he was the 

associate editor of the Willamette 

Law Review from 1991 to 1992. 

He maintains chambers in 

Sacramento.

new judges
9

 René Lastreto, 

II, was 

appointed as a 

bankruptcy 

judge for the 

Eastern 

District of 

California on 

September 14, 2015. Prior to his 

appointment to the bench, he was 

a partner and owner of Lang, 

Richert & Patch in Fresno, 

California, where he served on the 

Management Committee and was 

lead attorney of the Financial 

Services Practice. He joined the 

firm in 1999 and served as 

managing partner from 2004 to 

2005. Judge Lastreto received his 

B.S., cum laude, from the 

University of Utah in 1978 and 

his J.D. in 1981 from the 

University of San Francisco, 

School of Law, where he received 

honors for moot court in 1978 

and 1979. He maintains chambers 

in Fresno.

Peter C. 

McKittrick was 

appointed as 

a bankruptcy 

judge for the 

District of 

Oregon on 

January 12, 

2015. Prior to his appointment 

to the bench, Judge McKittrick 

had been a partner at McKittrick 

Leonard LLP in Portland, 

Oregon, since 2012. He had 

worked as a bankruptcy trustee 

in his own firm, McKittrick, Inc., 

since 2005 and previously had 

a long association with the law 

firm of Farleigh Wada Witt PC 

in Portland, where he worked 

as an associate from 1986 to 

1991, a shareholder from 1991 

to 2005, and of counsel from 

2005 to 2012. Judge McKittrick 

received his B.S. from Lewis & 

Clark College in 1981 and his 

J.D. in 1985 from Willamette 

University College of Law, 

where he graduated cum laude. 

During law school, he worked 

as a teaching assistant for firstyear legal research and writing 

and as a research assistant 

to a professor. He maintains 

chambers in Portland.

Judicial Investiture in Fresno

District Judge Dale A. Drozd of Fresno was the only Article III judge to be confirmed in the Ninth Circuit in 2015. His 

investiture ceremony was held February 18, 2016, at the Robert E. Coyle United States Courthouse in Fresno. Senior District 

Judge Anthony W. Ishii administered the oath of office and Judge Drozd was helped into his robes by his sons, Doug, left, and 

Paul Drozd. Judge Drozd had previously served his court as a magistrate judge for 18 years. 

Photo credit: Ronald Webb
10

Magistrate Judges

Stacie F. 

Beckerman was 

appointed as 

a magistrate 

judge for the 

District of 

Oregon on 

January 5, 

2015. Prior to her appointment 

to the bench, Judge Beckerman 

had served as an assistant U.S. 

attorney for the District of 

Oregon since 2008. During 

2011-2012, Judge Beckerman 

was also an adjunct professor 

at Lewis and Clark Law School. 

Prior to the U.S. Attorney’s 

Office, Judge Beckerman served 

as an assistant attorney general 

for the Oregon Department of 

Justice. Prior to public service, 

Judge Beckerman engaged in 

private practice as a litigation 

associate at Skadden, Arps, Slate, 

Meagher, & Flom, in Boston 

and Palo Alto, California, from 

1999 until 2006, and as an 

associate at Verner, Liipfert, 

Bernhard, McPherson & Hand, 

in Washington, D.C., from 1998-

1999. Judge Beckerman received 

her B.A. from the University 

of Iowa in 1995 and her J.D. 

from Harvard Law School in 

1998. She maintains chambers in 

Portland.

 David W. 

Christel was 

appointed as a 

magistrate 

judge for the 

Western 

District of 

Washington on 

April 1, 2015. He had served as a 

part-time magistrate judge for 

district since 2007. Prior to 

coming onto the bench, he 

engaged in private practice in 

Vancouver, Washington, where he 

was a partner at Christel & Isely, 

from 2007 to 2015; a sole 

proprietor of David W. Christel 

Attorney at Law, PC, from 2006 to 

2007; a partner at Simon & Christel 

from 2004 to 2006; a partner at 

Blair, Schaefer, Hutchison & Wolfe 

LLP, from 1989 to 2004; and an 

associate at Blair, Schaefer, 

Hutchison & Wynne, from 1987 to 

1989. He began his legal career as a 

litigation associate at Diamond & 

Sylvester in Seattle, from 1986 to 

1987. Judge Christel received his 

B.A. from Washington State 

University in 1979 and his J.D. 

from the University of 

Washington, School of Law, in 

1985. He maintains chambers in 

Tacoma.

 Deborah M. 

Fine was 

appointed as a 

magistrate 

judge for the 

District of 

Arizona on 

May 4, 2015. 

Prior to her appointment, Judge 

Fine had served as an assistant 

federal public defender for the 

District of Arizona in Flagstaff 

since 2005 and in Phoenix from 

1992 to 1994. She engaged in 

private practice in Flagstaff 

from 1994 to 2005 and in 

Phoenix from 1989 to 1992. 

Judge Fine received her B.A. 

from the State University of 

New York at Stony Brook in 

1986 and her J.D. from Harvard 

Law School in 1989. She 

maintains chambers in Flagstaff.

 Erica P.

Grosjean was 

appointed as a 

magistrate 

judge for the 

Eastern 

District of 

California on 

October 12, 2015. Prior to her 

appointment to the bench, Judge 

Grosjean had been a partner at 

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & 

Sullivan in Los Angeles and New 

York since 2001. She received 

her A.B., with honors, from the 

University of California, 

Berkeley, in 1997 and her J.D., 

cum laude, in 2000 from Harvard 

Law School, where she was 

editor of the Law Review. 

Following law school, she 

clerked for Judge Herbert Y.C. 

Choy of the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 

from 2000 to 2001. Judge 

Grosjean maintains chambers

in Fresno.
11

 John T. 

Johnston was 

appointed as a 

magistrate 

judge for the 

District of 

Montana on 

January 5, 

2015. Prior to coming onto the 

bench, Judge Johnston had been a 

partner with the law firm of 

Joyce, Johnston & MacDonald, 

PLLP, in Butte, Montana, since 

2003. Prior to that, he worked in 

Butte as a partner with Corette, 

Pohlman & Allen, PC, from 1994 

to 2002 and as an associate with 

Corette, Smith, Pohlman & Allen, 

PC, from 1988 to 1993. Judge 

Johnston received his B.S. from 

Western Montana College in 

1985 and his J.D. from the 

University of Montana, School 

of Law, in 1988. He maintains 

chambers in Great Falls.

 

Sallie Kim was 

appointed as 

a magistrate 

judge for the 

Northern 

District of 

California 

on July 30, 

2015. Prior to her appointment 

to the bench, Judge Kim had 

been a partner with the law firm 

of GCA Law Partners, LLP, 

in Mountain View, California, 

since 2002. She was a special 

counsel at Duane Morris in San 

Francisco, from 1999 to 2002; 

an associate at Heller Ehrman 

White & McAuliffe in Palo 

Alto, California, in 1995; and 

an associate at Wilson Sonsini 

Goodrich & Rosati in Palo 

Alto, from 1991 to 1994. Judge 

Kim worked as an assistant 

and associate dean of student 

affairs and as a lecturer in law at 

Stanford Law School from 1995 

to 1999. Judge Kim received 

her A.B., cum laude, from 

Princeton University in 1986 

and her J.D. from Stanford Law 

School in 1989. Following law 

school, she served as a law clerk 

to Judge Spencer Williams of 

the U.S. District Court for the 

Northern District of California. 

She maintains chambers in San 

Francisco.

 Alexander F. 

MacKinnon 

was appointed 

as a magistrate 

judge for the 

Central District 

of California 

on July 20, 

2015. Prior to coming onto the 

bench, Judge MacKinnon had 

been an associate then partner at 

Kirkland & Ellis LLP since 1982. 

He received his B.S.E. from the 

University of Michigan in 1977 

and his J.D. from the University 

of Michigan Law School in 1981. 

He clerked for Judge Albert J. 

Engel of the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Sixth 

Circuit from 1981 to 1982. He 

maintains chambers in Los 

Angeles.

 Rozella A. 

Oliver was 

appointed as a 

magistrate 

judge for the 

Central 

District of 

California on 

May 1, 2015. Prior to her 

appointment, Judge Oliver had 

served as an assistant U.S. 

attorney in the Central District 

since 2005 and in the District of 

Columbia from 2003 to 2005. 

She served as a trial attorney for 

the U.S. Department of Justice, 

Tax Division, from 2000 to 

2003. Judge Oliver received her 

A.B. from Harvard University in 

1992, her diploma in Hispanic 

studies from the Universidad de 

Barcelona in 1994, and her J.D. 

from Stanford Law School in 

1999. Following law school, she 

clerked for Judge Douglas P. 

Woodlock of the U.S. District 

Court for the District of 

Massachusetts. She maintains 

chambers in Los Angeles.

Karen E. Scott 

was appointed 

as a magistrate 

judge for 

the Central 

District of 

California on 

July 28, 2015. 

Prior to her appointment to the 

bench, Judge Scott had engaged 

in private practice as a civil 

litigator at Rutan & Tucker LLP 

in Costa Mesa, California, since 

1996. She received her B.A. from 
12

Stanford University in 1993 

and her J.D. from Stanford Law 

School in 1996. She maintains 

chambers in Santa Ana.

Gail J. Standish 

was appointed 

as a magistrate 

judge for the 

Central District 

of California 

on April 13, 

2015. Prior 

to her appointment to the bench, 

Judge Standish had served as a 

partner at Winston & Strawn LLP 

since 2005. She began her career at 

Irell & Manella LLP in 1994 and 

also practiced at Gibson Dunn & 

Crutcher LLP from 2001 to 2005. 

She served as an assistant United 

States attorney for the Central 

District of California from 1997 to 

2001. She served as an Air Force 

officer and flight test engineer for 

the F-16 Falcon aircraft in the 

1980s and later worked on life 

sciences experiments that flew on 

the space shuttle. Judge Standish 

received her bachelor’s and master’s 

degrees from the Massachusetts 

Institute of Technology in 1985 

and 1990, respectively. She received 

her J.D., Order of the Coif, in 1993 

from the University of California, 

Los Angeles, School of Law, where 

she served as an articles editor of 

the UCLA Law Review. Following 

law school, she clerked for Judge 

William J. Rea of the U.S. District 

Court for the Central District 

of California from 1993 to 1994. 

She maintains chambers in Los 

Angeles.

 Karen L. 

Stevenson was 

appointed as a 

magistrate 

judge for the 

Central District 

of California 

on August 10, 

2015. Prior to coming onto the 

bench, Judge Stevenson had 

served as of counsel with 

Buchalter Nemer’s Litigation 

Practice Group in Los Angeles 

since 2006. She practiced law at 

Hennigan Bennett & Dorman, 

from 2001 to 2006, and at 

O’Melveny & Myers, from 1998 

to 2001. She worked as a 

litigation attorney at Pacific 

Telesis Group in 2001. Judge 

Stevenson received her B.A., Phi 

Beta Kappa, from the University 

of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, in 

1979 and her M.A. from 

Magdalen College, Oxford 

University, in 1981. She earned 

her J.D., with distinction, from 

Stanford Law School in 1998. 

Judge Stevenson served as editorin-chief of the American Bar 

Association Litigation Section’s 

Litigation News online and print 

publication. She maintains 

chambers in Los Angeles.

 
13

senior judges District Judge

Ralph R. 

Beistline was 

appointed as a 

district judge 

for the District 

of Alaska on 

March 19, 2002. 

He served as chief judge of his 

court from 2009 to 2015, assuming 

senior status on December 31, 2015. 

Judge Beistline served previously 

as judge of the Alaska Superior 

Court, Third Judicial District, 

since 1992, and was in private 

practice from 1975 to 1992. He 

received his B.A. in 1972 from the 

University of Alaska, Fairbanks, 

and his J.D. from the University of 

Puget Sound, School of Law in 

1974. After law school, he clerked 

for Judges Warren W. Taylor, 

Gerald Van Hoomissen, and 

Everett W. Hepp of the Alaska 

Superior Court, Third Judicial 

District from 1974 to 1975. He 

maintains chambers in Anchorage.

 District Judge 

Edward J. 

Lodge was 

appointed as a 

district judge for 

the District of 

Idaho on 

November 27, 

1989, and was chief judge of his 

court from 1992 to 1999. He 

assumed senior status on July 3, 

2015. Judge Lodge was previously a 

judge of the Idaho District Court, 

1965 to 1988, and a judge of the 

Canyon County (Idaho) Probate 

Court, 1963 to 1965. He was in 

private practice in Idaho from 1960 

to 1963. Judge Lodge received his 

B.A. from the College of Idaho in 

1957 and his LL.B. in 1961 from 

the University of Idaho College of 

Law. His chambers are in Boise.

District Judge 

Susan Oki 

Mollway was 

appointed 

as a district 

judge for the 

District of 

Hawaii on June 

23, 1998, and served as chief 

judge of her court from 2009 to 

2015. She assumed senior status 

on November 6, 2015. Prior to 

coming onto the bench, Judge 

Mollway had engaged in private 

practice in Honolulu since 1981. 

She also taught as an adjunct 

professor of law at the University 

of Hawaii, School of Law, from 

1988 to 1989. Judge Mollway 

received her B.A. and M.A. from 

the University of Hawaii in 1971 

and 1973, respectively. She received 

her J.D. from Harvard Law School 

in 1981. Judge Mollway maintains 

chambers in Honolulu.

 District Judge 

Margaret M. 

Morrow was 

appointed as a 

district judge 

for the Central 

District of 

California on 

February 24, 1998, and assumed 

senior status on October 29, 2015. 

Prior to her appointment to the 

bench, she had engaged in private 

practice in Los Angeles since 1974. 

Judge Morrow received her A.B. 

from Bryn Mawr College in 1971 

and her J.D. from Harvard Law 

School in 1974. She retired from 

the bench on January 6, 2016.

Senior Circuit 

Judge Harry 

Pregerson was 

confirmed by 

the Senate to 

serve as a judge 

of the United 

States Court of 

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on 

October 31, 1979. He received his 

judicial commission on November 

2, 1979, and assumed senior status 

on December 11, 2015. He served 

previously as a district judge of 

the U.S. District Court for the 

Central District of California since 

1967. Prior to joining the federal 

bench, Judge Pregerson served 

as a judge of the Los Angeles 

Superior Court, 1966 to 1967, 

and as a judge of the Los Angeles 

Municipal Court, 1965 to 1966. 

He was in private practice in Van 

Nuys, California, 1953 to 1965, 

and in Los Angeles, 1951 to 1953. 

Judge Pregerson served in the U.S. 

Marine Corps as first lieutenant 

from 1944 to 1946. He earned 

his B.A. from the University of 

California, Los Angeles, in 1947, 

and his LL.B. from U.C. Berkeley, 

Boalt Hall School of Law, in 

1950. He maintains chambers in 

Woodland Hills.
14

 Senior Circuit 

Judge Arthur L. 

Alarcón, 89, of 

the United 

States Court of 

Appeals for the 

Ninth Circuit, 

died on January 

28, 2015. Nominated by President 

Carter, he came onto the Ninth 

Circuit bench in 1979 and was the 

first Hispanic to sit on the court. 

He assumed senior status in 1992 

but maintained a full caseload for 

many years. Judge Alarcón also 

served as a judge of the California 

state courts. Appointed by 

Governor Jerry Brown, Jr., he 

served as an associate justice of 

the California Court of Appeal for 

the Second Appellate District from 

1978 to 1979. He was appointed to 

the Los Angeles Superior Court by 

Governor Edmund Brown, Sr., 

serving from 1964 to 1978. He 

also worked in the administration 

of the first Governor Brown from 

1961 to 1964, serving as a legal 

advisor, clemency and extraditions 

secretary, and an executive 

assistant. An Army veteran of 

World War II, he received the 

Combat Infantry Badge, 4 Battle 

Stars, Bronze Star and a Purple 

Heart. Judge Alarcón earned his 

B.A. from the University of 

Southern California in 1949, and 

his LL.B. in 1951 from the USC 

School of Law, where he was 

editor of the Law Review. He is 

survived by his wife of 35 years, 

Sandra; two sons, Los Angeles 

Superior Court Judge Greg 

Alarcón and his wife, Helen, and 

attorney Lance Alarcón and his 

husband, Scott; a daughter, Dr. Jan 

Alarcón; sisters, Maria Alarcón 

and Angelina Glomb; four 

grandchildren; and extended 

family.

Senior District 

Judge Lawrence 

K. Karlton, 80, 

of the United 

States District 

Court for the 

Eastern District 

of California 

died on July 11, 2015. Nominated 

by President Carter, Judge Karlton 

was confirmed by the Senate on 

July 23, 1979, and received his 

judicial commission the following 

day. He served as an active judge 

for almost 21 years before taking 

senior status on May 28, 2000. He 

led his court as chief judge from 

1983 to 1990. Prior to coming 

onto the federal bench, Judge 

Karlton had served as a judge of 

the Sacramento County Superior 

Court, from 1976 to 1979, 

and been in private practice in 

Sacramento from 1962 to 1976. He 

began his career as a civilian legal 

officer in the Sacramento Army 

Depot from 1960 to 1962. Born 

in Brooklyn, New York, Judge 

Karlton received his J.D. from 

Columbia Law School in 1958. He 

came to Sacramento while serving 

in the Army from 1958 to 1960. 

Judge Karlton is survived by his 

wife, Sue, and daughter, Emily 

Williams.

 Senior District 

Judge David V. 

Kenyon, 84, of 

the United 

States District 

Court for the 

Central District 

of California 

died on March 31, 2015. 

Nominated by President Carter, 

Judge Kenyon was confirmed by 

the Senate on September 29, 1980, 

and received his judicial 

commission the following day. He 

served as an active judge for 15 

years, assuming senior status in 

1995. Prior to federal service, 

Judge Kenyon had served as a 

judge of the Los Angeles County 

Superior Court, from 1972 to 

1980, and the Los Angeles 

Municipal Court, from 1971 to 

1972. He was in private practice 

from 1961 to 1971, during which 

time he served as house counsel to 

National Theaters and Television, 

Inc., and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer 

Studios, Inc. Judge Kenyon served 

as a Marine Corps infantry officer 

during the Korean War and was 

headed into combat when an 

armistice ending the conflict was 

announced. He received his B.A. 

from the University of California, 

Berkeley, in 1952, and his J.D. from 

the University of Southern 

California Law School in 1957. 

After law school, he clerked for 

District Judge Ernest A. Tolin of 

the Central District. Judge Kenyon 

is survived by his wife of 49 years, 

Mary; two sons, John and George; 

two grandsons, Miles and 

Timothy; a brother, Clark; and 

extended family.

in memoriam
15

 Bankruptcy 

Judge Robert L. 

Ordin, 90, of 

the United 

States 

Bankruptcy 

Court for the 

Central District 

of California died on March 24, 

2015. Judge Ordin served on the 

bankruptcy bench from 1973 to 

1983. Before that, he had practiced 

bankruptcy law with several 

well-known specialty firms in Los 

Angeles. After leaving the bench, 

he returned to private practice as 

of counsel to the L.A. firm of 

Murphy, Sheneman, Julian & 

Rogers. His career also includes 

stints as an associate professor at 

Loyola Law School and Western 

State University College of Law, 

and as part-time professor at San 

Fernando University College of 

Law. A lifelong L.A. resident, 

Judge Ordin attended the 

University of California, Los 

Angeles, for two years before being 

inducted into military service. He 

served as a bomber pilot in the 

Army Air Force during World War 

II. After leaving the service, he was 

accepted at the University of 

Southern California, School of Law, 

receiving his law degree in 1949. 

He eventually returned to UCLA to 

obtain his undergraduate degree in 

English. Judge Ordin is survived by 

his wife of more than 50 years, 

Andrea; two daughters, Allison and 

Victoria, and a son, Richard; two 

grandchildren; and extended family.

 Senior District 

Judge Mariana 

R. Pfaelzer, 89, 

of the United 

States District 

Court for the 

Central District 

of California 

died on May 14, 2015. Nominated 

to the federal bench by President 

Carter, Judge Pfaelzer was 

confirmed by the Senate on 

September 22, 1978, and received 

her judicial commission the 

following day. Judge Pfaelzer 

served as an active judge for 19 

years, taking senior status on 

December 31, 1997, and continued 

working right up until her death. 

Her career in the law began in 

1958, when she joined the West 

Los Angeles firm of Wyman, 

Bautzer and Rothman and became 

a partner within a very short time 

and had a major role in building 

the firm into a litigation 

powerhouse. While in private 

practice, she also served as a 

member of the L.A. Police 

Commission and as commission 

president from 1976 to 1978. 

Judge Pfaelzer received her A.B. 

from the University of California, 

Santa Barbara, in 1949. After 

working for six years as a school 

teacher in Burbank and L.A., she 

entered law school, earning her 

J.D. from the University of 

California, Los Angeles, in 1957. 

Judge Pfaelzer’s husband, attorney 

Frank Rothman, died in 2000.

 Senior District 

Judge Gordon 

Thompson, Jr., 

85, of the 

United States 

District Court 

for the Southern 

District of 

California, died on July 5, 2015. 

Nominated by President Nixon, 

Judge Thompson was confirmed 

by the Senate on October 13, 1970, 

received his commission on October 

16, 1970, and assumed senior 

status on December 28, 1994. He 

served as chief judge of his court 

from 1984 to 1991. A lifelong San 

Diegan, Judge Thompson was 

born into a family of judges. His 

brother was the late Judge David 

R. Thompson of the Ninth Circuit 

Court of Appeals. His father, 

Gordon Thompson, Sr., had been a 

judge of the San Diego County 

Superior Court, while his 

grandfather, Adam Thompson, had 

been a judge pro tem of San Diego 

County. Continuing the family 

tradition is his son, Judge John M. 

Thompson of the San Diego 

County Superior Court. Judge 

Thompson received his B.S. from the 

University of Southern California in 

1951 and his LL.B. from the 

Southwestern University School of 

Law in 1956. Following law school, 

he served as deputy district attorney 

for San Diego County from 1957 to 

1960 then went into private practice 

in San Diego until his appointment 

to the federal bench. In addition to 

his son, Judge Thompson is survived 

by his wife of 64 years, Jean; sons 

Peter Renwick Thompson and 

Gordon Thompson, III; and four 

grandsons. 
16

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit convened a special session in June to celebrate the life and legacy of a 

distinguished colleague, Senior Circuit Judge Arthur L. Alarcón of Los Angeles. Judge Alarcón, who died of cancer in January at age 89, 

was the first Hispanic to sit on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and had been a judge of the state and federal courts in California 

for more than 50 years. Most of his Ninth Circuit colleagues were present for the special session at the Richard H. Chambers Court of 

Appeals Building in Pasadena, California. Also in attendance were other federal and state court judges, members of the bar and legal 

academia, and friends and family of the late jurist.

Senior District Judge Lawrence K. Karlton 

of the United States District Court for 

the Eastern District of California, who 

died in July at age 80, was remembered at 

a special program held later that month 

at the Robert T. Matsui U.S. Courthouse 

in Sacramento. More than 400 people 

attended the special session, which featured 

remarks by U.S. Supreme Court Justice 

Anthony M. Kennedy, via video, Circuit 

Judge Stephen R. Reinhardt of the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals, and Justice Cole 

Blease of Sacramento’s 3rd District Court 

of Appeal, Karlton’s best friend and former 

law partner.
Ninth Circuit Highlights
18

For nearly a century, Judicature 

had been published by the 

American Judicature Society. But 

when the society dissolved last 

fall due to financial problems, the 

future of the scholarly journal 

grew dim. In stepped the Duke 

University School of Law, which 

acquired rights to the Judicature 

name and announced plans to 

resume publication on a quarterly 

basis, beginning this spring.

The first edition of the magazine 

to be published by the law school 

– Judicature Volume 99 Number 1 

– rolled off the presses at the end 

of April. It was freely delivered 

to federal appellate, district and 

magistrate judges, justices of the 

U.S. Supreme Court and the chief 

justices of state supreme courts 

in the 50 states. (The magazine 

is available to other federal 

and state judges at a reduced 

subscription rate.)

Senior Circuit Judge Michael Daly 

Hawkins of the Ninth Circuit 

Court of Appeals served as the 

editor-in-chief of the first edition, 

while Ninth Circuit Chief Judge 

Emeritus Alex Kozinski authored 

one of the anchor articles, a 

provocative piece suggesting 

consideration be given to video 

recording jury deliberations.

Also writing articles for the 

first edition are Dean Erwin 

Chemerinsky of the University 

of California, Irvine, School of 

Law, reviewing the pros and cons 

of measuring judicial behavior; 

District Judge Gregory L. Frost 

of the Southern District of Ohio, 

considering predictability in the 

law; and District Judge George C. 

Hanks, Jr., of the Southern District 

of Texas, assessing the role of 

magistrate judges and special 

masters in complex litigation.

Judge Hawkins came to be 

involved in the editorial direction 

of Judicature through his 

relationship with Duke Law Dean 

David Levi. The two men have 

been friends since Dean Levi’s 

days as a federal district judge in 

Sacramento, California.

As part of his classroom 

commitment, Judge Hawkins 

spent four weeks with state 

and federal judges in Duke’s 

LL.M. program. In anticipation 

of eventually publishing their 

work, the group elected a board 

of editors and selected Judge 

Hawkins as editor-in-chief. A Ninth 

Circuit colleague, Circuit Judge 

Johnnie Blakeney Rawlinson, also 

was elected an editor.

Those plans were set aside when 

the opportunity came along to 

acquire Judicature. Intrigued by the 

possibilities, Dean Levi and John 

Rabiej, Director of Duke’s Law 

Center for Judicial Studies, moved 

to acquire rights to the Judicature 

name and gain access to part of the 

society’s substantial archive. 

Mr. Rabiej, who came to Duke 

after a career at the Administrative 

Office of the U.S. Courts, says 

Judicature will provide articles that 

are practical and useful to judges 

and contribute to the improvement 

of the administration of justice. 

The publication also will appeal to 

attorneys and academics through 

articles focusing on emerging issues 

of law, case management techniques 

and ways litigation can be more 

effectively handled in court.

More information about Judicature 

is available online at: http://law.

duke.edu/judicature/. 

Senior Circuit Judge Michael Daly Hawkins of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals served 

as the editor-in-chief of the first edition of the new Judicature.

New Judicature

Has Ninth

Circuit Flavor
19

The Honorable Edward 

Leavy, a distinguished senior 

circuit judge of the United 

States Court of Appeals for 

the Ninth Circuit and one of 

Oregon’s most admired jurists, 

was the 2015 recipient of the 

prestigious Edward J. Devitt 

Distinguished Service to Justice 

Award.

Presented by the Dwight 

D. Opperman Foundation, 

the Devitt Award is considered to be the federal 

judiciary’s highest honor. Recipients are chosen by 

a committee of federal judges, which in 2015 was 

chaired by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence 

Thomas.

Judge Leavy formally received the Devitt Award on 

November 13, 2015, at the U.S. Supreme Court in 

Washington, D.C. Justice Thomas along with Chief 

Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and Justices Anthony M. 

Kennedy and Sonia Sotomayor attended the event. 

Judge Leavy was accompanied by his wife of 64 

years, Eileen, and a number of colleagues.

Judge Leavy also was honored at a special sitting of 

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, held December 15, 

2015, at the Pioneer Courthouse in Portland, Oregon, 

where he maintains chambers. Scores of federal and 

state court judges, members of the bar, family and 

friends gathered for the session.

Often referenced as the Nobel Prize for 

the judiciary, the Devitt Award honors 

an Article III judge who has achieved a 

distinguished career and made significant 

contributions to the administration of 

justice, the advancement of the rule of 

law, and the improvement of society as 

a whole. Judge Leavy was nominated 

by Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Sidney R. 

Thomas in a letter also signed by five 

previous chief judges of the circuit. 

Also contributing letters of support 

for the nomination were numerous other federal 

and state court judges, the current attorney general 

of Oregon and a former governor of the state, 

federal agency representatives, members of the bar, 

law professors and Native American tribal councils.

At the Pioneer Courthouse event, Judge Leavy was 

lauded for his keen intellect, humble demeanor and 

humor.

“No other judge ... possesses in one being his 

dignity, sagacity, humility, warmth and gentleness. 

Judge Leavy is the genuine article,” observed Judge 

O’Scannlain.

Another speaker, District Judge Anna J. Brown of 

the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, 

composed a limerick and knitted a pair of socks to 

remind her friend and colleague of his roots.

Senior Circuit Judge 

Edward Leavy

Ninth Circuit Judge Edward Leavy Receives

Prestigious Devitt Award
20

“To help Ed return to humility, 

this guy known for his great 

gentility, I have knitted him 

socks, right here in this box, to 

remind him of his sensibility,” she 

rhymed.

In his remarks, Judge Leavy 

expressed gratitude to many people.

“The only way you can react to this 

is to try to do better,” Judge Leavy 

said of the award. “You say to 

yourself, ‘Why do people think I am 

worthy of this and how can I make 

them feel that they were right?’ ”

Judge Leavy, 86, has a long and 

distinguished record of public 

service. His judicial career spans 

58 years and includes service on 

both the federal and state courts. 

In addition, he is renowned for 

his mediation skills, successfully 

settling a number of complex, 

high-profile civil and criminal 

cases.

The youngest of 10 children 

raised on a farm in rural Oregon, 

Judge Leavy graduated from the 

University of Portland in 1950, the 

first in his family to earn a college 

degree. He received his law degree 

from the University of Notre 

Dame, graduating fourth in his class 

in 1953. After a brief stint in private 

practice, he served as a deputy 

district attorney in Lane County, 

Oregon, from 1954 to 1957. From 

1957 to 1976, he served as a district 

and circuit court judge in Lane 

County and was selected to serve 

as a justice pro tem of the Oregon 

Supreme Court in 1974.

In 1976, judges of the U.S. 

District Court for the District 

of Oregon selected Judge Leavy 

to serve in the newly-created 

position of federal magistrate 

judge. President Reagan 

nominated him to serve his court 

as a district judge in 1984 then 

elevated him to the Ninth Circuit 

Court of Appeals in 1987. Judge 

Leavy assumed senior status in 

1997 but has hardly been retired. 

He was appointed to the U.S. 

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance 

Court of Review by Chief Justice 

William Rehnquist, serving from 

2001 to 2008. He continues to 

carry a large caseload.

As a mediator, Judge Leavy has 

been sought after by judges 

nationwide to settle difficult 

and complex cases. His notable 

mediations include overseeing the 

coordination, case management 

and settlements of hundreds of 

suits related to the 2000-2001 

energy crisis in California and the 

Pacific Northwest. To date, more 

than $8.5 billion in refunds to rate 

payers have been issued under 

the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission refund proceedings.

He also negotiated a plea 

agreement in a 1999 case 

involving Dr. Wen Ho Lee, a 

New Mexico scientist accused of 

mishandling the nation’s nuclear 

secrets; settlements between 

2004 and 2009 of suits by the 

Confederated Tribes of the Warm 

Springs Reservation in Oregon 

claiming trust mismanagement 

by the federal government; 

and settling multiple lawsuits 

and obtaining substantial 

compensation for pensioners 

following the collapse of Capital 

Consultants LLC of Oregon.

Previous Ninth Circuit winners 

of the Devitt Award include 

Chief Judge Emeritus J. Clifford 

Wallace, honored in 2006; District 

Judge William W. Schwarzer 

of the Northern District of 

California in 2004; and the late 

Chief Judge Emeritus James R. 

Browning in 1990. 

Seated from left are Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Senior Circuit Judge Edward Leavy, Eileen 

Leavy, and Lisa Jaye, Ninth Circuit mediator. Standing from left are Justice Clarence 

Thomas; Justice Anthony M. Kennedy; Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.; Julie Chrystyn 

Opperman; Ike Devji, Esq., Editor at Large for the Opperman Report of the Dwight D. 

Opperman Foundation; Circuit Judge Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain and William A. Barton 

(who entertained the guests at the celebration as Oliver Wendell Holmes).
21

Litigation brought by inmates 

in state and federal prisons 

now accounts for significant 

portions of the caseloads in 

federal trial and appellate courts. 

The inaugural Ninth Circuit 

Corrections Summit, held in 

early November in Sacramento, 

California, sought to foster 

greater understanding and 

cooperation among many of the 

principal stakeholders in the realm 

of corrections-related litigation. 

Among the more than 300 

attendees at the first-of-itskind event were federal judges, 

court staff, government lawyers, 

corrections officials, plaintiff 

attorneys, prisoner advocates 

and academic researchers. Their 

focus was on working together 

to improve the operations of the 

courts and the state and federal 

correctional institutions in the 

nine western states that comprise 

the Ninth Circuit.

The summit agenda sought 

to address five key issues: 

segregated housing, health 

care, grievance policies, case 

management and class actions. 

Each topic was the subject of a 

panel presentation by recognized 

experts, followed by discussion 

among small groups of attendees 

having diverse professional and 

geographic backgrounds. This 

“cross-pollination” small group 

discussion was highly rated 

by participants in post-event 

evaluations.

 “While there was occasional 

tension in these discussions, 

there was also a great deal of 

agreement,” said Magistrate 

Judge Charles Pyle of the 

District of Arizona, who 

championed the summit idea and 

served as one of the chairs of the 

organizing committee.

Many of the summit attendees 

arrived early to take an 

optional tour of the California 

Department of Correction’s 

new prisoner medical center 

in Stockton, California. The 

California Health Care Facility, 

a sprawling campus of buildings 

with a combined 1.4 million 

square feet of space, provides 

state-of-the-art health services to 

more than 1,700 inmates.

The summit also featured an 

opening night reception in the 

rotunda of the Robert T. Matsui 

United States Courthouse. 

California Governor Edmund 

G. Brown, Jr., delivered the 

keynote address. Also offering 

remarks were Chief District 

Judge Morrison C. England, Jr., 

of the U.S. District Court for the 

Eastern District of California and 

Dr. Jeffrey A. Beard, secretary 

of the California Department of 

Corrections and Rehabilitation.

Ninth Circuit

Breaks New

Ground with

Corrections

Summit

Attendees listen in on panel 

presentations addressing key 

issues in litigations brought by 

inmates in state and federal 

prisons. Participating in 

small group discussions was 

Magistrate Judge Valerie Cooke 

of the District of Nevada, 

pictured far right.
22

Over the 2 1⁄2 days of the summit, 

attendees also heard from Paul 

Wright, the executive director of 

the Human Rights Defense Center 

and editor of Prison Legal News, 

and Michael G. Santos, author and 

prison reform advocate. Each of 

them had spent over 20 years in 

prison and started on the road to 

success while incarcerated.

The conference opened with 

remarks by Ninth Circuit 

Chief Judge Sidney R. Thomas 

and concluded with a video 

presentation from U.S. Supreme 

Court Justice Anthony M. 

Kennedy, who has spoken of the 

plight of the incarcerated and 

expressed serious concern with 

the use of solitary confinement in 

his legal writings.

The summit was cosponsored 

by the Association of State 

Correctional Administrators, the 

Federal Judicial Center and the 

Office of the Circuit Executive 

for the Ninth Circuit. Others 

playing key roles on the judicial 

side were Ninth Circuit Judge N. 

Randy Smith; Senior District Judge 

Jeremy Fogel, director of the 

Federal Judicial Center; Magistrate 

Judge Valerie Cooke of the District 

of Nevada; and Denise Asper, 

coordinator of the Ninth Circuit’s 

Prison Litigation Project. 

Summit organizers are hopeful 

that the work begun in 

Sacramento will be continued by 

small working groups in each of 

the participating states. There is 

also talk of repeating the summit 

every two to three years. 

“The summit was an 

extraordinarily unique and 

complex venture. The ability 

of these three organizations to 

smoothly and cooperatively work 

through the many challenges 

in putting on this conference 

was remarkable,” Judge Pyle 

observed. 

Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Sidney R. 

Thomas greeted summit attendees, above 

left, while California Governor Edmund 

G. Brown, Jr., delivered the keynote 

address at an opening night reception at 

the federal courthouse in Sacramento.
23

The Ninth Circuit Judicial 

Conference is authorized 

by law “for the purpose of 

considering the business of the 

courts and advising means of 

improving the administration 

of justice within the circuit.” 

28 U.S.C. § 333. The conference 

provides an exceptional legal 

educational program while 

facilitating circuit governance 

through numerous business 

meetings of judges and lawyers.

The 2015 circuit conference, held 

in San Diego, California, offered 

a varied program that included 

sessions on cyberwarfare; global 

demographic changes; improving 

appellate advocacy; human 

trafficking; and the application of 

law to the mentally ill.

The conference also served to 

recognize winners of the 2015 

Ninth Circuit Civics Contest, 

an essay and video competition 

focusing on the Constitution 

for high school-aged students 

in the greater San Diego area. 

The winning essay was read and 

winning video shown during the 

opening session.

United States Supreme Court 

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, 

who is the designated justice for 

the Ninth Circuit, attended the 

conference and participated in 

an informal conversation on the 

closing day of the event.

In addition to the general 

sessions, the conference offered 

a review of recent U.S. Supreme 

Court decisions; a judicial primer 

on law enforcement requests for 

cellphone location data; and use 

of alternative dispute resolution 

to achieve mortgage loan 

modifications during Chapter 13 

bankruptcy proceedings.

The Honorable Stephen J. Rapp, 

U.S. ambassador-at-large in 

the U.S. Department of State’s 

Office of Global Criminal Justice, 

was the keynote speaker at a 

conference luncheon, discussing 

his experiences in bringing to 

justice international figures 

accused of war crimes. 

The conference featured speakers 

and panelists from the federal 

bench and bar, government, 

academia and the private sector. 

Judicial participants include 

Circuit Judge Thomas M. 

Hardiman of the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the Third Circuit, who 

led the discussion on protecting 

the judiciary against cyberwarfare. 

Judge Hardiman chairs the 

Committee on Information 

Ninth Circuit

Judicial Conference

Circuit Judges, pictured top from 

left, Marsha S. Berzon, Jay S. Bybee, 

John B. Owens, and Paul J. Watford, 

participated in a pre-conference 

program on Supreme Court Review. U.S. 

Ambassador-at-Large Stephen J. Rapp 

of the Office of Global Criminal Justice, 

shared his experiences in international 

prosecution of war crimes.
24

Technology of the U.S. Judicial 

Conference. His co-panelists 

included Lt. Col. Shane Reeves 

of the U.S. Military Academy 

at West Point; Peter F. Cowhey, 

dean of the School of Global 

Policy and Strategy at the 

University of San Diego; and Dr. 

Kimberly C. Claffy, founder of 

the Center for Applied Internet 

Data Analysis in San Diego.

The presentation on human 

trafficking included remarks 

by Egyptian-born Shyima 

Hall, whose parents sold her 

into forced labor as a child. She 

lived as a household servant in 

Southern California until being 

freed by authorities. The panel 

also included U.S. District Judge 

Virginia Kendall of the Northern 

District of Illinois, a noted 

expert on child exploitation and 

human trafficking, and lawyer T. 

Markus Funk, who provided realworld examples of how attorneys 

and judges can address the 

complex and widespread problem 

of human trafficking.

A discussion of how the Ninth 

Circuit can meet the challenge 

of global demographic change 

was moderated by District 

Judge Edward M. Chen of the 

Northern District of California. 

Panelists included Marcelo M. 

Suárez-Orozco, a professor and 

dean of the Graduate School 

of Education and Information 

Studies at the University of 

California at Los Angeles. 

Circuit Judge Mary H. Murguia 

of the Ninth Circuit and Anne 

M. Voigts, an assistant U.S. 

attorney for the Northern District 

of California and chair of the 

Appellate Lawyer Representatives, 

led the discussion on improving 

appellate practice. The session 

focused on identifying common 

shortcoming in appellate practice 

and exploring ways for the bench 

and bar to work together to 

address them.

All told, judges and lawyers 

participated in 22 business 

meetings during the conference. 

The meetings serve to 

disseminate information and 

seek consensus on various 

policy matters affecting the 

administration of justice in 

the circuit. The annual face-toface interaction also promotes 

collegiality among the bench 

and bar of the nation’s largest 

judicial circuit. 

Attorney Rebecca Pennell, seated left, and 

Bankruptcy Judge Margaret M. Mann, 

seated far right, engaged Justice Anthony 

M. Kennedy in a conversation at the 

conference. Marcelo M. Suárez-Orozco, 

professor and dean at UCLA pictured top 

right, participated in a panel discussion 

on global demographic trends affecting 

courts and juries. Shyima Hall, left, 

shared her ordeal as a survivor of human 

trafficking.
25

Civics education was given its due and then some at the 2015 

Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference 

in San Diego. The opening 

session of the conference featured 

remarks by federal and state court 

judges and presentations of the 

winning essay and video from the 

2015 Ninth Circuit Civics Contest. 

The contest was cosponsored 

by the Courts and Community 

Committee of the Judicial Council 

of the Ninth Circuit and the 

United States District Court 

for the Southern District of 

California.

Speakers included Senior Circuit 

Judge Raymond C. Fisher of 

the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

the Ninth Circuit and Presiding 

Justice Judith D. McConnell of 

the California Court of Appeal. 

Judge Fisher sits on the Judicial 

Branch Committee of the Judicial 

Conference of the U.S. and serves 

as the co-chair of that committee’s 

new Civic Engagement 

Subcommittee. Justice McConnell 

is closely involved in the 

California judiciary’s effort to 

reintroduce civics into the state’s 

high school curriculum. 

District Judge Janis L. 

Sammartino of the Southern 

District of California, who chairs 

the Courts and Community 

Committee, read the names 

of the contest winners and 

runners-ups. Several of them 

were present and received loud 

applause from the audience. 

Essay winner Lucile Vigouroux, 

a graduating senior, was unable 

to attend the program. However, 

her teacher, Patrick Goddard, was 

present to read her essay to the 

assembly. The video created by 

sophomore Martha Rodriguez, 

who was present, also was shown.

Both the essay and video winners 

along with a third-place finisher 

in the video contest were 

students of Mr. Goddard, who 

teaches at the San Diego High 

Educational Complex’s School 

of International Studies, one 

of the nation’s top performing 

public schools. He is one of two 

instructors for the legal pathway 

program, a three-year curriculum 

designed to provide students with 

an in-depth examination of the 

legal system and its industry.

Also on the opening day of 

the conference, the Courts and 

Community Committee hosted 

a reception for the contest 

winners, their parents and other 

companions. U.S. Supreme Court 

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy and 

Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Sidney 

R. Thomas were present, making 

remarks and chatting informally 

with the visitors. A number of 

Civics Gets Its

Due at the

Circuit

Conference

Winners included Martha Elva 

Rodriguez, top left, first-place 

winner of the video competition, 

and Johannah Whitelock, who 

finished third. Teacher Patrick 

Goddard, at rear, read the winning 

essay written by one of his students. 

Chief Judge Sidney R. Thomas 

congratulated the winners at 

the conference. Essay runner-up, 

Gavin Jackson, chatted with Justice 

Anthony M. Kennedy, left.
26

other judges and court staff 

from around the circuit also 

attended.

All told, more than 300 

students from 45 high schools 

in the greater San Diego area 

participated in the 2015 civics 

contest, which featured the 

theme “The Constitution: 

What the American Dream 

Means to Me.” Students were 

challenged to write an essay or 

produce a brief video focusing 

on how the Constitution, the 

Bill of Rights and subsequent 

amendments make possible the 

American Dream. Individual 

students competed in the essay 

contest, while individuals and 

teams of up to three students 

were eligible to enter the video 

contest.

Cash prizes of $2,000, $1,000 

and $500 were awarded to 1st, 

2nd and 3rd place winners, 

respectively, in each category 

of the competition. The prize 

money was contributed by 

several federal courts in the 

Ninth Circuit, using nonappropriated funds, and from 

donations by two San Diego 

law firms. All of the students 

participating in the contest 

received a certificate of 

commendation from the Ninth 

Circuit. 

Student winners rise to accept applause during 

a reception sponsored by the Ninth Circuit 

Courts and Community Committee, top. Patrick 

Goddard, above, accepts a plaque on behalf of 

first place essayist Lucile Vigouroux.
27

The opening session of 

the 2015 Ninth Circuit 

Judicial Conference featured 

the presentation of awards 

recognizing exceptional career 

achievements by judges and 

lawyers. 

Ninth Circuit Professionalism 

Award

The American Inns of Court 

for the first time selected two 

recipients for its prestigious 

Ninth Circuit Professionalism 

Award, honoring a distinguished 

federal judge from the Pacific 

Northwest and a respected 

Arizona lawyer. 

Senior District Judge Robert 

J. Bryan of the United States 

District Court for the Western 

District of Washington was 

recognized for judicial leadership, 

particularly in promoting 

collegiality and mentoring 

among the bench and bar in the 

Seattle-Tacoma area. Attorney 

Larry A. Hammond, a senior 

partner in the Phoenix law 

firm of Osborn Maledon, was 

recognized as one of the deans of 

the Arizona criminal defense bar.

Senior Circuit Judge Mary M. 

Schroeder of the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 

a former board member of the 

American Inns of Court, 

presented the awards.

Judge Bryan has served as a federal 

and state judge for more than 46 

years. Nominated by President 

Reagan, he came onto the federal 

bench in 1986 and served as an 

active judge for 14 years. He 

took semi-retired senior status 

in 2000 but continues to carry a 

substantial caseload. He has sat by 

designation with the U.S. Court 

of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 

multiple times and participated in 

circuit governance as a member of 

the Judicial Council of the Ninth 

Circuit and its Jury Committee. 

He also served as president of the 

U.S. District Judges Association 

and as a trustee of the Federal 

Judicial Center.

Judge Bryan has his chambers 

in the historic Tacoma Union 

Station Courthouse and was 

actively involved for seven 

years on a circuit committee 

that helped oversee the federal 

government’s acquisition and 

renovation of the historic 

railroad depot.

Before coming onto the federal 

bench, Judge Bryan had sat on 

the Kitsap County (Washington) 

Superior Court. Appointed to the 

bench in 1967, he was elected 

to the office in 1968, then reelected in 1972, 1976 and 1980. 

He retired from the state bench in 

1984. During his 17-year tenure, 

he served as a judge pro tem for 

the Washington State Court of 

Appeals and a justice pro tem for 

the Washington State Supreme 

Court; was elected president of 

the Washington State Association 

of Superior Court Judges; 

and was a member of boards 

and commissions involved in 

developing judicial qualifications 

and training standards.

A native of Bremerton, 

Washington, Judge Bryan 

received his B.A. from the 

University of Washington in 

1956 and his J.D. from the UW 

School of Law in 1958. After 

serving two years in the Army 

Reserve, he practiced law in 

Ninth Circuit

Judicial

Conference

Awards

Senior District Judge Robert J. Bryan, left, and attorney Larry A. Hammond, right, 

pictured with Senior Circuit Judge Mary M. Schroeder, center.
28

Bremerton with his father from 

1959 to 1967.

In nominating him for the award, 

colleagues pointed to Judge 

Bryan’s leadership in establishing 

the Puget Sound American Inn 

of Court in Tacoma. Chartered in 

1987, it was the 25th Inn of Court 

in the nation, a milestone for then 

fledgling organization. More 

importantly, colleagues said, was 

Judge Bryan’s unflagging support 

of the inn, which was renamed in 

his name in 2004.

Mr. Hammond, whose career 

spans more than 40 years, was 

heralded for his devotion to 

achieving justice, whatever 

the social station of his client. 

Of note was his lengthy pro 

bono service as co-counsel for 

the NAACP in a mid-1970s 

suit seeking to desegregate 

Tucson public schools. The case 

concluded in 1981 with issuance 

of a federal court desegregation 

order that remains in force 

to this day. Also cited was his 

representation of defendants in 

nine federal death penalty cases 

originating in Arizona, New 

Mexico and Nevada, including 

one case spanning 11 years. 

Two of the cases ended with the 

release of prison inmates and 

all but one of the cases ended in 

a plea to something less than a 

death sentence.

Another noteworthy pro bono 

endeavor was Mr. Hammond’s 

two decades of service as lead 

counsel on behalf of Arizona 

prison inmates who were to 

be moved from protective 

segregation into the general 

prison population. After lengthy 

litigation involving two trials 

held under seal, the state agreed 

not to move the inmates and 

developed a new policy for 

protective segregation.

Mr. Hammond is a founder and 

chair of The Justice Project 

sponsored by Arizona Attorneys 

for Criminal Justice, which 

organizes cadres of law school 

students to work with volunteer 

criminal defense lawyers on cases 

and case evaluations involving 

prison inmates. Since its 

formation in 1998, the project has 

screened requests for assistance 

from more than 5,000 prisoners.

Mr. Hammond received his B.A. 

from the University of Texas in 

1967 and his J.D. in 1970 from the 

University of Texas Law School, 

where he graduated Order of the 

Coif and served as editor-in-chief 

of the Texas Law Review.

The American Inns of Court 

professionalism awards are 

given annually in all of the 

federal circuits to “a lawyer or 

judge whose life and practice 

display sterling character and 

unquestioned integrity, coupled 

with ongoing dedication to the 

highest standards of the legal 

profession and the rule of law.” 

Other circuits have had two 

winners named, but this is the 

first time it has happened in the 

Ninth Circuit.

John Frank Award

Nationally renowned criminal 

defense attorney Judy Clarke 

received the 2015 Ninth Circuit 

John Frank Award, which 

recognizes an 

outstanding 

lawyer 

practicing in 

the federal 

courts of 

the western 

United States. 

Ms. Clarke 

has spent 

almost all 

of her 38-

year career 

doing public 

defense work, 

often serving 

as lead 

defense counsel in numerous 

high-profile capital cases. Her 

past representations include 

Unabomber Ted Kaczynski, 

Atlanta Olympics bomber Eric 

Rudolph, child-murderer Susan 

Smith, Tucson mass shooter 

Jared Lee Loughner, and Boston 

Marathon bomber Dzhokhar 

Tsarnaev.

Ms. Clarke, who practices law in 

San Diego, has participated in the 

Federal Death Penalty Resource 

Counsel Project, operated by the 

Office of Defender Services in 

the Administrative Office of the 

U.S. Courts. The project provides 

learned counsel and other 

resources to assist the federal 

courts, federal defenders, and 

appointed counsel in connection 

with matters relating to the 

defense function in federal capital 

cases at the trial level. She has 

been a visiting law professor at 

Washington and Lee University 

since 2006.

Ms. Clarke was a trial attorney 

with the Federal Defenders of 

Attorney Judy 

Clarke acknowledged 

conference attendees 

after receiving the 

2015 Ninth Circuit 

John Frank Award.
29

San Diego, Inc., from 1978 to 

1983, when she became executive 

director of the organization. She 

left in 1992 to join the newly 

established Federal Defenders of 

Eastern Washington and Idaho, 

serving as executive director there 

until 2002. She is a past president 

of the National Association of 

Criminal Defense Lawyers and a 

fellow of the American College of 

Trial Lawyers.

 

A native of Asheville, North 

Carolina, Ms. Clarke received her 

B.A. from Furman University 

in 1974 and her J.D. from the 

University of South Carolina 

School of Law in 1977.

The John Frank Award 

recognizes a lawyer who has 

“demonstrated outstanding 

character and integrity; 

dedication to the rule of law; 

proficiency as a trial and appellate 

lawyer; success in promoting 

collegiality among members of 

the bench and bar; and a lifetime 

of service to the federal courts of 

the Ninth Circuit.” The late Mr. 

Frank was a renowned attorney 

in Phoenix who, over the course 

of a 62-year career, argued 

more than 500 appeals before 

the Arizona Court of Appeals, 

the Arizona Supreme Court, the 

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, 

other federal circuit courts and 

the U.S. Supreme Court.

The award was established in 

2003 by the Judicial Council 

of the Ninth Circuit at the 

recommendation of the Ninth 

Circuit Advisory Board, a group 

of experienced attorneys who 

advise on circuit governance 

issues. The award was presented 

by Seattle attorney Todd True, 

who chairs the Advisory Board. 

Seated from left are Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman of the District of Oregon, District 

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., of the Northern District of California, Chief Circuit Judge Sidney 

R. Thomas of Billings, Montana, Bankruptcy Judge Christopher Jaime of the Eastern District of 

California, and District Judge Rosemary Márquez of the District of Arizona. Standing in the middle 

row from left are Bankruptcy Judge Paul Sala of the District of Arizona, Bankruptcy Judge Scott H. 

Yun of the Central District of California, Bankruptcy Judge Peter C. McKittrick of the District of 

Oregon, Bankruptcy Judge Martin R. Barash of the Central District of California, Bankruptcy Judge 

Scott H. Gan of the District of Arizona, and Magistrate Judge David W. Christel of the Western 

District of Washington. Standing in back row from left are Magistrate Judge John Z. Boyle and 

District Judges John J. Tuchi, Douglas L. Rayes and James Alan Soto of the District of Arizona. 

Ninth Circuit Welcomes New Judges
30

The Federal Bar Association of the Northern District 

of California held its 37th 

annual Ninth Circuit Luncheon 

on March 18, 2015, in San 

Francisco. The event recognized 

judges of the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Ninth 

Circuit and the U.S. District 

Court for the Northern District 

of California. The Honorable 

Sidney R. Thomas, pictured top 

right, made his first remarks to 

the group as the Ninth Circuit’s 

new chief judge. Judge Thomas 

thanked the bar for its ongoing 

support, particularly for the 

Ninth Circuit Pro Bono Program. 

Also speaking were the appellate 

court’s newest members, Judges 

John B. Owens and Michelle 

T. Friedland, pictured top left, 

who participated in an informal 

question-and-answer session with 

Judge M. Margaret McKeown. 

Also in attendance were judges 

of the Northern District of 

California and hundreds of 

lawyers who practice in the 

federal courts. 

Northern California Federal Bar Luncheon
31

United States Supreme 

Court Justice Sonia 

Sotomayor made her first formal 

visit to California’s Central 

Valley in October, delivering a 

message of hope to the city of 

Stockton, where times have been 

exceedingly tough in recent years.

The keynote speaker at the 

Advancing Women’s Leadership 

Conference at the University of 

the Pacific, Justice Sotomayor set 

aside matters of law to talk about 

life, learning and leadership. 

More than 3,000 people, many 

of them college, high school and 

middle school students, attended 

the sold-out event at the Alex G. 

Spanos Center.

The justice spoke only briefly 

from the stage, spending most 

of her time strolling among 

the students seated in the upper 

levels of the auditorium. Her 

rapport with them was clear 

as she clasped hands, touched 

shoulders and gave hugs.

Justice Sotomayor, who was 

diagnosed with diabetes at age 7 

and lost her father to alcoholism 

at age 9, told the students that 

everyone faces adversity. While 

growing up poor in New York 

City was not necessarily a 

happy childhood, she said she 

sometimes wonders if she would 

have achieved what she has had 

her experiences been different.

“It’s important (to reach out) 

because, having grown up the way 

I did and the challenges that I lived 

through, I understand the need for 

hope. If I hadn’t found some hope 

in my life, those challenges would 

have overcome me,” said Justice 

Sotomayor, the third woman and 

first Latina to sit on the high court.

Poverty, unemployment and crime 

rates run high in the Stockton 

area, which was hit hard by 

the 2008 real estate crash and 

the subsequent recession. The 

City of Stockton, meanwhile, is 

emerging shakily from municipal 

bankruptcy declared in 2012.

Helping arrange Justice 

Sotomayor’s appearance was 

Circuit Judge Consuelo M. 

“Connie” Callahan of the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the Ninth 

Circuit, a Stockton resident who 

earned her law degree from 

UOP’s McGeorge School of Law.

“What I told the justice is that our 

community contains many students 

that face the same challenges that 

she has overcome in her life,” Judge 

Callahan explained, noting that 

many young people in Stockton live 

in poverty and may have a parent 

in prison or having substance abuse 

issues.

Advancing Women’s Leadership 

was launched by a group of 

Stockton business, education and 

civic leaders as a one day public 

forum that brings outstanding 

women leaders to the city to 

inspire and empower youth and 

adults alike. The group, which is 

based at UOP, is intended to serve 

as a collaborative community 

effort that will promote 

women’s leadership throughout 

California’s San Joaquin County.

Throughout her hour-long talk, 

Justice Sotomayor made frequent 

references to the importance of 

mentors and role models and urged 

women professionals to help others.

“Once you achieve any kind of 

position of responsibility, you 

have an obligation to give back. 

Women should mentor other 

women, minorities should give 

back,” Justice Sotomayor said, 

adding, “It’s why I am here.” 

In Stockton, 

Justice Sotomayor

Talks of Life, 

Learning and

Leadership

Justice Sonia Sotomayor makes her way into the audience to speak with young people.
32

Colleagues, friends and family 

gathered in San Francisco 

in November for a ceremony 

marking the retirement of Senior 

District Judge Samuel Conti, 

the longest serving judge in the 

history of the United States 

District Court for the Northern 

District of California.

Appointed by President Nixon 

in 1970, Judge Conti celebrated 

his 45th year on the Northern 

District bench on October 7, 2015. 

One would have to look back more 

than a century to find a judge 

with a similar tenure. That would 

be Judge Ogden Hoffman, Jr., 

the first federal district judge in 

California, who was appointed in 

1851 and served for 40 years until 

his death in 1891.

Now 93, Judge Conti left the 

federal bench after a colorful 

career that saw him preside over 

numerous high-profile cases. 

Those included a 1979 trial of 

members of the Hells Angels 

Motorcycle Club accused of 

racketeering, during which 

threats of violence were made 

against him and his family.

Judge Conti also authored an 

80-plus-page opinion in which he 

documented extensive problems 

with the Veterans Administration 

before reluctantly concluding 

he did not have jurisdiction to 

take corrective action. He was 

reversed by a three-judge panel 

of the Ninth Circuit Court 

of Appeals but was affirmed 

when the case was heard by an 

11-judge en banc court.

“It’s the only time I have ever 

regretted being affirmed,” the 

judge said in an interview.

A Los Angeles native, Judge Conti 

was an Army veteran of World 

War II. He earned his B.A. from 

the University of Santa Clara (now 

Santa Clara University) in 1945 

and his LL.B. from Stanford Law 

School in 1948. He was in private 

practice in San Francisco, from 

1946 to 1967, and served on the 

Contra Costa County (California) 

Superior Court from 1968 until his 

appointment to the federal bench.

Colleagues recognized the 

achievement with a plaque 

presented to Judge Conti at 

a special court session. The 

plaque, which has pictures of 

Judge Conti when he came on 

the court and as he is leaving it, 

hangs on a wall in the judges’ 

robing room. It has its own 

space, set apart from other 

photos, and will remain so until 

someone sets a new record of 

service to the court. 

Northern District of California’s

Longest Serving Judge Retires
33

With a tradition of international judicial 

outreach, the United States Court 

of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 

regularly receives delegations of 

justices, judges and other officials 

from the nations around the world.

In October, visitors from the 

Uganda judicial system were 

welcomed at the James R. 

Browning U.S. Courthouse in San 

Francisco by Ninth Circuit Chief 

Judge Emeritus J. Clifford Wallace, 

who has been at the forefront of 

the federal judiciary’s international 

outreach efforts. The group also 

met with Circuit Judges Marsha S. 

Berzon, Carlos T. Bea and Michelle 

T. Friedland and court staff. 

The Ugandan delegation was led 

by Chief Justice Bart Katureebe 

of the Courts of Judicature, a 

judicial system that includes a 

Supreme Court, Court of Appeals 

and a High Court. The delegation 

included two other jurists, the 

solicitor general of the Ministry 

of Justice, the director of public 

prosecutions, and the secretary 

of a task force established 

by the Uganda Law Reform 

Commission.

In addition to their interaction 

with Ninth Circuit judges, the 

group heard from Circuit and 

Court of Appeal Executive Cathy 

Catterson and Clerk of Court 

Molly Dwyer. They also received 

presentations on mediation and 

innovative case management 

practices from, respectively, Chief 

Circuit Mediator Claudia Bernard 

and Chief Deputy Clerk Lisa 

Fitzgerald.

In addition to hosting visits, 

Ninth Circuit judges also travel 

overseas to share their expertise 

and to promote the rule of 

law, particularly in developing 

nations. In addition, the Ninth 

Circuit is authorized to directly 

support educational programs 

for judges and court staff in the 

U.S. territories and the island 

nations of the Pacific.

During the year, both Judge 

Wallace and Ms. Bernard visited 

Uganda, where they met with 

judges and court officials to 

discuss the mediation concept 

and how it might fit into the 

Ugandan judicial system. 

Ninth Circuit

Welcomes

Ugandan Visitors

Chief Judge Emeritus J. Clifford Wallace gives an overview of the appellate process in the 

United States to the delegation from Uganda. 
34

I

n addition to their regular 

venues, judges of the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

Ninth Circuit frequently travel 

to other locations for special 

sittings. These proceedings 

are often held at law schools to 

further legal education but may 

also coincide with important 

events organized by local federal 

district courts. Ninth Circuit 

judges made a number of such 

trips in 2015. 

The court’s visit in January to 

Billings, Montana, served as 

a homecoming for new Ninth 

Circuit Chief Judge Sidney 

R. Thomas, who maintains 

chambers there. Judge Thomas 

presided over oral arguments at 

the new James F. Battin Federal 

Courthouse in Billings. He was 

joined on the panel by Circuit 

Judge Morgan Christen of 

Anchorage, Alaska, and Senior 

Circuit Judge Michael Daly 

Hawkins of Phoenix, Arizona.

In conjunction with the 

court’s visit, the Montana 

bar organized a number of 

activities, including a postproceeding question-and-answer 

session with the judges and a 

later continuing legal education 

program for attorneys.

In November, the court added 

to Pacific Northwest legal 

history with its first-ever visit 

to Richland, Washington. 

The special sitting was held 

in conjunction with the 50th 

Anniversary of the U.S. 

Courthouse and Federal 

Building in Richland. Associated 

public activities included a 

naturalization ceremony and an 

open house with guided tour of 

the courthouse.

Also during the year, the court 

sat in San Diego at the Edward 

J. Schwartz U.S. Courthouse and 

at Stanford Law School in Palo 

Alto, California; the University 

of California, Los Angeles, 

School of Law; the University 

of California, Berkeley, Law 

School; the University of 

Arizona, James E. Rogers 

College of Law in Tucson, 

Arizona; and the University 

of Hawaii, Manoa, William S. 

Richardson School of Law in 

Honolulu.

The Ninth Circuit Court 

of Appeals normally meets 

monthly in Seattle, San 

Francisco and Pasadena, 

California; every other month in 

Portland, Oregon; three times 

per year in Honolulu, Hawaii; 

and twice a year in Anchorage, 

Alaska. 

Appellate Panels Travel the West for Special Sittings

An attorney makes her case before, from 

left, Senior Circuit Judge Michael Daly 

Hawkins, Chief Judge Sidney R. Thomas 

and Circuit Judge Morgan Christen.
35

The influence of Montanans, past and present, on the 

law and the administration of 

justice was the highlight of the 

15th annual James R. Browning 

Distinguished Lecture in the 

Law, held March 26, 2015, at 

the University of Montana in 

Missoula.

Organized by the Montana Law 

Review, the lecture is named for 

one of the UM School of Law’s 

most famous alums, the late 

Chief Judge Emeritus James R. 

Browning of the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Ninth 

Circuit.

Delivering the lecture was 

Ninth Circuit’s current leader, 

Chief Judge Sidney R. Thomas, 

another Montanan and UM 

law alum. Judge Thomas, who 

maintains chambers in Billings, 

assumed the chief judgeship in 

December 2014.

Entitling his talk “Judge James 

R. Browning: His Legacy for 

Montana and the Future of the 

Federal Judiciary,” Judge Thomas 

recalled a man who was warm, 

generous and witty, possessed 

a keen intellect and deep 

understanding of human nature, 

and passionately committed to 

achieving justice for all.

“You cannot find a single 

person who did not like Judge 

Browning, nor anyone who did 

not deeply respect 

him. It is simply 

impossible,” Judge 

Thomas said in his 

remarks. 

At the time of 

his death in 2012, 

Judge Browning 

had served on 

the Ninth Circuit 

Court of Appeals 

for 50 years, 

making him the 

longest serving 

federal appellate 

judge in the 

nation’s history. 

His contributions 

to jurisprudence 

were particularly 

noteworthy in the 

area of antitrust 

law but also included the first 

decision recognizing ineffective 

assistance of counsel as grounds 

for appeal.

During his 12 years as chief 

judge, Judge Browning 

proved to be an extraordinary 

administrator whose vision 

shaped the future of judicial 

operations and governance.

“Judge Browning was 

unquestionably one of the 

best chief circuit judges in our 

nation’s history. He virtually 

invented the modern federal 

judiciary,” Judge Thomas said.

While he would never use 

a computer himself, Judge 

Browning embraced technology 

for his court, which was an early 

adopter of email, electronic 

docketing systems and many 

other technical innovations. 

He reorganized the circuit’s 

administrative structure, 

established mediation services 

and the nation’s first judicial 

misconduct system, and 

opened circuit governance to 

participation by all levels of 

judges.

This year’s lecture had particular 

significance for the Montana 

Law Review. The oldest legal 

journal in the state, it was 

co-founded in 1940 by Judge 

Browning, who also served as its 

first editor-in-chief. 

“We were ecstatic to have Judge 

Thomas back in Missoula,” said 

Caitlin Boland Aarab, current 

editor-in-chief of the law review. 

“In many ways, he has followed in 

Judge Browning’s footsteps and 

we were honored to have him as 

our guest speaker.” 

Montana

Celebrates

Famed Jurist

Chief Judge Sidney R. Thomas delivers University of Montana 

School of Law’s lecture named after Chief Judge Emeritus 

James R. Browning.
36

Add Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Emeritus 

Alex Kozinski to the list 

of distinguished jurists, 

practitioners and academics 

who have traveled to Spokane, 

Washington, to participate in 

the Quackenbush Lecture Series 

at the Gonzaga University 

School of Law.

Established in 2010, the lecture 

is named for Senior District 

Judge Justin L. Quackenbush 

of the United States District 

Court for the Eastern District 

of Washington, a lifelong 

resident of Spokane and one 

of the law school’s most 

successful and influential 

alums. The 2015 event, held in 

March, drew a large audience 

of students and faculty along 

with members of the Spokane 

area bar and many of Judge 

Quackenbush’s fellow judges 

from the Eastern District 

of Washington. They were 

treated to a lively conversation 

between Judge Kozinski and 

Judge Quackenbush touching 

on various topics involving the 

law and the administration of 

justice.

Judge Kozinski also surprised 

his host by presenting him with 

a commendation recognizing the 

approaching 35th anniversary 

of Judge Quackenbush’s 

appointment to the federal 

bench. The commendation was 

signed by the six of the seven 

Ninth Circuit chief judges 

to have served during Judge 

Quackenbush’s judicial tenure.

Nominated by President Carter, 

Judge Quackenbush received 

his judicial commission on 

June 18, 1980. He served as an 

active judge for 15 years and 

led his court as chief district 

judge from 1989 to 1995, when 

he assumed senior status. He 

was also active in judicial 

governance, serving on several 

Ninth Circuit committees and 

the Committee on the Judiciary 

of the Judicial Conference of 

the United States.

As a lifelong resident of 

Spokane, Judge Quackenbush 

received his LL.B. from the 

Gonzaga University School 

of Law in 1957 and served as 

an instructor at the law school 

from 1961 to 1967. His earlier 

professional career includes 

private practice and service 

as a Spokane County deputy 

prosecutor.

Prior Quackenbush Lecture 

speakers include Cindy Cohn, 

legal director of the Electronic 

Frontier Foundation; Kathleen 

M. Sullivan, former dean of 

Stanford Law School; Erwin 

Chemerinsky, noted law 

professor and dean of the 

University of California, Irvine, 

School of Law; retired District 

Judge Vaughn R. Walker of the 

Northern District of California; 

and Judge William A. Fletcher 

of the Ninth Circuit Court of 

Appeals. 

Chief Judge Emeritus Alex Kozinski participates as guest lecturer with Senior District 

Judge Justin L. Quackenbush during the Quackenbush Lecture Series at Gonzaga 

University School of Law.

Quackenbush

Lecture Series

Draws Top

Speakers
37

An annual lecture established by the University of 

California, Irvine, School of 

Law, recognizes the civil rights 

contributions of Judge Stephen 

Reinhardt of the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Ninth 

Circuit and his wife, Ramona 

Ripston, retired executive 

director of the American Civil 

Liberties Union of Southern 

California.

The first “Judge Stephen 

Reinhardt and Ramona Ripston 

Lecture on Civil Rights and 

Civil Liberties,” held at the law 

school in March, featured the 

Honorable Aharon Barak, the 

former president of the Supreme 

Court of Israel and currently the 

Gruber Global Constitutionalism 

Fellow at Yale Law School. His 

lecture was entitled “Judges as 

Guardians of the Constitution.”

In an announcement, the law 

school said the new lecture series 

“pays tribute to two legendary 

advocates of civil liberty and 

justice” who have influenced 

thousands of attorneys and 

activists.

Nominated by President Carter, 

Judge Reinhardt was appointed 

to the Ninth Circuit bench in 

1980 and currently ranks second 

in years of service among the 

court’s 29 active judges. He has 

participated in many of the court’s 

most noteworthy cases, including 

authoring the 2012 opinion 

affirming a lower court finding that 

a California law banning same-sex 

marriage was unconstitutional.

Ms. Ripston served as executive 

director of the ACLU of Southern 

California from 1972 to 2011 and 

now acts as a consultant to the 

organization. Under her leadership, 

the ACLU chapter successfully 

pursued suits seeking to curb 

police abuses and obtained an 

injunction preventing enforcement 

of Proposition 187, which would 

have denied public benefits to 

suspected illegal immigrants. 

Lecture Named

for Ninth Circuit

Jurist, Spouse

Ramona Ripston and Judge Stephen Reinhardt, center, are joined by Dean Erwin 

Chemerinsky of UC Irvine School of Law, left, and the Honorable Aharon Barak, former 

president of the Supreme Court of Israel, right.
38

The Ninth Circuit Jury Trial Improvement Committee, or 

JTIC, was established in 2002 by 

the Judicial Council of the Ninth 

Circuit to develop and implement 

innovative approaches that improve 

juror experience for citizens 

and contribute to better court 

management of the jury system. 

The committee includes district 

and magistrate judges, criminal 

and civil attorneys and court 

administrators.

In 2015, the JTIC organized a 

Jury Summit for court executives, 

jury administrators and district 

and magistrate judges. Held in 

April at the Lloyd D. George 

United States Courthouse in 

Las Vegas, the summit focused 

on the use of websites to 

inform and summon jurors, jury 

management, and jury trials. The 

summit also provided instruction, 

both from expert panelists and 

from the attendees themselves, on 

a wide range of issues. 

The 1 1⁄2 -day program opened 

with remarks by Chief District 

Judge Gloria M. Navarro of the 

District of Nevada and District 

Judge Anna Brown of the District 

of Oregon, who chairs the JTIC. 

Presentations followed on jury 

websites, including tours of the 

JTIC website, sample district jury 

websites and discussions of what 

makes a website successful.

Jury utilization sparked extensive 

discussion among judges 

and administrators as to the 

merits of the current system 

and metrics. A presentation 

followed on jury plans and how 

to develop a model jury plan. 

Other issues of interest included 

the availability of counseling for 

emotionally distressed jurors, 

use of technology in voir dire, 

jury excuses, juror no-shows, and 

the sanctioning of jurors and 

employers.

Later in the afternoon, judges 

and administrators split into 

breakout sessions. Administrators 

discussed eJuror, the Jury 

Management System, the 

Interactive Voice Response and 

ways to revamp a jury website. 

Judges heard from District Judge 

Larry Burns of the Southern 

District of California, who 

offered a compelling presentation 

titled “Trials Take Too Long.” 

Judge Burns described numerous 

ways judges and staff could make 

the trial process more efficient 

not only for the benefit of jurors 

but for the administration of 

justice. Various evidence systems 

used in the Ninth Circuit were 

also covered.

The second day opened with 

Loyola Law School Professor 

Laurie Levenson, who gave an 

engaging lecture summarizing 

recent court decisions involving 

jury issues. Ed Juel of the 

Administrative Office of the U.S. 

Courts offered his expertise on 

“jury utilization” rates and other 

jury issues for which there is an 

AO policy or guidance.

Attendees responded very 

positively, and court executives 

and jury staff were particularly 

appreciative that judges from 

their districts were in attendance. 

Understanding various juryadministration policies and 

procedures staff are required to 

follow may lessen the chances 

of judges giving inconsistent 

directions to staff. The summit 

provided a useful forum for staff 

and judges to discuss such issues 

and to continue that discussion at 

their home districts. 

Judges, Staff

Find Merit in

Jury Summit

At the summit, jury plans were discussed by a panel that included, above from left, 

Ed Juel, an attorney advisor from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts; 

Magistrate Judge Candy Dale of the District of Idaho; Hannah Horsley, assistant 

U.S. attorney in the District of Oregon; and Jeffrey Aaron, supervisory assistant 

federal public defender in the Central District of California.
39

The Magistrate Judges 

Executive Board was 

established by the Judicial 

Council of the Ninth Circuit 

to provide continuing legal 

education to the 105 full-time, 

and 24 recalled and part-time 

magistrate judges serving on 

the district courts of the Ninth 

Circuit. Working through its 

Education and Technology 

Subcommittee, the board plans 

an annual educational program 

at the Ninth Circuit Judicial 

Conference and periodically 

produces practice guides for use 

by magistrate judges.

In 2015, the board expanded 

its educational efforts to include 

a quarterly newsletter and a 

special-issue publication focusing 

on ex parte applications from 

law enforcement for electronic 

and digital information from 

cellphones, cell towers, computers 

and service providers. It also 

established the Technology 

Subcommittee to report on the 

legal and other impacts of new 

technologies on the work of 

magistrate judges.

Federal magistrate judges 

are often at the forefront of 

the collision of privacy and 

technology. Magistrate judges 

receive ex parte applications 

for pen registers and trap and 

trace devices, to collect all 

phone numbers to and from a 

phone; for orders pursuant to 

the Stored Communication Act, 

to obtain information related 

to a cellphone or computer 

service accounts including cell 

tower information; and for 

tracking warrants, to obtain 

real time cell tower information 

or GPS information that can 

be used to track a person or 

fugitive. Magistrate judges also 

frequently review requests for 

preclusion orders, to prohibit a 

service provider from revealing 

the existence of a subpoena or 

warrant for customer account 

information. Each application 

type is governed by different 

statutes and has a different 

standard of review.

“Carpe Data: A Guide for Ninth 

Circuit Magistrate Judges 

When Reviewing Government 

Applications to Obtain 

Electronic Information” was 

developed by the board’s new 

Technology Subcommittee. The 

guide reflects on emerging legal 

issues in this area and gathers 

the developing law related 

to each type of government 

application. It provides the 

majority and minority views 

presented in the case law and 

offers links to “go-bys,” or 

protocols, which some districts 

have developed.

“Carpe Data” was authored 

by Technology Subcommittee 

members. The subcommittee 

was chaired by Magistrate 

Judge Mitch Dembin of the 

Southern District of California 

and included Chief Magistrate 

Judge Suzanne Segal of the 

Central District of California, 

Magistrate

Judges Focus

on Legal Impacts

of Technology

The “Carpe Data” publication at left was 

distributed during the Magistrate Judges 

Education Program at the 2015 Ninth 

Circuit Judicial Conference, where Richard 

Downing, pictured above, principal deputy 

chief at the DOJ, made a presentation on 

cellphone tracking technology.
40

and Magistrate Judges Mark 

Clarke of Oregon and Charles 

Pyle of Arizona. Magistrate 

Judges Stanley Boone and 

Jennifer Thurston of the Eastern 

District of California joined the 

subcommittee in July.

Technology also was the focus 

of the Magistrate Judges 

Education Program at the Ninth 

Circuit Judicial Conference. 

The Education Subcommittee 

presented an excellent panel 

discussion, “When Privacy Is No 

Longer Private: A Judicial Primer 

on Cellphone Location Data.” 

The program was moderated by 

Magistrate Judge Jacqueline S. 

Corley of the Northern District 

of California. Panelists included 

Magistrate Judge William 

Cobb of Nevada, Federal Public 

Defender Lisa Hay of Oregon 

and Richard Downing of the 

U.S. Department of Justice. 

The session was open to other 

judicial officers and members of 

the bar, and there was standing 

room only to hear this timely 

and spirited discussion on the 

legal implications of government 

applications for cellphone 

location data. 

Pictured from left are Magistrate Judges Charles Pyle of the District of Arizona, Peggy 

A. Leen of the District of Nevada, and Mark D. Clarke of the District of Oregon, and 

Dr. Bob Rucker, assistant circuit executive for policy and research, Office of the Circuit 

Executive.
41

The United States Court 

of Appeals for the Ninth 

Circuit along with U.S. district 

and bankruptcy courts within the 

circuit actively pursue the use of 

alternative dispute resolution to 

resolve civil disputes.

The Alternative Dispute 

Resolution Committee of the 

Judicial Council of the Ninth 

Circuit is a focal point of ADR 

activities in the circuit. The 

committee plans and implements 

ADR education programs 

and activities and serves as 

a clearinghouse for ADRrelated information through its 

newsletter and website.

At the appellate level, the Ninth 

Circuit Mediation Office annually 

resolves hundreds of appeals 

that might otherwise be heard 

by the Ninth Circuit Court of 

Appeals. At the trial court level, 

ADR programs are frequently 

used to resolve suits brought 

by inmates in federal and state 

prisons within the circuit. Many 

of these programs are made 

possible through the assistance 

of local lawyers who provide 

their services pro bono. Some 

bankruptcy courts also are 

promoting the use of mediation.

Eight district courts in the Ninth 

Circuit currently make use of 

prisoner mediation programs. 

The U.S. district courts for the 

Eastern District of California 

and the districts of Arizona 

and Nevada are noteworthy 

for having large prisoner 

populations. A substantial 

portion of their civil caseloads 

– more than 40 percent in 

Arizona in 2015 – is made up of 

inmate litigation, which often 

focuses on prison conditions. 

Mediation programs in these 

districts seek to identify and 

resolve meritorious claims. They 

also assist the courts and state 

departments of correction in 

identifying possibly systemic 

problems, including issues 

related to health care and 

religious worship.

Bankruptcy courts are using 

mediation to address mortgage 

modifications as part of Chapter 

13 petitions. The U.S. Bankruptcy 

Court for the Northern District 

of California uses its Mortgage 

Modification Mediation Program 

to facilitate communication 

and exchange of information 

between lender and debtor in a 

confidential setting. The intent 

is to encourage the parties to 

reach a feasible and beneficial 

agreement under the supervision 

of the bankruptcy court.

Almost all court-organized 

mediation programs rely upon 

the pro bono support of the bar. 

Lawyer recognition programs 

are held regularly by many 

district and bankruptcy courts. 

In addition, the ADR Committee 

of the Ninth Circuit presents 

two annual awards honoring 

outstanding achievements in 

the field by individuals and 

institutions. 

Ninth Circuit

Courts Pursue

ADR

Attorney Kresta Daly of Sacramento received the 2014 Joe Ramsey Award from Chief 

District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr., of the Eastern District of California.
42

In 2015, the ADR Committee 

selected Debra Newman of 

the U.S. District Court for the 

District of Nevada, to receive 

the Robert F. Peckham Award for 

Excellence in Alternative Dispute 

Resolution. The committee 

selected the University of 

Oregon, School of Law,as the 

recipient of the 2015 Ninth 

Circuit Alternative Dispute 

Resolution Education Award. 

The awards were established by 

the Judicial Council of the Ninth 

Circuit to recognize individual 

and institutional achievements.

Ms. Newman, a paralegal and 

judicial assistant to Magistrate 

Judge Valerie Cooke of Las 

Vegas, was recognized for her 

significant work in advancing the 

delivery of effective court-based 

ADR in Nevada. She also assisted 

Harvard University in a study of 

the effectiveness of the Nevada 

ADR program, which serves to 

settle prisoner civil rights cases 

after the court has completed its 

initial review orders.

Oregon Law is nationally 

known for its long-standing 

commitment to ADR. Since 

2008, the law school’s ADR 

Center has been among the 

nation’s top 10 law school 

dispute resolution programs as 

ranked by U.S. News and World 

Report. The law school focuses 

on social justice in the larger 

community, while providing law 

students with an outstanding 

educational experience. 

Debra Newman, left, judicial assistant to Magistrate Judge Valerie Cooke, is recipient 

of the 2015 Robert F. Peckham Award, and Jennifer Reynolds, right, associate professor 

and faculty director of the Appropriate Dispute Resolution Center at the University 

of Oregon, School of Law, received the 2015 Ninth Circuit ADR Education Award on 

behalf of the law school.
43

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Senior Circuit Judge Edward 

Leavy, Edward J. Devitt 

Distinguished Service to Justice 

Award, Dwight D. Opperman 

Foundation; Circuit Judge M. 

Margaret McKeown, Robert F. 

Drinan S.J. Law Alumni Public 

Service Award, Georgetown 

University Law Center; Circuit 

Judge Jacqueline H. Nguyen, 

2015 Spirit of Excellence Award, 

American Bar Association 

Commission on Racial and Ethnic 

Diversity in the Profession; 

Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt, 

honorary doctor of laws degree, 

Pomona College; Circuit Judge N. 

Randy Smith, Idaho Hometown 

Hero Award, JRM Foundation for 

Humanity; Senior Circuit Judge 

Stephen S. Trott, Distinguished 

Jurist Award, Idaho State Bar 

Association.

District of Arizona

Magistrate Judge Michelle 

Burns, honoree for 15 years of 

contribution and leadership, 

Phoenix Chapter of the Federal 

Bar Association; District Judge 

David G. Campbell, 2015 Jesse 

Udall Distinguished Service 

Award, Phoenix, Arizona Chapter 

of the J. Reuben Clark Law 

Society.

Central District of California

District Judge Andrew J. 

Guilford, Distinguished Public 

Service Award, Los Angeles 

Intellectual Property Law 

Association, and Judge of the 

Year Award, Orange County 

Hispanic Bar Association; Senior 

District Judge Ronald S.W. Lew, 

2015 Trailblazer of the Bar, Los 

Angeles County Bar Association, 

Senior Lawyers Section, and 2015 

Lifetime Achievement Award, 

Chinese-American Elected 

Officials Presidents Circle; 

District Judge James V. Selna, 

Legend of the Law, Masters 

Division, Orange County Bar 

Association; Bankruptcy Judge 

Peter H. Carroll, Appreciation 

Award, Central District 

Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney 

Association; Magistrate Judge 

Jay C. Gandhi, Benjamin 

Aranda III Judge of the Year 

Award, Mexican American Bar 

Association of Los Angeles, and 

Judicial Trailblazer Award, Asian 

American Bar Association of 

Orange County.

Northern District of California

Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler, 

Tara L. Riedley Barristers Choice 

Award, The Bar Association of 

San Francisco; Magistrate Judge 

Sallie Kim, Unsung Hero Award, 

Asian Pacific American Bar 

Association of Silicon Valley

Southern District of California

Chief District Judge Barry 

Ted Moskowitz, honoree, 

National Conference of Federal 

Trial Judges, American Bar 

Association; Bankruptcy Judge 

Louise DeCarl Adler, special 

tribute, National Conference of 

Federal Trial Judges, American 

Bar Association; Magistrate 

Judge Karen S. Crawford, 

Outstanding Judicial Officer 

Award, California Western 

School of Law.

District of Idaho

Chief District Judge B. Lynn 

Winmill, Distinguished Alumnus 

Award, Idaho State University, 

listed as one of Idaho’s top 100 

most influential people, published 

in the “100 Influential Idahoans 

2015,” by Randy Stapilus.

District of Oregon

Senior District Judge Owen 

M. Panner, 32nd Annual Earl 

A. Chiles Award, High Desert 

Museum; Bankruptcy Judge 

Frank R. Alley III, William N. 

Stiles Award of Merit, Oregon 

State Bar Debtor-Creditor 

Section.

Eastern District of

Washington

Magistrate Judge James P. 

Hutton, Outstanding Judge 

Award, Washington State Bar 

Association. 

2015 Award

Recipients
44

Ninth Circuit Holds Annual Law

Clerk Orientation

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held 

its annual New Law Clerk Orientation Program in September 

at the James R. Browning U.S. Courthouse in San Francisco. 

The program introduced newly-hired law clerks to the 

workings of the court. Other topics included ethics and social 

media, mediation, sentencing and legal writing. Presenters 

included Chief Judge Sidney R. Thomas, top right, Circuit 

Judge M. Margaret McKeown, middle, and bottom right, 

Circuit Judge Richard Paez, and Magistrate Judge Joseph 

Spero of the Northern District of California. 
45

Court staff from Nevada and 

Southern California received 

national recognition for their 

work in developing an electronic 

voucher processing system that 

is transforming how the federal 

judiciary manages spending for 

indigent defense. 

The eVoucher System, which 

grew out of a program developed 

by the United States District 

Court for the District of Nevada 

and is now being implemented 

by federal courts nationwide, 

was selected for a Director’s 

Award for Excellence in Court 

Operations by the Administrative 

Office of the U.S. Courts. 

Recognized for their work in 

developing and implementing the 

system were District Clerk Lance 

Wilson, Chief Deputy Clerk 

Cindy Jensen, Special Projects 

Director Vicente Angotti and 

programmers Thomas Pyle 

and Guillermo Rojas of the 

Nevada district court in Las 

Vegas, and programmer Vaidehi 

Prabhakaran of the U.S. District 

Court for the Southern District 

of California in San Diego. 

Legal representation of indigent 

defendants facing criminal charges 

in federal courts is required under 

the Sixth Amendment of the 

Constitution and the Criminal 

Justice Act.

CJA funding is allocated to the 

federal judiciary each year for this 

purpose and courts are responsible 

for managing use of these funds, 

which pay for legal counsel and 

other services necessary for 

adequate representation. 

Before eVoucher, courts relied 

on a “hard copy” system 

that was slow, susceptible 

to mathematical and other 

errors, and labor intensive. By 

automating much of the process, 

the eVoucher System simplifies 

the submission of vouchers by 

attorneys and service providers 

and the review of vouchers 

by judges and court staff. 

Reimbursement rates are built 

into electronic forms, removing 

almost all mathematical errors 

and significantly reducing 

the amount of time needed 

for staff review. Vouchers are 

immediately available for review 

by judges, facilitating quicker 

processing of vouchers and 

payments to attorneys and 

service providers. 

The eVoucher System also 

provides much improved data 

retrieval and analysis functions. 

As the database of information 

builds over time, trial judges will 

be better able to evaluate specific 

vouchers and the overall cost of 

a representation. 

“The eVoucher System will have 

substantial long-term benefits to 

the judiciary. I am very pleased 

that the managers and staff who 

worked so diligently on it are 

being recognized,” said Chief 

Judge Sidney R. Thomas of the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

Ninth Circuit. 

District

Courts Staffs

Get National

Recognition

Pictured from left are Thomas Pyle, developer; Cindy K. Jensen, chief deputy clerk; 

Guillermo Rojas, developer; Lance Wilson, district court clerk; and Vicente Angotti, 

director of special projects. 
46

 Eileen M. 

Decker was 

confirmed by 

the Senate to 

serve as the 

United States 

attorney for 

the Central 

District of California on June 11, 

2015. She serves on five Attorney 

General Advisory Committees—

Civil Rights, Cyber/Intellectual 

Property, Terrorism/National 

Security, Violent and Organized 

Crime, and White Collar/Fraud. 

Prior to her appointment, she 

served as the deputy mayor for 

the City of Los Angeles, 

Homeland Security and Public 

Safety, for nearly six years. In 

addition, she served as the 

principle liaison for the City of 

Los Angeles to all federal law 

enforcement agencies. Ms. Decker 

worked as an assistant U.S. 

attorney for almost 15 years, 

serving as chief of the National 

Security Section, as deputy chief 

of the Organized Crime and 

Terrorism Section, and as deputy 

chief of the Organized Crime 

Task Force. She engaged in 

private practice at the law firm of 

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher in Los 

Angeles for three years. Ms. 

Decker received her 

undergraduate and law degrees 

from New York University. She 

also received a master’s degree in 

homeland security studies from 

the Naval Postrgraduate School 

and was a Wasserstein Fellow at 

Harvard Law School. She clerked 

for Judge Gary L. Taylor of the 

U.S. District Court for the 

Central District of California. 

She is a past president of the 

Women’s Lawyer’s Association 

of Los Angeles.

 Kiry K. Gray 

was appointed 

clerk of court 

of the United 

States District 

Court for the 

Central 

District of 

California on September 24, 

2015. She is the first AfricanAmerican woman to be appointed 

as clerk in the Central District. 

Ms. Gray has a long history of 

service to the court, spanning 30 

years. She began her career in the 

judiciary in the Jury Department 

on a temporary assignment in 

1985. Her dedication to the court 

and work ethic earned Ms. Gray 

many promotions over her 

tenure, and she rose to several 

management positions early in 

her career, including being named 

the assistant supervisor in the 

Criminal Section in 1987, the 

assistant deputy-in-charge for the 

Southern Division in 1990, and 

the deputy-in-charge of the 

Eastern Division in 1993. Ms. 

Gray served as the court’s acting 

clerk of court beginning July 1, 

2015 prior to her appointment.

 Lisa Hay was 

appointed as 

the federal 

public defender 

for the District 

of Oregon on 

June 30, 2015. 

Prior to that, 

she had served as the acting FPD 

for the district since 2014. She 

joined the Office of the Federal 

Public Defender in 1998 and was 

named an assistant FPD in 2992. 

Prior to federal service, Ms. Hay 

worked as an associate at law 

firms in San Francisco, Boston 

and Portland, Oregon. She 

received her B.A., summa cum 

laude, from Yale University in 

1985 and her J.D., magna cum 

laude, in 1991 from Harvard Law 

School, where she served as 

editor of the Harvard Law 

Review from 1989 to 1991. 

Following law school, she clerked 

for Judge Robert E. Keeton and 

Patti B. Saris of the U.S. District 

Court for the District of 

Massachusetts. 

Matt Jedrosko 

was appointed 

as the chief 

probation 

officer for 

the District 

of Alaska on 

March 23, 

2015. Mr. Jedrosko began his 

career as a probation officer in 

the District of Alaska in 1999 

and left federal service to work 

in juvenile justice in 2004. He 

returned to federal service in 

2008 as a probation officer in the 

Northern District of Iowa, where 

he remained until returning to 

the District of Alaska in 2010. 

Administrative

Changes Around

the Circuit
47

Mr. Jedrosko became a supervisor 

in 2011 and held the position 

until becoming chief in 2015. He 

received a B.S. in criminal justice 

from the Defiance College in 

1991.

Hilary 

Potashner was 

appointed as 

the federal 

public defender 

for the Central 

District of 

California on 

June 30, 2015. Prior to that, she 

had served as the acting FPD for 

the district since 2014. She joined 

the Office of the Federal Public 

Defender in 2001, was promoted 

to a supervising defender in 2007 

and became the office’s chief 

deputy in 2012. Ms. Potashner 

worked previously as deputy 

public defender in San Diego 

County Public Defender’s Office 

from 1993 to 2000. She received 

her B.A. from Duke University 

in 1989 and her J.D. in 1993 from 

the University of California, 

Hastings College of the Law, 

where she received the Hastings 

Public Interest Law Foundation 

grant in 1991.

Robert A. 

Ramirez was 

appointed 

as the chief 

probation 

officer for 

the Eastern 

District of 

California on June 1, 2015. He 

served as the deputy chief from 

2013 to 2015, as a supervisory 

probation officer from 2003 to 

2013, and as a senior electronic 

monitoring specialist in 2003. 

Mr. Ramirez began his career as 

a probation officer in 1997 in the 

Northern District of California 

then transferred to the Eastern 

District of California in 2011. 

He received a B.S. in sociology 

from Santa Clara University in 

1994 and was a deputy probation 

officer for Monterey County, 

California, from 1995 to 1997. 

Susan Y. 

Soong was 

appointed the 

clerk of court 

of the United 

States District 

Court for the 

Northern 

District of California on 

September 2, 2015. Prior to 

her appointment, she served as 

the chief deputy of operations 

for the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the Ninth Circuit. In 2011, 

Ms. Soong was selected to go 

to the Administrative Office 

of the U.S. Courts through the 

Director’s Leadership Program 

in Washington, D.C., where 

she expanded her professional 

network and gained greater 

understanding of national issues 

and policies affecting the federal 

judiciary. Ms. Soong received her 

bachelor’s degree from Stanford 

University and her law degree, 

magna cum laude, from the 

State University of New York at 

Buffalo, where she served on the 

law review and the moot court 

board. She pursues a passion 

for music outside of work as a 

professional-level player of the 

violin and viola in chamber music 

ensembles in the Bay Area.

 Brian Stretch 

serves as the 

acting United 

States attorney 

for the 

Northern 

District of 

California. 

Prior to his current position, Mr. 

Stretch served as the first 

assistant U.S. attorney for five 

years. From 2007 to 2010, he 

served as chief of the Criminal 

Division. Mr. Stretch joined the 

United States Attorney’s Office 

in 1999 and has worked in the 

Oakland Branch Office, the 

Organized Crime Strike Force, 

the Anti-terrorism Unit, and the 

Securities Fraud Unit. In 2003 

and 2004, Mr. Stretch was chief 

of the Major Crimes Unit in the 

San Francisco Office and served 

as chief of the Oakland Branch 

Office in 2005. In 2006, he 

returned to the San Francisco 

Office and served as the senior 

litigation counsel in the Criminal 

Division until 2007. Prior to 

joining the United States 

Attorney’s Office, Mr. Stretch 

was a deputy district attorney in 

the Marin County District 

Attorney’s Office between 1994 

and 1999. From 1992 to 1993, he 

served as a judicial clerk to the 

San Francisco Superior Court. 

From 1986 to 1988, Mr. Stretch 

was a teacher and coach at St. 

Ignatius College Preparatory. He 

is a graduate of Dartmouth 

College and the Georgetown 

University Law Center.
48

 Matt Thompson 

was appointed 

as the chief 

probation 

officer for 

the Eastern 

District of 

Washington 

on September 1, 2015. He served 

as the deputy chief probation 

officer from February 2015 

and as a supervisory probation 

officer from January 2012. Mr. 

Thompson joined the Eastern 

District of Washington in 

November 2005. He was 

instrumental in starting the 

district’s first reentry drug 

court program and assisted in 

the district’s implementation 

of evidence based correctional 

practices. Prior to his federal 

employment, he worked as a 

probation officer for 10 years 

at the state and local level. He 

earned his B.A. in criminal 

justice from Eastern Washington 

University in 1993.

 Billy J. 

Williams 

serves as the 

United States 

attorney for 

the District of 

Oregon. He 

has been with 

the U.S. Attorney’s Office since 

October of 2000. Prior to his 

role as the U.S. attorney, he has 

served as the first assistant U.S. 

attorney, chief of the Criminal 

Division, chief of the Violent 

Crimes Unit, and as the Indian 

Country AUSA/Tribal Liaison. 

He serves on the following 

Attorney General’s Advisory 

Committee Subcommittees: 

Native American Issues; Law 

Enforcement Coordinating 

Council/ Victim/Community 

Issues; and Border and 

Immigration Law Enforcement 

Issues. He also serves on the 

following AGAC Working 

Groups: Environmental Issues; 

Local Government Coordination; 

Child Exploitation and 

Obscenity; Civil Litigation 

Policy; Security; and Marijuana 

Enforcement. Prior to his federal 

service, Mr. Williams served as a 

senior deputy district attorney 

in Multnomah County, where he 

supervised the Career Criminal 

Unit, and over his career 

prosecuted major crimes of 

violence, including aggravated 

murder, adult and child sex 

offenses, domestic violence, 

narcotics trafficking, vehicular 

homicide crimes, as well as 

investigations of officer-involved 

shootings. Mr. Williams received 

his law degree in 1989 at the 

Willamette University College 

of Law. 
49

Space & 

Security
50

The Mark O. Hatfield United States Courthouse in Portland serves as the headquarters of the 

U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. The 

district is also authorized to hold court in Coquille, 

Eugene, Klamath Falls, Medford and Pendleton, 

Oregon. The court is authorized six district judges 

and seven magistrate judges (including one parttime position). It reported almost 2,800 new filings 

in fiscal year 2015 and ended the year with a 

pending caseload of about 2,700 cases.

The federal court has long had a presence in 

Portland, which is situated at the confluence of 

the Columbia and Willamette rivers. The area was 

settled around 1840 and incorporated as a city in 

1851. When Oregon achieved statehood in 1859, 

Congress established a federal judicial district for 

the state. Appointed by President Buchanan to 

lead the new court, Judge Matthew Paul Deady 

initially held court in the state capital of Salem. 

He soon moved the court to Portland in 1860, 

recognizing its growth and potential as a major 

port and population center.

The first federal courthouse to be built in Portland 

was the Pioneer Courthouse, which opened in 

1869. It housed the federal trial and appellate 

courts, the U.S. Post Office and Customs Service, 

and other government offices. Now one of the 

oldest courthouses west of the Mississippi, the 

Pioneer Courthouse has been used exclusively by 

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 

since 1973. It was designated a Historic National 

Landmark in 1977.

Eventually outgrown by the community it served, 

the Pioneer Courthouse gave way in 1933 to a new 

federal courthouse, which also housed the post 

Federal Court Has Long

Presence in Portland

The Mark O. Hatfield United States Courthouse in Portland, 

pictured right, is the headquarters of the U.S. District Court for 

the District of Oregon.
51

office and other federal agencies. In 1989, 

Congress authorized naming that building 

the Gus J. Solomon U.S. Courthouse after 

the longest-serving federal judge in Oregon 

history. Listed on the National Register of 

Historic Places in 1979, it remains in use 

today by commercial tenants. 

Construction of a third federal courthouse 

in the city began in 1994 and was 

substantially completed in 1997. In 1996, 

Congress authorized naming the building 

the Mark O. Hatfield U.S. Courthouse in 

honor of one of the state’s legendary elected 

leaders. The late Senator Hatfield, who died 

in 2011, represented Oregon in the Senate 

from 1967 to 1997 and also served two 

terms as governor from 1958 to 1966.

Notable Cases

Over the past 18 years, the Mark. O. 

Hatfield U.S. Courthouse has been the 

venue for numerous important federal 

cases, including these long-running 

matters:

• The Kennewick Man, involving the 

disposition of an 8,000-year-old 

human skeleton found in Kennewick, 

Washington. The nine-year-old 

dispute was resolved in 2005 in favor 

of anthropologists who wanted to 

continue to study the remains, which 

the government had sought to inter 

at the request of Native American 

tribes.

• Death with Dignity, which was 

litigated from 1994 to 2007 and 

involved challenges to Oregon’s 

legalization of physician-assisted 

suicide. The state’s Death with 

Dignity Act was initially held to 

be unconstitutional by the district 

court, but the decision was reversed 

on appeal to the Ninth Circuit. 

The district court later granted an 

injunction to prevent enforcement 

of a directive of the U.S. Attorney 

General that physicians would be 

violating the Controlled Substances 

Act. The decision was affirmed by 

the Ninth Circuit and upheld by the 

U.S. Supreme Court.

• Salmon Recovery, ongoing litigation 

dating back to 1994 over the 

conservation of salmon protected 

under the Endangered Species Act. 

The current cases, which were 

brought in 2001, has led to court 

decisions authorizing water spill over 

dams on the Columbia and Snake 

rivers to facilitate salmon passage.

Pioneer U.S. Courthouse

Gus J. Solomon U.S. Courthouse
52

The Hatfield Courthouse was built 

on a site formerly occupied by a 

landmark hotel that had been eligible 

for inclusion on the National Register 

of Historic Places. Underground 

structures associated with early 

Chinese settlers also were found. The 

hotel underwent a historic survey 

prior to demolition and architecturally 

and historically significant items 

were salvaged. Archaeological 

testing occurred before and during 

construction. Some of the artifacts 

and specimens recovered are on 

display in the lobby of the building.

Two architectural firms, Broom, 

Oringdulph, Randolph & Associates 

of Portland and Kohn Pedersen Fox 

Associates of New York, collaborated 

on the design of the 565,300-squarefoot structure. The building consists 

of an 8-story block and a 16-story 

tower capped by a vaulted metal roof 

canopy. Rising 318 feet from street 

level, the courthouse ranks among 

the tallest buildings in Portland and 

was the tallest structure to be built in 

the city during the 1990s. The design 

received a 1994 GSA National Honor.

The administrative block, which was 

scaled to the height of neighboring 

civic structures, including the 

Multnomah County Circuit Court 

building, overlooks a parkway with 

green spaces and a monument. The 

main lobby offers three water features 

Artwork in the courthouse includes linen tapestries, top, created around the theme of 

the law and indigenous vegetation. One of the courtrooms in the building, above, and 

the reception area in judicial chambers space on the 16th floor.
53

along with historic quotations 

inscribed in a two-story green 

marble wall. The top floor 

contains a law library and open 

air roof top terrace.

The tower portion is constructed 

of limestone, steel and glass. It 

houses two grand jury hearing 

rooms, 14 district and magistrate 

courtrooms and judicial 

chambers, other office space, and 

a special proceedings courtroom 

on the 16th floor. The top floor 

also features another open air 

terrace offering views of Mt. 

Hood and Mt. St. Helens.

The courthouse design 

incorporates extensive security 

measures, including separate 

elevators and corridors for 

the public, persons in custody 

and judges and court staff. 

In addition, a multi-year 

“retrocommissioning” project 

undertaken by the GSA led to 

an LEED certification in 2013. 

The criteria for the Leadership 

in Energy and Environment 

Design designation are 

established by the U.S. Green 

Building Council.

The Oregon arts community 

contributed to the selection 

of artists whose works are on 

display at the courthouse. They 

include renowned public art 

sculptor Tom Otterness, whose 

“Law of Nature” sculpture 

garden in the open air terrace 

on the eighth floor of the 

administrative block features 

whimsical bronzed beavers, owls 

and other animals engaged in 

courtroom and other law-related 

activities.

Courthouse artwork also 

includes two linen tapestries 

for the Special Proceedings 

Courtroom on the 16th floor. 

Entitled “Judicial Heritage” and 

“Oregon Environment,” the 

tapestries were created by artist 

Judith Poxson Fawkes around 

themes relating to the history 

of justice and indigenous 

vegetation of the state of 

Oregon. 

The building tower features glass and steel 

window overlooking the city of Portland, 

above left. Visitors gather on one of two 

open air terraces in the courthouse, above. 

One of the “Law of Nature” sculptures 

created by artist Tom Otterness, below.
54

I

n November, the Wayne L. Morse United 

States Courthouse in Eugene, Oregon, 

hosted the traveling exhibit “Art of Survival: 

Enduring the Turmoil of Tule Lake,” 

which conveys the trauma and deprivation 

experienced by those confined to the largest 

of the Japanese American internment camps 

operated by the U.S. government during 

World War II.

The Tule Lake Segregation Center, located 

in the Northern California town of Newell, 

reportedly housed almost 18,800 Japanese 

Americans. The multimedia exhibit features 

still photographs, video, text panels, canvas 

banners and art and artifacts made by those 

who lived in the camp for more than three 

years.

Chief District Judge Ann Aiken of the 

District of Oregon helped arrange for the 

exhibit to come to Eugene and is working to 

bring it to the federal courthouse in Portland 

in 2016. 

Visitors at an opening reception included former 

internees, top. Court staff created hundreds of colorful 

origami birds to decorate the jury assembly room. The 

exhibit included a guard tower replica and banners 

with the numerals 9066, the number of the executive 

order issued by President Roosevelt authorizing the 

internment. Chief District Judge Ann Aiken offered 

welcoming remarks at the event. 

Art Exhibit Recalls

Trauma of Internment

Caption caption caption caption caption 

caption caption caption caption caption 

caption caption caption caption caption 

caption caption caption caption caption 

caption caption caption caption caption 
55

Clifford Harlan, the assistant circuit executive for space and 

facilities in the Office of the Circuit 

Executive for the Ninth Circuit, 

received the Director’s Award for 

Excellence in Court Operations 

from the Administrative Office 

of the United States Courts. The 

award is the top honor achievable 

by judiciary staff. He received the 

national recognition for helping 

guide an inter-governmental 

effort to reduce the judiciary’s 

energy use and costs. He shared 

this award with Dave Carlson, 

an architect in the Fifth Circuit, 

and John Domurad, chief deputy 

in the Northern District of New 

York. Mr. Harlan has co-chaired 

an interdisciplinary group of 

judiciary and General Services 

Administration officials, who 

focused on developing better 

forecasting tools for energy 

usage, enhancing opportunities to 

reduce overtime energy costs, and 

exploring options to encourage 

greater energy savings within the 

judiciary. 

“Cliff has done remarkable work 

in strengthening the judiciary’s 

partnership with GSA,” said 

Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Sidney 

R. Thomas.

“When fully implemented, the 

recommendations made by this 

group will significantly improve 

the services GSA provides to the 

judiciary,” he said. 

Ninth Circuit

Staff Plays Key

Role in Judiciary’s

Effort to Reduce

Energy Costs

J

udges of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California gathered outside 

the new U.S. Courthouse near Eureka, California, for a dedication ceremony held March 6, 2015. 

The approximately 23,000-square-foot courthouse in McKinleyville includes a courtroom and 

chambers for a magistrate judge along with space for the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, U.S. Probation 

Office, Office of the U.S. Attorney, and the U.S. Marshals Service. 

Photo courtesy of U.S. District Court, Northern District of California

Dedication Ceremony Held for New Courthouse

in Northern California

Clifford Harlan, assistant circuit execuitve 

for space and facilities
56

Courthouse Under

Construction

U.S. Courthouse in Los Angeles, California

Gross Square Footage: 

600,000

Design/Build Team: 

Clark Construction & SOM

Occupancy Date: 

October 2016
57

Work of the

Courts
58

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth 

Circuit continues to be the 

nation’s busiest federal appellate 

court. In fiscal year 2015, the 

court received fewer appeals and 

reduced its pending caseload.

New appeals filed with the 

Ninth Circuit numbered 11,870 

in FY 2015, down 1.6 percent 

from the prior fiscal year. The 

Ninth Circuit had 22.5 percent 

of all new appeals nationally, 

the most of any circuit. 

Appellate filings nationwide 

numbered 52,698, down 4.2 

percent overall. Nine circuits 

reported fewer filings, led by 

the Third Circuit with 19.3 

percent fewer new appeals. New 

filings were up in three circuits.

The Ninth Circuit disposed of 

12,048 cases in FY 2015, down 

3.6 percent. The court’s pending 

caseload was reduced by 1.3 

percent to 13,708 cases.

Breakdown of New Appeals

Immigration matters and appeals 

brought by inmates in state or 

federal prisons within the circuit 

accounted for 53.3 percent of 

new filings, while just under 

half of all new appeals were 

brought by litigants who were 

not represented by a lawyer.

District courts, which serve as 

trial courts in the federal judicial 

system, accounted for 60.2 

percent of new filings in FY 

2015. District courts generated 

7,150 new appeals, down 2.7 

percent from the prior year. 

Of the total, 5,601 were civil 

appeals and 1,549 were criminal 

appeals. Prisoner petitions 

involving habeas corpus, capital 

habeas corpus, civil rights, 

prison conditions and other 

matters accounted for 35.3 

percent of all new civil appeals 

from the district courts. The 

Appellate Caseload Profile, 2014-2015

Caseload Measure 2014 2015 Change 2014-15

Filings 12,061 11,870 -1.6%

Terminations 12,493 12,048 -3.6%

1

Pending Cases 13,886 13,708 -1.3%

1

2014 pending cases revised

Filings, Terminations and Pending Cases by Appeal Type, 2014-2015

Type of Appeal

2014

Filings

2015

Filings

Change

2014-15

% of Circuit

Total

2014

Terminations

2015

Terminations

Change

2014-15

2014

Pending

2015

Pending

Change

2014-15

Civil

U.S. Prisoner Petitions 511 411 -19.6% 3.5% 550 466 -15.3% 302 247 -18.2%

Private Prisoner Petitions 2,265 2,287 1.0% 19.3% 2,650 2,273 -14.2% 1,718 1,732 0.8%

Other U.S. Civil 662 705 6.5% 5.9% 491 620 26.3% 895 980 9.5%

Other Private Civil 2,330 2,198 -5.7% 18.5% 2,226 2,116 -4.9% 3,003 3,084 2.7%

Criminal 1,578 1,549 -1.8% 13.0% 1,699 1,641 -3.4% 1,720 1,628 -5.3%

Other

Bankruptcy 229 249 8.7% 2.1% 209 221 5.7% 316 344 8.9%

Administrative Agency 

Appeals 3,555 3,615 1.7% 30.5% 3,837 3,786 -1.3% 5,589 5,440 -2.7%

Original Proceedings and

Miscellaneous Applications 931 856 -8.1% 7.2% 831 925 11.3% 325 253 -22.2%

Circuit Total 12,061 11,870 -1.6% - 12,493 12,048 -3.6% 13,868 13,708 -1.2%

National Appellate Total 54,988 52,698 -4.2% - 55,216 53,213 -3.6% 41,751 40,808 -2.3%

Ninth Circuit as % of

National Total 21.9% 22.5% -0.6% - 22.6% 22.6% 0.0% 33.2% 33.6% 0.4%

Note: This table does not include data for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Beginning in March 2014, data include miscellaneous cases not 

included previously.

Court of

Appeals Reports

Slight Decrease

in New Appeals
59

U.S. government was a plaintiff 

or defendant in 1,116 new civil 

appeals, accounting for 20.1 

percent of the total new civil 

cases commenced. 

The four district courts in 

California accounted for 62 

percent of the new civil appeals 

and 48 percent of new criminal 

appeals. The Central District 

of California, the busiest court 

in the circuit, generated 1,925 

new appeals, down 6.9 percent 

from the prior year. The Eastern 

District of California had the 

next largest number of new 

appeals with 896, up 6.2 percent. 

Nine district courts generated 

fewer appeals than the prior year.

Of 1,549 new criminal appeals, 

54.5 percent were related to 

drug and immigration offenses. 

The court reported 528 appeals 

involving drug offenses and 

316 for immigration offenses. 

The court received 212 appeals 

involving property offenses, of 

which 176 were related to fraud. 

The court received 151 appeals 

for offenses involving firearms 

and explosives, of which one 

third were alleged to have been 

committed in the course of 

violent drug trafficking. Also 

reported were 103 appeals 

involving sex offenses and 64 

for violent offenses. The court 

also reported 41 appeals of cases 

involving money-laundering, the 

most of any circuit. 

For many years, a substantial 

portion of the court’s caseload 

has consisted of appeals of 

decisions by the Board of 

Immigration Appeals, or BIA, 

and other executive branch 

agencies. Appeals of agency 

decisions were up 1.7 percent in 

FY 2015. Of 3,615 appeals of 

agency decisions received, 3,441 

involved the BIA. The BIA cases 

constituted almost 29 percent 

of the court’s new filings. The 

Ninth Circuit had 58.3 percent 

of the total BIA appeals filed 

nationally in FY 2015.

Original proceedings 

commenced in FY 2015 

numbered 856, down 8 percent 

from the prior year. The bulk 

of original proceedings cases 

involved second or successive 

habeas corpus petitions and 

mandamus appeals. 

Terminations, Pending Cases

The court terminated 12,048 

cases in FY 2015, down 3.6 

percent from the prior year. 

Of the total, 5,150 were 

terminated on procedural 

grounds. The remaining 6,898 

cases or 57.3 percent of the 

total terminations, were decided 

on the merits. Of the merits 

decisions, 1,507 came after 

oral argument, 5,044 after 

submission on the briefs and 347 

by consolidation. Total merit 

terminations included 1,948 

prisoner cases, 1,219 criminal 

cases and 1,298 administrative 

agency appeals. For the year, 

judicial panels produced 557 

published opinions and 5,994 

unpublished opinions and 

memorandum dispositions.

Among cases terminated on 

the merits in FY 2015, 4,221 

were affirmed or enforced, while 

715 were reversed. The court’s 

overall reversal rate was 10.9 

percent, compared to a national 

average of 8.3 percent. A total 

of 414 cases were dismissed, 

reversed, remanded or disposed 

Median Time Intervals in Months for Cases Terminated 

on the Merits, 2014-2015

By Stage of Appeal

Number of Months

 Ninth Circuit National

2014 2015 2014 2015

1

From Filing of Notice of Appeal or Docket Date 

to Filing of Appellee's Last Brief 8.4 8.9 5.8 5.8

From Filing of Appellee's Last Brief to Oral 

Argument or Submission on Brief 12.0 14.5 3.8 3.7

From Oral Argument to Last Opinion or Final 

Order 1.1 1.3 2.1 2.1

From Submission on Brief to Last Opinion or 

Final Order 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4

1

From Filing of Notice of Appeal or Docket Date 

to Last Opinion or Final Order 12.4 14.1 8.5 8.5

From Filing in Lower Court to Last Opinion or 

Final Order in Appeals Court 32.6 34.7 28.0 27.8

Note: This table does not include data for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. 

Beginning in March 2014, data include miscellaneous applications not included previously. 

Cases terminated include appeals, original proceedings, and miscellaneous applications. 

1

Docket date is used when computing the median time intervals for original proceedings, 

miscellaneous applications, and appeals from administrative agencies. 
60

of by other means. Another 

1,201 cases were rejected on the 

basis of denial of a certificate 

of appealability. By category, 

reversal rates were 11.4 percent 

in criminal matters; 17.3 

percent in private civil matters; 

5.4 percent in cases involving 

inmates in federal correctional 

facilities and 5.6 percent for 

inmates in state correctional 

facilities; and 9.8 percent in 

administrative agency appeals.

The court’s pending cases 

numbered 13,708, down 1.3 

percent from the prior year. 

Among the pending cases, 39.7 

percent involved administrative 

appeals; 29.6 percent civil 

matters; 14.4 percent prisoner 

petitions; and 11.9 percent 

criminal matters. Of the pending 

caseload, 34.2 percent had been 

pending less than 6 months, 21.3 

percent pending 6 to 12 months, 

and 44.5 percent pending for 

more than 12 months.

Median Time Intervals

Median time intervals measure 

how long it takes for cases 

decided on the merits to proceed 

through the appellate process. In 

the Ninth Circuit in FY 2015, the 

median time interval from filing 

of a notice of appeal to final 

disposition was 14.1 months, up 

from 12.4 months the prior fiscal 

year. The court had reduced its 

reduced its median time interval 

by 5 months over the prior four 

fiscal years.

The median time interval 

from the filing of a case in a 

lower court to final appellate 

Sources of Appeals, Original Proceedings, and 

Miscellaneous Applications Commenced, 2015

District Appeals % of Total

Alaska 82 0.7%

Arizona 809 6.8%

C. Calif. 1,925 16.2%

E. Calif. 896 7.5%

N. Calif. 836 7.0%

S. Calif. 564 4.8%

Guam 15 0.2%

Hawaii 132 1.1%

Idaho 124 1.0%

Montana 256 2.2%

Nevada 551 4.6%

Northern Mariana Islands 10 0.1%

Oregon 361 3.0%

E. Wash. 149 1.3%

W. Wash. 440 3.7%

Bankruptcy 249 2.1%

Administrative Agencies, Total 3,615 30.5%

 IRS 48 0.4%

 NLRB 43 0.4%

 BIA 3,441 29.0%

 Other Administrative

Agencies 83 0.7%

Original Proceedings and Miscellaneous 

Applications 856 9.7%

Circuit Total 11,870

Note: Administrative agency appeals previously reported as appeals of decisions by the 

Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) are now shown as appeals of decisions by the Board 

of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Appeals of decisions by the U.S. Tax Court are shown as Internal 

Revenue Service (IRS) appeals. Beginning in March 2014, data include miscellaneous cases not 

included previously.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals En Banc Ballots, 2011-2015

Year

Petitions Filed for

Rehearing 

En Banc

En Banc

Ballots Sent

Grants of Rehearing

En Banc Following 

A Vote

Denials of Rehearing 

En Banc Following A Vote

2015 796 30 16 14

2014 785 37 17 20

2013 832 32 17 15

2012 913 33 19 14

2011 826 1

28 13 14

1

En banc call withdrawn in one case.
61

disposition was 34.7 months, 

up from 32.6 months in FY 

2014. The national median 

time intervals in FY 2015 were 

8.5 months from notice of 

appeal to final disposition by 

a circuit court of appeals, and 

27.8 months from the filing of 

a case in a lower court to final 

disposition by a circuit court. 

In appeals of BIA decisions, the 

median time interval from the 

date of docketing the case to 

filing of opinion or final order 

was 29 months.

Once an appeal was fully briefed, 

Ninth Circuit judges decides 

all types of cases fairly quickly. 

In FY 2015, the median time 

interval for panel decisions was 

1 month for a case in which oral 

argument was held, and about 10 

days for cases submitted on briefs. 

Pro Se Filings and 

Terminations

Pro se appeals involve at 

least one party who is not 

represented by counsel. In 

FY 2015, new appeals by pro 

se litigants numbered 5,855, 

down 2.7 percent from the 

prior year. Pro se litigants 

accounted for 49.3 percent of 

all appeals opened during the 

year. Prisoner petitions, 2,343, 

and agency appeals, 1,512, made 

up 65.8 percent of the new pro 

se cases. The majority of pro 

se appeals, 3,619 cases, involved 

decisions of the district courts 

of the circuit.

The court terminated 5,872 pro 

se appeals in FY 2015, down 

9 percent from the prior year. 

Of that number, 2,641 were 

closed on procedural grounds, 

while 3,231 were terminated on 

the merits after oral argument, 

submission on the briefs, or by 

consolidation. Prisoner petitions, 

2,325, and agency appeals, 

1,523, made up the bulk of the 

terminations. 

En Banc Cases

En banc courts, which consist of 

11 judges rather than three, are 

convened quarterly to resolve 

intra-circuit conflicts or other 

legal questions of exceptional 

importance. In FY 2015, 11 

en banc courts were convened. 

During the fiscal year, the court 

received 796 petitions seeking 

en banc review. Active judges 

of the court voted on 30 en 

banc requests, granting en banc 

review in 16 cases. En banc 

decisions issued by the court in 

FY 2015 numbered 17.

Death Penalty Cases

The court ended calendar year 

2015 with 104 pending death 

penalty cases from five states. 

Arizona had 42 pending cases, 

followed by California with 40 

pending cases. There were 18 

pending cases in Nevada, three 

in Idaho and one in Washington. 

Within the circuit, another 707 

death penalty cases are pending 

in federal trial courts and state 

supreme courts. Since 1976, 

there have been 75 executions 

by states within the circuit.

Contributions by Active, 

Senior and Visiting Judges

The court ended FY 2015 with 

28 active circuit judges and 16 

senior circuit judges. During 

the year, active circuit judges 

authored the opinions in 63 

percent of all cases terminated 

on the merits. Senior judges of 

the circuit authored opinions in 

32.3 percent of the merits cases, 

while visiting judges authored 

opinions in the remaining 4.7 

percent. Over the course of the 

year, 92 judges sat on the court 

by designation, including active 

and senior district judges from 

the Ninth Circuit and circuit 

judges and district judges from 

other circuits.

In addition to sitting on panels, 

senior circuit judges served on 

screening and motions panels 

and various administrative court 

committees. 
62

United States district courts 

serve as the trial courts in 

the federal judicial system and 

have jurisdiction to consider civil 

and criminal matters and other 

types of cases. A district court 

operates in each of the 94 judicial 

districts in the nation. 

The 15 district courts in the 

Ninth Circuit ranked first in the 

nation in total filings reported 

in fiscal year 2015. Filings 

numbered 56,708, down 7 percent 

from the prior year. The circuit 

accounted for 16.7 percent of 

all filings nationwide. District 

courts in the Fifth Circuit ranked 

second with 45,980 filings, while 

the Fourth Circuit followed with 

44,203 filings in FY 2015.

Criminal Caseload and 

Defendants 

Beginning in FY 2012, data on 

criminal cases commenced by 

offense and district are no longer 

published by the Administrative 

Office of the U.S. Courts. Data on 

criminal defendants commenced 

by offense continues to be used 

because it takes into account that 

a single case may have multiple 

defendants.

Criminal cases brought by the 

federal government declined in 

FY 2015. District courts in the 

Ninth Circuit reported 13,184 

criminal filings, down 4.9 percent 

from the prior fiscal year. 

Immigration- and drug-related 

cases declined nationally and in 

the circuit. Ninth Circuit courts 

reported 6,033 cases, which 

accounted for 16.5 percent 

of the 36,687 cases reported 

nationwide. Criminal cases 

terminated by Ninth Circuit 

district courts during the year 

numbered 13,490, down 9.7 

percent, while the total pending 

caseload decreased by 3 percent 

to 12,245 cases.

Ten district courts reported fewer 

criminal cases in fiscal year 2015. 

The Ninth Circuit as a whole 

accounted for 22 percent of the 

total criminal filings nationwide, 

which numbered 61,202 slightly 

down 2.4 percent from the prior 

fiscal year. 

In the Ninth Circuit, the total 

number of defendants involved 

in criminal cases decreased by 5.2 

percent to 16,752 in FY 2015. 

A majority of the defendants, 

13,828, were charged with 

felony offenses. Defendants 

charged with drug offenses 

U.S. District Courts - Total Criminal and Civil Cases Filed, 

Terminated and Pending, 2014-2015

Caseload Measure 2014 2015

1

Change

2014-2015

Civil Filings 47,132 43,524 -7.7%

Criminal Filings 13,859 13,184 -4.9%

Total Filings 60,991 56,708 -7.0%

Civil Terminations 47,928 43,199 -9.9%

Criminal Terminations 14,946 13,490 -9.7%

Total Terminations 62,874 56,689 -9.8%

2

Pending Civil Cases 37,986 38,311 0.9%

Pending Criminal Cases 12,624 12,245 -3.0%

2

Total Pending Cases 50,610 50,556 -0.1%

2

Civil Case Termination

Index (in months)

9.51 10.64 11.9%

Criminal Case Termination

Index (in months)

10.14 10.89 7.4%

2

Overall Case Termination

Index

9.66 9.67 0.1%

Median Time Intervals in Months from Filing to Disposition

Civil Cases 7.20 7.10 -1.4%

Criminal Defendants 5.60 5.50 -1.8%

Civil Cases National Total 8.30 8.80 6.0%

Criminal Defendants National Total 7.00 7.00 -

Note: This table includes all criminal cases filed and all criminal defendants in all cases filed as 

felonies or Class A misdemeanors but includes only those cases or defendants filed as petty offenses 

that were assigned to district judges rather than magistrate judges. Pending totals for criminal cases 

exclude cases in which the only defendants pending in such cases had been fugitives more than 12 

months before the end of the period indicated. Beginning in March 2012, the median time interval 

is computed from the proceeding date for a defendant (e.g., the date an indictment or information 

was filed) to the date on which the defendant was found not guilty or was sentenced. Previously, the 

median time interval was computed beginning with the defendant’s filing date. Therefore, data for 

March 2012 and thereafter are not comparable to data for previous periods. Median computed only 

for 10 or more defendants. 

Median time interval from filing to disposition of civil cases terminated excludes land condemnation, 

prisoner petitions, deportation reviews, recovery of overpayments and enforcement of judgments. 

Median computed only for 10 or more cases. 

1

Percent change not computed when fewer than 10 cases reported for the previous period.

2

2014 total pending civil cases and total pending cases revised.

District Courts
63

U.S. District Courts - Criminal Defendants Commenced by Offense and District, 2014-2015

AK AZ

C. 

Calif.

E. 

Calif.

N. 

Calif.

S. 

Calif. GU HI ID MT NMI NV OR

E. 

Wash.

W. 

Wash.

Total

2014

Total

2015

Change

2014-15

Violent Offenses

Homicide 0 38 1 1 1 0 0 1 2 4 0 1 0 1 2 44 52 18.2%

Robbery 2 13 8 1 5 18 0 2 5 0 0 12 23 1 4 127 94 -26.0%

Assault 1 149 12 10 11 25 1 1 12 20 0 8 20 1 36 254 307 20.9%

Other 2 22 4 3 6 9 7 0 3 24 0 16 11 6 2 137 115 -16.1%

Property Offenses

Burglary, Larceny 

& Theft 9 41 60 20 21 9 36 8 11 11 1 12 15 17 131 381 402 5.5%

Embezzlement 4 5 7 5 2 2 0 3 7 10 0 4 4 19 2 86 74 -14.0%

Fraud 29 289 253 117 180 391 15 16 38 23 5 52 33 47 42 1,593 1,530 -4.0%

Forgery & 

Counterfeiting 1 4 16 20 16 9 4 2 6 6 0 0 1 4 1 104 90 -13.5%

Other 0 4 1 18 8 1 0 0 1 3 0 1 0 0 21 24 58 141.7%

Drug Offenses

Marijuana 7 2,519 21 50 23 86 0 12 1 9 0 0 3 14 65 3,069 2,810 -8.4%

All Other Drugs 73 522 316 214 178 1,320 31 96 118 145 3 140 118 91 181 3,671 3,546 -3.4%

Firearms and

Explosives Offenses 28 129 49 88 101 48 4 10 43 65 0 123 84 48 71 928 891 -4.0%

Sex Offenses 23 127 53 27 29 68 0 5 17 34 2 47 27 42 65 537 566 5.4%

Justice System 

Offenses

2 58 17 5 18 34 1 6 4 4 0 10 16 10 8 184 193 4.9%

Immigration Offenses

Improper Reentry 

by Alien 1 2,169 130 85 61 1,109 0 2 48 11 0 70 113 46 46 4,375 3,891 -11.1%

Other 0 465 9 0 8 679 5 1 4 3 4 1 0 1 11 1,178 1,191 1.1%

General Offenses 7 55 74 10 31 63 1 5 3 23 0 12 19 1 50 321 354 10.3%

Regulatory Offenses 20 63 56 22 19 50 4 23 6 7 2 3 10 3 15 362 303 -16.3%

Traffic Offenses 1 3 0 11 19 0 4 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 197 257 242 -5.8%

All Offenses Total 210 6,675 1,087 707 737 3,921 113 200 329 402 17 512 497 352 950 17,632 16,709 -5.2%

Note: This table includes defendants in all cases filed as felonies or Class A misdemeanors but includes only those defendants in cases filed as petty 

offenses that were assigned to district judges rather than magistrate judges.

numbered 6,356 and accounted 

for 46 percent of total criminal 

defendants in the circuit. Of the 

total drug offenses, 2,810 involved 

marijuana and 3,546 involved all 

other drug offenses.

Criminal defendants charged with 

immigration offenses numbered 

5,082 down 8.5 percent compared 

to FY 2014. Immigration offenses 

constituted 30.3 percent of all 

criminal defendants in the circuit. 

Of the total, 3,891 defendants 

were charged with improper 

reentry into the United States.

The District of Arizona, one of 

two Ninth Circuit districts on the 

U.S.-Mexico border, continues 

to lead the nation in the number 

of defendants charged with drug 

offenses and ranks second in the 

nation for defendants charged 

with immigration offenses. 

Defendants charged with drug 

offenses in Arizona numbered 

3,041, down 2.4 percent from 

the prior year, and accounted 

47.8 percent of the circuit 

total. Defendants charged with 

immigration offenses in the 

district numbered 2,634, down 2.2 

percent, and accounted for 51.8 

percent of the circuit total.

The Southern District of 

California, also located on the 

U.S.-Mexico border, ranked 

second in the circuit for the 

largest numbers of defendants 

charged with immigration 
64

U.S. District Courts: Weighted and Unweighted Filings Per Authorized Judgeship 

 Weighted Filings Per Judgeship Unweighted Filings Per Judgeship

District

Authorized

 Judgeships Civil Criminal

Supervision

Hearings

2015

Total

2014

Total

Change

2014-2015 Civil Criminal

Supervision

Hearings

2015

Total

Alaska 3 104 53 1.15 183 158 13.7% 96 58 8.00 180

Arizona 13 445 281 15.87 597 742 -19.5% 527 516 113.31 886

C. Calif. 28 617 42 4.51 659 664 -0.8% 502 47 31.82 569

E. Calif. 6 858 108 8.05 910 974 -6.6% 793 121 57.33 938

N. Calif. 14 541 48 4.41 590 593 -0.5% 403 54 31.43 481

S. Calif. 13 275 218 15.38 493 508 -3.0% 234 327 108.92 612

Hawaii 4 209 70 6.73 214 286 -25.2% 164 70 46.25 246

Idaho 2 308 132 6.00 498 446 11.7% 269 139 42.00 502

Montana 3 246 145 7.97 360 399 -9.8% 260 140 50.67 394

Nevada 7 430 70 4.79 572 505 13.3% 386 75 33.14 536

Oregon 6 381 107 8.87 518 497 4.2% 351 119 63.66 535

E. Wash. 4 161 96 20.61 277 278 -0.4% 176 98 146.50 414

W. Wash. 7 467 76 6.25 570 549 3.8% 441 133 43.86 609

Circuit Total 110 5,042 1,446 110.59 6,441 6,599 -2.4% 4,602 1,897 776.89 6,902

Circuit Mean 388 111 8.51 495 508 -2.4% 354 146 59.76 531

Circuit Median 381 96 6.73 518 505 2.6% 351 119 46.25 535

National Mean 409 98 5.84 489 513 -4.7% 410 120 39.07 521

National Total 673 434 94 5.41 522 533 -2.1% 411 120 36.74 535

Note: Case weights are based on the 2003-2004 district court case weighting study conducted by the Federal Judicial Center. Data for the territorial 

courts are not included. This table excludes civil cases arising by reopening, remand, or transfer to the district by the order of the Judicial Panel on 

Multidistrict Litigation. This table includes defendants in all criminal cases filed as felonies or Class A misdemeanors but includes only those defendants 

in criminal cases filed as petty offenses that were assigned to district judges rather than magistrate judges. Remands and reopens for criminal defendants 

are excluded. This table includes trials conducted by district and appellate judges only; all trials conducted by magistrate judges are excluded. Sentencing 

hearings are excluded. Due to rounding, subtotals may not equal totals.

and drug offenses. The district 

reported 1,788 defendants charged 

with immigration offenses, down 

11.5 percent, and 1,406 defendants 

charged with drug offense, down 

4.4 percent. The Southern District 

of California had 22.1 percent of 

all defendants with drug offenses 

in the circuit.

District courts reported 2,154 

defendants charged with 

property offenses. Under this 

category, defendants charged 

with fraud were most numerous, 

totaling 1,530, followed by 

burglary, larceny or theft, 402; 

forgery and counterfeiting, 90; 

embezzlement, 74; and 58 for 

other property offenses.

Defendants charged with 

firearms and explosive offenses 

numbered 891, while violent 

offenses, including homicide, 

robbery, assault, and other 

violent offenses numbered 568. 

District courts pending 

caseloads were down 3 percent 

to 12,245 cases with 10 out of 

the 15 districts reporting fewer 

pending criminal cases in fiscal 

year 2015. 

Civil Caseload

District courts in the Ninth 

Circuit reported 43,524 civil 

filings, down 7.7 percent 

compared to the prior fiscal year. 

Civil matters accounted for 76.8 

percent of total caseloads in 

the district courts. Civil filings 

declined by 5.5 percent nationally 

in FY 2015.

Private civil cases, which 

numbered 35,771, accounted 

for 82.3 percent of all new civil 

filings in in the circuit. Prisoner 

petitions were most numerous 

under this category, totaling 

8,238, or 23 percent of all private 

civil cases in the circuit.

Civil rights cases numbered 

6,948 cases or 19.4 percent of all 

private civil cases in the circuit. 

Private civil cases also included 

contract dispute, 3,915 or 11 

percent; intellectual property 
65

suits, 2,789 or 7.8 percent; 

personal injury suits, 2,531 or 

7.1 percent; labor suits, 2,473 or 

6.9 percent; and real property 

suits, 2,258 or 6.4 percent.

The U.S. government was 

a party in 7,753 civil cases, 

accounting for 17.8 percent 

all Ninth Circuit civil filings. 

The government acted as a 

plaintiff in 1,100 cases and 

as a defendant in 6,653 cases. 

Among matters involving the 

government, social security cases 

were most numerous, 3,832 or 

49.4 percent of the total civil 

cases in the Ninth Circuit. Other 

major categories were prisoner 

petitions 1,175 cases or 15.2 

percent, and contracts, 441 cases 

or 5.7 percent.

Six districts reported increased 

civil filings in fiscal year 2015. 

Filings in the District of Nevada 

were up by 12.3 percent to 3,138 

cases; the District of Oregon, up 

9.7 percent to 2, 380 cases; the 

Western District of Washington, 

up 1.7 percent to 818 cases; 

the District of Idaho, up 8.6 

percent to 608 cases; the District 

of Alaska, up 3 percent to 311 

cases; and the District of Guam, 

up 123.8 percent to 47 cases.

The District of Arizona reported 

3,706 cases down 46.8 percent 

compared to the prior fiscal 

year. However, the steep decline 

was an anomaly resulting from 

the court limiting filings from 

a prisoner who brought more 

than 3,000 frivolous cases in 

the district in FY 2014. The 

prisoner is now limited by court 

order to one filing per month. 

After accounting for absence of 

filings by the prisoner, civil cases 

declined by about 4 percent in 

the district.

The Central District of 

California, which had the 

highest civil caseload in the 

circuit and second highest in 

the nation, reported 14,549 

filings, down .1 percent from 

FY 2014. Other districts with 

fewer filings include Northern, 

Eastern and Southern 

California, Hawaii, Montana, 

Western Washington and the 

Northern Mariana Islands.

District courts in the Ninth 

Circuit closed 43,199 civil cases, 

down 9.9 percent, and ended the 

fiscal year with 38,311 pending 

civil cases, up 1 percent. Civil 

case terminations nationwide 

increased by 6.2 percent to 

274,627, while pending cases 

nationwide were up 1.3 percent 

to 341,813. 

Case Processing Times 

Case processing times in the 

district courts of the Ninth 

Circuit remained almost 

unchanged in fiscal year 

2015. The Case Termination 

Index, which computes how 

long it would take to clear the 

pending caseload if the current 

termination rate remained 

constant, was 9.67 months 

compared to 9.66 months the 

prior fiscal year. (The termination 

rate for FY 2014, previously 

reported as 9.67 months, was 

revised due to revised total 

pending cases as reported in 

the FY 2015 statistical tables 

published by the Administrative 

Office of the U.S. Courts.)

The median time from filing 

to disposition of civil cases 

terminated in Ninth Circuit 

district courts decreased to 7.1 

months compared 7.2 months 

the prior fiscal year, while the 

national median increased to 8.8 

months in FY 2015.

For criminal defendants, 

the median time from filing 

to disposition in the Ninth 

Circuit slightly improved 

to 5.5 months compared to 

5.6 months in FY 2014. The 

national median remained 

constant at 7 months. 
66

Bankruptcy filings nationwide 

continue to decline in fiscal 

year 2015. Total filings numbered 

860,182 in FY 2015, down 10.7 

percent from FY 2014, when 

963,739 filings were reported. 

For the fifth consecutive year, 

bankruptcy courts in the Ninth 

Circuit reported fewer new 

cases. Total new filings in the 

nine western states and two 

Pacific Island jurisdictions was 

152,080, down 18.2 percent 

from FY 2014. 

Bankruptcy courts in all 15 

districts in the Ninth Circuit 

reported fewer filings with the 

biggest decreases occurring 

in California. The Northern 

District of California, which 

includes San Francisco, Oakland 

and San Jose, had 11,892 filings, 

down 22.9 percent. The Eastern 

District of California, which 

takes in Sacramento, Fresno and 

the Central Valley, had 17,681 

filings, down 21 percent. The 

Southern District of California, 

which covers San Diego and 

Imperial counties, had 8,889 

filings, down 19.1 percent. The 

Central District of California, 

which includes Los Angeles 

and six Southern California 

counties, reported 48,487 filings, 

down 19.9 percent. Even with 

the decline, the Central District 

remains the busiest bankruptcy 

court in the nation.

Fewer filings reported elsewhere 

in the circuit included the District 

of Arizona, 17,448 filings, 

down 16.5 percent; the Western 

District of Washington, 14,567 

filings, down 16.2 percent; the 

District of Oregon, 11,134, 

down 12.1 percent; the District 

of Nevada, 9,902, down 15.2 

percent; the Eastern District of 

Washington, 4,450, down 8.1 

percent; the District of Idaho, 

4,162, down 16.4; the District of 

Hawaii, 1,593, down 11.7 percent; 

the District of Montana, 1,310 

filings, down 19.1 percent; the 

District of Alaska, 426, down 7 

percent; the District of Guam 

133, down, 9.5 percent; and the 

District of Northern Mariana 

Islands which reported 6 cases, 

down by a case.

Ninth Circuit bankruptcy courts 

ranked first in the total number 

of Chapter 7 filings with 117,306 

new filings, 21.3 percent of the 

national total. Chapter 7 cases, 

which provide for the sale of a 

debtor’s nonexempt property and 

the distribution of the proceeds 

to creditors, made up 77 percent 

of all new bankruptcy filings in 

the circuit. Chapter 13 filings, 

which permit individuals with 

regular income to develop a plan 

to repay all or part of their debts, 

totaled 33,392 or 22 percent of 

the circuit total. Chapters 11 and 

12 filings made up the remainder. 

Nonbusiness filings involving 

individual debtors remained 

constant in 2015, accounting for 

96.5 percent of all new filings.

Pro Se Bankruptcy Filings

Bankruptcy filings by people 

not represented by legal counsel 

continued to run high in the Ninth 

Circuit. Total bankruptcy cases by 

pro se filers numbered 25,599 or 

Business and Nonbusiness Bankruptcy Cases Commenced, 

by Chapter of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, 2014-2015

Caseload Measure 2014 2015 Change 2014-2015

Filings

Business Chapter 7 4,640 3,885 -16.3%

Business Chapter 11 1,188 921 -22.5%

Business Chapter 12 62 34 -45.2%

Business Chapter 13 528 443 -16.1%

Nonbusiness Chapter 7 143,442 113,421 -20.9%

Nonbusiness Chapter 11 517 426 -17.6%

Nonbusiness Chapter 13 35,443 32,949 -7.0%

Total 185,820 152,079 -18.2%

Terminations 217,764 183,545 -15.7%

1

Pending Cases 212,114 180,649 -14.8%

1

2014 pending cases revised

Note: Section 101 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code defines consumer (nonbusiness) debt as that 

incurred by an individual primarily for a personal, family, or household purpose. If the debtor is a 

corporation or partnership, or if debt related to operation of a business predominates, the nature 

of the debt is business.

These figures include the following cases not reflected elsewhere.

Fiscal Year 2014: Central Calif. (Chapter 15=1); Northern Calif. (Chapter 9=1; Southern Calif. 

(Chapter 15=1); Nevada (Chapter 15=5); Western Wash. (Chapter 15=1)

Fiscal Year 2015: Eastern Calif. (Chapter 9=1)

Bankruptcy

Courts Report

Fewer Cases
67

16.8 percent of the total filings. 

Bankruptcy courts in the districts 

of Arizona, Central California, 

Eastern California, Northern 

California, Hawaii, Idaho, Oregon 

and Western Washington have 

established self-help clinics for 

pro se filers, who are unfamiliar 

with bankruptcy law and court 

procedures. Courts also urge their 

local bars to assist by providing pro 

bono representation for some cases.

Pro se filings in the Central 

District of California numbered 

11,799 and accounted for 46.1 

percent of pro se filings in the 

Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit, 

in turn, accounted for 33.2 percent 

of pro se filings nationwide.

High numbers of pro se filings 

were reported in the District of 

Arizona, 3,419 or 13.4 percent of 

all pro se filings in the circuit; the 

Eastern District of California, 

2,989 or 11.7 percent; and the 

Northern District of California, 

2,066 or 8.1 percent.

Terminations, Pending Cases

Cases terminated by bankruptcy 

courts in the Ninth Circuit 

numbered 183,545 or 18.5 

percent of total cases terminated 

nationwide. 

The Central District of California 

terminated 53,817 cases or 

29.3 percent of all cases closed 

in the circuit. The District of 

Arizona followed with 23,575 

or 12.8 percent; the Eastern 

District of California, 21,799 or 

12 percent; the Western District 

of Washington, 16,554 cases or 

9 percent; the Northern District 

of California, 16,275 cases or 8.8 

percent; the District of 

Nevada, 14,102 cases or 

7.7 percent; the District 

of Oregon, 13,116 or 7.1 

percent; and the Southern 

District of California, 

10,667 cases or 5.8 

percent. The districts of 

Idaho, Eastern District 

of Washington, Hawaii, 

Montana, Guam and the 

Northern Mariana Islands 

made up the remaining 

13,155 cases terminated or 

7.2 percent.

Bankruptcy courts in the 

circuit reported a 14.8 

percent decline in pending 

cases which numbered 

180,649 or 14.2 percent of 

pending cases nationwide. 

Pending cases in the Central 

District of California were down 

11 percent to 43,285 cases. The 

Northern District of California 

saw its pending caseload decline 

by 14.8 percent to 25,313 cases, 

while the District of Arizona 

reported 24,869 cases, down 19.8 

percent.

Appointments, Transitions

In 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the Ninth Circuit appointed 

five new bankruptcy judges. The 

new judges were Christopher M. 

Alston in the Western District of 

Washington, Martin R. Barash in 

the Central District of California, 

Christopher D. Jaime and René 

Lastreto, II, in the Eastern 

District of California; and Peter 

C. McKittrick in the District of 

Oregon.

Three bankruptcy judges were 

elevated to chief bankruptcy 

judges in 2015: Bruce T. Beesley 

in the District of Nevada, Trish 

Brown in the District of Oregon, 

and Roger L. Efremsky in the 

Northern District of California.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

Ninth Circuit reappointed three 

bankruptcy judges in 2015. They 

were Judges Sheri A. Bluebond in 

the Central District of California, 

Louise DeCarl Adler in the 

Southern District of California, 

and Alan Jaroslovsky of the 

Northern District of California.

Ninth Circuit bankruptcy courts 

also rely on recalled bankruptcy 

judges who are appointed on a 

temporary basis with the approval 

of the Judicial Council of the 

Ninth Circuit. There were 18 

recalled bankruptcy judges who 

served in 2015. 

Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Courts, 

2014-2015

District

2014

 Total Filings

2015

Total Filings

Change

2014-2015

Alaska 458 426 -7.0%

Arizona 20,907 17,448 -16.5%

C. Calif. 60,545 48,487 -19.9%

E. Calif. 22,383 17,681 -21.0%

N. Calif. 15,430 11,892 -22.9%

S. Calif. 10,992 8,889 -19.1%

Guam 147 133 -9.5%

Hawaii 1,805 1,593 -11.7%

Idaho 4,976 4,162 -16.4%

Montana 1,625 1,310 -19.4%

Nevada 11,676 9,902 -15.2%

1

N. Mariana Is. 5 6 -

Oregon 12,660 11,134 -12.1%

E. Wash 4,840 4,450 -8.1%

W. Wash. 17,380 14,567 -16.2%

Circuit Total 185,829 152,080 -18.2%

1

Percent change not computed when fewer than 10 cases 

reported for the previous period.
68

The Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, or BAP, 

operates under the authority 

of the Judicial Council of the 

Ninth Circuit. It is authorized 

seven bankruptcy judges, who 

serve seven-year terms and may 

be reappointed to an additional 

three-year term. The BAP 

has had one seat left vacant 

intentionally due to reduced 

workload since 2003. In their 

appellate capacity, BAP judges are 

precluded from hearing matters 

arising from their own districts.

All district courts within the 

Ninth Circuit have issued 

general orders providing 

for the automatic referral of 

bankruptcy appeals to the BAP 

for disposition. However, if any 

party files a timely election to 

have the appeal heard by a district 

court, the appeal is transferred 

according to the consent rule.

New Filings

In fiscal year 2015, new 

bankruptcy appeals filed 

numbered 782, down 20 

percent from FY 2014. The 

BAP handled 45 percent of 

all bankruptcy appeals, and 

the district courts handled 55 

percent. 

 

Dispositions

The BAP disposed of 512 appeals 

in FY 2015, a decrease of 20 

percent from the prior fiscal year. 

Of those, 162 appeals 

were merits terminations. 

Oral argument was held 

in 134 appeals, and 28 

appeals were submitted 

on briefs. Of the 162 

merits decisions, 31 were 

published opinions. The 

reversal rate was 10 

percent. The median time 

for an appeal decided 

on the merits was 10.7 

months.

Of the remaining 

350 closed cases, 10 

were terminated by 

consolidation and 111 

were transferred to the 

district courts after 

appellee elections or in 

the interest of justice. 

The remaining 229 closed 

appeals were terminated 

The BAP consists of, front row from left, Chief Bankruptcy Judges Robert J. Faris of the 

District of Hawaii, Laura S. Taylor of the Southern District of California, and Meredith 

A. Jury of the Central District of California, who serves as chief judge of the BAP. Back 

row from left are, Chief Bankruptcy Judges Ralph B. Kirscher of the District of Montana 

and Frank L. Kurtz of the Eastern District of Washington, and Bankruptcy Judge 

Randall L. Dunn of the District of Oregon.

New Bankruptcy Appeal Filings, 2015

District

Bankruptcy 

Appellate

Panel 1District Court Total

Alaska 0 1 1

Arizona 30 31 61

C. Calif. 161 182 343

E. Calif. 36 21 57

N. Calif. 35 78 113

S. Calif. 22 23 45

Hawaii 0 13 13

Idaho 4 8 12

Montana 2 4 6

Nevada 33 36 69

Oregon 10 12 22

E. Wash. 2 3 5

W. Wash. 14 21 35

Total 349 (45%) 433 (55%) 782

1

The numbers for bankruptcy appeals to the district courts 

are taken directly from a statistical caseload table prepared 

by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts. The 

numbers for bankruptcy appeals to the BAP are calculated 

based on data from AOUSC tables and on data from the BAP’s 

CM/ECF docketing system. The district court numbers include 

all appeals in which a timely election was made to have the 

appeal heard in the district court (both appellant and appellee 

elections) as well as other cases transferred in the interest of 

justice. The BAP numbers exclude all such appeals.

Bankruptcy

Appellate Panel
69

on procedural grounds, such 

as lack of prosecution, lack 

of jurisdiction, or voluntary 

dismissal. The BAP had 231 

appeals pending in FY 2015, 

down 18 percent from FY 2014.

Appeals to the Ninth Circuit

Appeals from a bankruptcy 

decision of either the BAP or 

a district court may be filed 

with the Ninth Circuit Court of 

Appeals for second-level appellate 

review. In FY 2015, secondlevel appeals filed numbered 

248. Of these, 101 were appeals 

from decisions by the BAP and 

147 were from decisions by the 

district courts. Thus, of the 512 

appeals that were disposed of 

by the BAP, roughly 80 percent 

were fully resolved, with only 

20 percent seeking second-level 

review. The Ninth Circuit Court 

of Appeals did not reverse a BAP 

decision in FY 2015. 

New BAP Judge

In August 2015, Chief 

Bankruptcy Judge Robert J. Faris 

of the District of Hawaii was 

appointed to a seven-year term 

on the BAP. He succeeded Judge 

Jim D. Pappas of the District of 

Idaho, who completed a 10-year 

term which included service as 

chief judge of the BAP from 

2010 to 2013.

BAP Use of Pro Tem Judges

The BAP continues to use 

bankruptcy judges from 

throughout the Ninth Circuit 

on a pro tem basis. In fiscal year 

2015, the BAP used three pro tem 

appointments to assist with oral 

arguments and merits decisions.

BAP Outreach

The BAP continues its efforts 

to reach out to future and 

current bankruptcy attorneys 

throughout the Ninth Circuit 

in fiscal year 2015. In October 

2014, the BAP held oral 

arguments at Pepperdine 

University School of Law in 

conjunction with the inaugural 

Capstone Day of The Parris 

Institute for Professional 

Formation. All first-year law 

students from the Class of 2017 

attended the oral arguments and 

participated in a question-andanswer session with the BAP 

judges. The BAP returned to 

Pepperdine in September 2015 to 

again participate in this event for 

the first year law students from 

the Class of 2018.

In November 2014, in 

conjunction with oral arguments 

in Phoenix, BAP judges 

participated in a continuing 

legal education program with 

members of the Arizona 

bankruptcy bar. 

Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appeal Filings, 2013-2015

Year

Bankruptcy 

Appeals Total

1

Raw Bankruptcy Appeals

Received by BAP

2

Net Bankruptcy 

Appeals BAP

3

Net Bankruptcy Appeals

District Court

4

Election 

Rate

Percentage of Appeals

Heard by BAP

FY 2013 944 650 538 406 43% 57%

FY 2014 976 627 497 479 49% 51%

FY 2015 782 460 349 433 55% 45%

1

Number of new appellate filings received and opened as new case files at the BAP Clerk’s Office. This figure includes some appeals where an appellee 

files an election and the appeal thereafter is transferred to district court. (Where a timely election is made by an appellant, the bankruptcy court generally 

bypasses the BAP and refers the appeal directly to the district court.)

2

The number of raw bankruptcy appeals received by BAP less the number of appeals transferred from BAP to district court by election or other transfer.

3

Includes the number of all bankruptcy appeals received by district court either referred directly from the bankruptcy court or transferred from the BAP.

4

Percentage of bankruptcy appeals where one or more parties timely elected to have their appeals heard in district court.
70

Magistrate judges are 

appointed under Article 

I of the Constitution. Selected 

by the district judges of their 

judicial district, magistrate judges 

are appointed to an eight-year 

term and may be reappointed. 

They also may serve as recalled 

magistrate judges.

Magistrate judges make vital 

contributions to the work of 

the federal trial courts. They 

support district judges in a 

variety of judicial matters with 

duties ranging from handling 

petty offenses to taking felony 

pleas. Magistrate judges conduct 

preliminary proceedings, decide 

trial jurisdiction matters, review 

prisoner petitions and perform 

other duties. They may also 

preside over civil trials with 

consent of the parties. 

In 2015, the 15 district courts 

of the Ninth Circuit were 

served by 105 full-time, 9 parttime magistrate judges, and 1 

magistrate judge/clerk of court 

along with 18 recalled magistrate 

judges. They disposed of a 

combined 224,002 judicial matters 

during the year. Their dispositions 

were down 4.2. percent from fiscal 

year 2014. 

Preliminary proceedings, the 

largest category of matters 

presided over by magistrate 

judges, include arraignments, 

initial appearances, detention 

hearings, arrest and search 

warrants, bail reviews, Nebbia 

hearings, attorney appointment 

and material witness hearings. 

The total of preliminary 

proceedings was 83,318, down 

1.8 percent from FY 2014.

Additional duties related to 

criminal matters totaled 36,664, 

down 7.8 percent from the prior 

fiscal year. Among matters 

included in this category are 

non-dispositive and dispositive 

motions, pretrial conferences, 

probation and supervised release 

revocation hearings, guilty plea and 

evidentiary proceedings, motion 

hearings, reentry/drug court 

proceedings, writs, and mental 

competency proceedings. Nondispositive motions numbered 

13,913, down 9.6, while dispositive 

motions, 231, remained constant.

Additional duties related to 

civil matters numbered 48,370, 

up 1.7 percent from prior fiscal 

year. The bulk of this category 

included non-dispositive 

motions/grants of in forma 

pauperis, or IFP, status, pretrial 

conferences and settlement 

conferences.

Trial jurisdiction, which include 

Class A misdemeanor and petty 

offenses, numbered 29,118, down 

20.1 percent from FY 2014. 

Petty offenses totaled 26,335, 

down 21.5 percent, while Class A 

misdemeanor offenses numbered 

2,783, down 3.8 percent.

Civil consent cases, in which a 

magistrate judge presides at the 

consent of the parties, were up 

by .6 percent to 5,177 cases. The 

great majority of cases were 

disposed of without trial. 

Prisoner petitions rose by 10.2 

percent to 6,251 cases from the 

prior fiscal year. State habeas and 

civil rights petitions, which make 

up the bulk of this work were 

up 9.1 percent to 2,693 and 13.8 

percent to 3,216, respectively.

New Magistrate Judges and 

Governance

Eleven new full-time magistrate 

judges were seated in 2015. They 

were Judges Stacie F. Beckerman 

in the District of Oregon; David 

W. Christel in the Western 

District of Washington; 

Deborah M. Fine in the District 

of Arizona; Erica P. Grosjean 

in the Eastern District of 

California; John T. Johnston in 

the District of Montana; Sallie 

Kim in the Northern District 

of California; and Alexander F. 

MacKinnon, Rozella A. Oliver, 

Karen E. Scott, Gail J. Standish 

and Karen L. Stevenson in the 

Central District of California. 

New magistrate judges who 

attended the New Judges 

Orientation held in May at 

the James R. Browning U.S. 

Courthouse in San Francisco, 

were greeted by the Magistrate 

Judges Executive Board. The 

group met during an informal 

session, and exchanged ideas and 

offered the new judges guidance 

and encouragement in handling 

difficult matters.

Educational Program

The Magistrate Judges Education 

Committee, chaired by Magistrate 

Judge Brian A. Tsuchida of the 

Western District of Washington, 

organized a supplemental program 

Magistrate

Judges
71

Matters Disposed of by Ninth Circuit Magistrate Judges, 2014-2015

Activity 2014 2015

Percent Change

2014-2015

Total Matters 233,866 224,002 -4.2%

Felony Preliminary Proceedings 84,863 83,318 -1.8%

Search Warrants 14,402 15,363 6.7%

Arrest Warrants 6,916 6,701 -3.1%

Summonses 1,169 979 -16.3%

Initial Appearances 20,980 20,330 -3.1%

Preliminary Hearings 7,016 6,731 -4.1%

Arraignments 14,672 13,642 -7.0%

Detention Hearings 13,009 12,614 -3.0%

Bail Reviews/Forfeitures/Nebbia Hearings 1,661 1,706 2.7%

1

Other 5,038 5,252 4.2%

Trial Jurisdiction Defendants 36,427 29,118 -20.1%

Class A Misdemeanor 2,894 2,783 -3.8%

Petty Offense 33,533 26,335 -21.5%

Civil Consent Cases 5,146 5,177 0.6%

Without Trial 5,069 5,105 0.7%

Jury Trial 58 53 -8.6%

Nonjury Trial 19 19 -

Additional Duties

Criminal 39,758 36,664 -7.8%

Non-Dispositive Motions 15,390 13,913 -9.6%

Dispositive Motions 231 231 0.0%

Evidentiary Proceedings 170 153 -10.0%

Pretrial Conferences 11,160 10,217 -8.4%

Probation and Supervised Release 1,594 1,502 -5.8%

Revocation Hearings

Guilty Plea Proceedings 8,456 7,647 -9.6%

2

Other 2,757 3,001 8.9%

Civil 47,554 48,370 1.7%

Settlement Conferences/Mediations 2,959 3,257 10.1%

Other Pretrial Conferences 4,016 3,721 -7.3%

3

Non-Dispositive Motions/Grants of IFP 

Status

34,595 35,337 2.1%

Other Civil Dispositive Motions 2,133 2,617 22.7%

Evidentiary Proceedings 124 128 3.2%

Social Security Appeals 908 666 -26.7%

Special Master References 1 0 -

4

Other 2,818 2,644 -6.2%

Prisoner Petitions 5,672 6,251 10.2%

State Habeas 2,468 2,693 9.1%

Federal Habeas 356 311 -12.6%

Civil Rights 2,827 3,216 13.8%

Evidentiary Proceedings 21 31 47.6%

Miscellaneous Matters 14,446 15,104 4.6%

1

Includes attorney appointment hearings and 

material witness hearings.

2

Includes mental competency proceedings, 

motion hearings, reentry/drug court proceedings and writs.

3

In 2013, magistrate judge workload statistics 

were produced using a new software 

program that recalculated the statistics 

for 2013 and for previous years. In some 

categories, the statistics provided in the 

report differ from the ones displayed in 

those categories in previous reports. Nondispositive motions/grants of IFP status 

category includes prisoner cases, social 

security cases and other civil cases. 

4

Includes summary jury/other ADR/early 

neutral evaluations, motion hearings and fee 

applications.

for the bench and bar attending 

the 2015 Ninth Circuit Judicial 

Conference. The program, 

entitled “When Privacy Is No 

Longer Private: A Judicial 

Primer on Cellphone Location 

Data,” covered practical 

approaches to addressing 

privacy concerns implicated 

by increased data requests 

submitted to courts by law 

enforcement agencies in order 

to establish a suspect’s location 

and gather evidence. Magistrate 

Judge Jacqueline S. Corley 

of the Northern District of 

California moderated the panel, 

which included Magistrate 

Judge William G. Cobb of the 

District of Nevada; Richard 

Dowling, principal deputy 

chief, Computer Crime and 

Intellectual Property Section, 

U.S. Department of Justice; and 

Federal Public Defender Lisa 

Hay of the District of Oregon. 
72

Congress created the Office of the Federal Public Defender 

to fulfill the constitutional 

requirement that indigents 

charged with federal crimes 

be provided with professional 

legal representation at no cost. 

Congress funds public defender 

and community defender offices 

through the Defender Services 

Division of the Administrative 

Office of the United States Courts.

Federal public defender offices 

are staffed by federal judiciary 

employees while community 

defender organizations are 

non-profit defense counsel 

organizations staffed by nongovernment employees. Both 

types of organizations are 

staffed with experienced federal 

criminal law practitioners who 

provide a consistently high 

level of representation. Federal 

public defender representations 

include criminal defense and 

appeals, court-directed prisoner 

and witness representations, 

bail/pre-sentencing, supervised 

release, and probation and parole 

revocation hearings.

By statute, judges of a court of 

appeals select and appoint federal 

public defenders to four-year 

terms. The court makes its initial 

appointment after a nationwide 

recruitment and the use of a 

local screening committee. A 

federal public defender may be 

reappointed if the court concludes 

that he or she is performing in 

a highly satisfactory manner 

based upon a broad survey and 

performance evaluation process.

In fiscal year 2015, federal public 

defenders in the Ninth Circuit 

opened 27,465 new cases, down 

2.1 percent from the prior fiscal 

year. The downturn was due 

largely to a steep drop in new 

cases from one district. New 

case openings actually rose in 

most other districts, although 

the upturn stemmed from a 

retroactive change in federal 

sentencing guidelines.

In Arizona, the Office of the 

Federal Public Defender opened 

5,217 new cases in FY 2015, 

down 42.3 percent from 9,044 

news cases the prior fiscal year. 

Several factors contributed to the 

downturn, including the loss of 

some 40 employees – about onefifth of the office’s total staff – 

during the government’s budget 

sequestration in FY 2013. Cases 

not opened by the FPD were 

assumed by private attorneys 

assigned to the district’s Criminal 

Justice Act panel. In addition 

to loss of staff, the government 

brought about 30 percent 

fewer criminal prosecutions in 

Arizona and many of those were 

larger and more complex cases, 

requiring greater FPD resources. 

The nature of FPD caseloads in 

Arizona and elsewhere has been 

changing over several years and 

is reflected in the most recent 

work measurement study by the 

Administrative Office of the U.S. 

Courts. The study resulted in the 

introduction of revised formulas 

for determining FPD staffing and 

funding based on the complexity 

of cases rather than sheer 

number of cases taken.

Also noteworthy in FPD 

statistics for FY 2015, new case 

openings include previously 

closed cases reopened for review 

under an amendment to the 

sentencing guidelines formulated 

by the U.S. Sentencing 

Commission. Amendment 782 

lowered the base offense levels 

for certain drug quantities, 

resulting in reduced sentences. 

It is being applied retroactively, 

requiring review of thousands 

of prior cases in which longer 

sentences had been given. The 

amendment was adopted in 2014 

but delayed a year to allow for 

an orderly review process. The 

resulting bump in new case 

openings in FY 2015 is expected 

to be a one-time occurrence. 

Ninth Circuit Federal Defender Organizations: 

Cases Opened, Closed and Pending, 2011-2015

Cases 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Change 2014-2015

Opened 33,929 33,664 32,539 28,055 27,465 -2.1%

Closed 33,733 33,376 33,192 28,951 24,720 -14.6%

Pending 10,950 11,236 10,120 9,076 11,766 29.6%

Sentencing

Change Causes

Caseloads

to Rise for

Most Federal

Defenders
73

With the addition of previously 

closed cases, 13 of 15 districts 

in the circuit reported increased 

new case openings. New case 

openings numbered 6,128 

in the Southern District of 

California, up 4.6 percent; 

3,816 in the Central District 

of California, up 22.5 percent; 

1,966 in the Eastern District 

of California, up 27.6 percent; 

1,559 in the Western District 

of Washington, up 13.1 percent; 

1,563 in the District of Oregon, 

up 11.2 percent; 1,440 in the 

District of Nevada, up 42.2 

percent; 1,123 in the Eastern 

District of Washington, up 31 

percent; 828 in the District of 

Montana, up 19.3 percent; 761 in 

the District of Hawaii, up 69.9 

percent; 568 in the District of 

Idaho, up 109.6 percent; 436 in 

the District of Alaska, up 36.7 

percent; and 180 in the District 

of Guam, up 59.3 percent.

The only other district to report 

a downturn in new case openings 

was the Northern District of 

California, which opened 1,880 

cases, down 5.9 percent. 

Federal public defenders closed 

24,720 cases, down 14.6 percent 

from the prior fiscal year, while 

pending caseloads increased by 

29.6 percent to 11,766 cases.

Offices of federal public 

defenders in eight districts 

reported increased number 

of cases closed in fiscal year 

2015. The Eastern District of 

California closed 1,859 cases, 

up 19.8 percent; the District 

of Nevada, 1,199, up 20.5 

percent; the Eastern District of 

Washington, 935, up 6 percent; 

the District of Montana, 819, 

up 23.2 percent; the District of 

Hawaii, 662, up 51.1 percent; the 

District of Idaho, 412, up 43.1 

percent; the District of Alaska, 

364, up 36.3 percent; and the 

District of Guam, 143, up 12.6 

percent.

The FPD office in the Southern 

District of California reported 

the most cases closed, 6,096, 

down 3.4 percent. The District 

of Arizona followed with 4,975 

cases closed, down 46.4 percent; 

the Central District of California, 

3,089, down 4.1 percent; the 

Northern District of California, 

1,491, down 30.3 percent; the 

Western District of Washington, 

1,425, down 2.9 percent; and the 

District of Oregon, 1,251, down 

5.4 percent.

New cases opened nationally in 

fiscal year 2015 were up by 24.3 

percent to 147,704. Cases closed 

nationally numbered 127,508, 

up 3.8 percent, while pending 

caseloads nationwide rose by 

35.5 percent to 60,921 from prior 

fiscal year.

Transitions

Two federal public defenders 

were appointed in 2015. Lisa 

Hay and Hilary Potashner both 

took office on June 30, 2015, in 

the District of Oregon and the 

Central District of California, 

respectively. 

Federal Defender Organizations: 

Summary of Representations by District, 2014-2015

District

Opened

2014

Opened

2015

Change

2014-2015

Closed

2014

Closed

2015

Change

2014-2015

Pending

2,015

Alaska 319 436 36.7% 267 364 36.3% 232

Arizona 9,044 5,217 -42.3% 9,281 4,975 -46.4% 1,274

C. Calif. 3,116 3,816 22.5% 3,221 3,089 -4.1% 2,465

E. Calif. 1,541 1,966 27.6% 1,552 1,859 19.8% 809

N. Calif. 1,998 1,880 -5.9% 2,138 1,491 -30.3% 905

1

S. Calif. 5,858 6,128 4.6% 6,308 6,096 -3.4% 2,048

Guam 113 180 59.3% 127 143 12.6% 105

Hawaii 448 761 69.9% 438 662 51.1% 431

1

Idaho 271 568 109.6% 288 412 43.1% 276

1

Montana 694 828 19.3% 665 819 23.2% 261

Nevada 1,013 1,440 42.2% 995 1,199 20.5% 911

Oregon 1,405 1,563 11.2% 1,322 1,251 -5.4% 1,045

1

E. Wash. 857 1,123 31.0% 882 935 6.0% 519

W. Wash. 1,378 1,559 13.1% 1,467 1,425 -2.9% 485

Circuit Total 28,055 27,465 -2.1% 28,951 24,720 -14.6% 11,766

National Total 118,862 147,704 24.3% 122,802 127,508 3.8% 60,921

Circuit Total as % 

of National Total 23.6% 18.6% -5.0% 23.6% 19.4% -4.2% 19.3%

1

Community Defender Organizations

Note: Eastern Washington and Idaho are combined into one organization, and Northern Mariana 

Islands is not served by a defender organization. Other representations include court-directed 

prisoner, bail/presentment, witness, probation revocation, and parole revocation representations. 
74

United States probation officers prepare presentence 

reports on convicted defendants 

and supervise offenders who 

have been placed on probation, 

supervised release, civilian and 

military parole, or conditional 

release. Probation officers 

perform these duties in various 

settings, from courthouses in 

major cities to one-person offices 

in rural areas.

Presentence Reports

Probation officers investigate 

the offense conduct and the 

defendant’s personal background. 

They identify applicable 

guidelines and policy statements, 

and calculate the defendant’s 

offense level and criminal history 

category. Probation officers report 

the resulting sentencing range 

and identify factors relevant to the 

appropriate sentence. Presentence 

reports assist a judge in 

sentencing convicted defendants. 

Standard guideline presentence 

reports are generally prepared in 

felony and Class A misdemeanor 

cases for which the U.S. 

Sentencing Commission has 

promulgated guidelines. In the 

Ninth Circuit, probation officers 

prepared 12,135 guideline 

presentence reports in FY 2015, 

down 8.75 percent from the prior 

year. The circuit accounted for 

20 percent of the national total 

of 60,746 submitted guideline 

presentence reports.

Post-Conviction Supervision 

of Offenders

Probation officers supervise 

persons who are released to 

the community after serving 

prison sentences or placed on 

probation supervision by the 

court. They assist supervised 

individuals by directing them 

to services, including substance 

abuse, mental health, and sex 

offender treatment; medical 

care; employment assistance; 

literacy and training programs; 

and cognitive-behavioral 

treatment therapies to foster 

long-term positive changes to 

reduce recidivism. By using both 

controlling and correctional 

strategies, officers work diligently 

to protect the community, while 

promoting long-term change in 

the offender population. 

Probation officers in the Ninth 

Circuit supervised 23,135 persons 

in FY 2015, up 1.5 percent from 

the prior fiscal year. The circuit 

accounted for 17 percent of 

the national total of 135,468 

persons under supervision at the 

conclusion of FY 2015.

Among those under supervision, 

3,338 were on probation, 19,641 

were on supervised release, 133 

persons were on parole, and 23 

individuals adhered to Bureau of 

Prisons custody standards.

Offenders with convictions for 

drugs, property, firearms and 

weapons, and violent offenses 

are the largest group of persons 

under supervision in the 

Ninth Circuit. These offenders 

numbered 19,163, accounting 

for 83 percent of persons under 

supervision in the Ninth Circuit.

Revocations and Early 

Terminations

Ninth Circuit cases that were 

revoked and closed after postconviction supervision numbered 

3,198, virtually unchanged from 

FY 2014. The revocations, 153 

were from probation sentences, 

3,039 were from supervised 

release terms, and 6 were from 

parole cases. The Ninth Circuit 

had 21.8 percent of the 14,637 

cases revoked nationally. The 

national revocation rate for FY 

2014 was 24.1 percent, while 

the Ninth Circuit’s revocation 

rate was 26.3 percent. The 26.3 

percent revocation rate represents 

a decrease of nearly 5 percent 

from the previous fiscal year.

Probation

Officers

Ninth Circuit Federal Probation System:

Persons Under Post-Conviction Supervision, 2014-2015

Persons Under Supervision 2014 2015 Change 2014-2015

1

From Courts 3,534 3,338 -5.5%

2

From Institutions 19,273 19,641 1.9%

Total 22,807 22,979 0.8%

1

Includes conditional release, probation, and the former categories known as judge probation and 

magistrate judge probation.

2

Includes parole, special parole, mandatory release, and military parole. 
75

Since 2002, the Judicial 

Conference of the United 

States Committee on Criminal 

Law has encouraged officers to 

identify offenders who qualify 

for early termination. When 

conditions of supervision have 

been met, and the offender does 

not pose a foreseeable risk to 

the public or an individual, the 

probation officer may request 

the sentencing judge to consider 

early termination. For FY 2015, 

system wide there were 7,644 

cases terminated early, resulting 

in significant savings to the 

judiciary of over $33.2 million. 

Evidence-Based Practices

United States probation officers 

aim to reduce recidivism by 

utilizing “evidence-based practices”

to make informed decisions about 

the supervision risks offenders 

may pose. The process known as 

Post-Conviction Risk Assessment, 

or PCRA, is undertaken to improve 

post-conviction supervision. PCRA 

helps direct allocation of resources, 

directing attention and services to 

the highest risk offenders. 

Along with this assessment tool, 

evidence-based practices include 

the use of low-risk supervision 

caseloads and reentry programs, 

which include reentry courts, 

workforce development activities, 

and cognitive behavioral therapy 

programs. Furthermore, to 

enhance the bond and strengthen 

offender success, techniques such 

as motivational interviewing 

and the Strategic Techniques 

Aimed at Reducing Re-arrest 

program have been implemented. 

These areas focus on skills most 

helpful to an officer in trying 

to change offender behavior. 

The utilization of Second 

Chance Act funding has allowed 

districts to connect with much 

needed services in allowing 

individuals under supervision 

in becoming successful. Some 

examples of funding use 

include: employment/training 

programs, financial literacy 

classes, availability of transitional 

housing, and more. 

Challenges

Since sequestration in FY 2013, 

Probation and Pretrial Services 

offices have been working well 

under budget to ensure no 

disruption in court services and/

Ninth Circuit Federal Probation System: 

Persons Under Post-Conviction Supervision by District, 2014-2015

From Courts Referred by Institutions Supervised

District 1

Probation Release 2Parole 3BOP Custody

Persons Under 

Supervision, 2014

Persons Under 

Supervision, 2015

Change 

2014-2015

Alaska 83 303 0 4 352 390 10.8%

Arizona 674 3,258 15 1 4,014 3,948 -1.6%

C. Calif. 725 4,865 33 0 5,642 5,623 -0.3%

E. Calif. 170 1,539 16 1 1,683 1,726 2.6%

N. Calif. 319 1,526 6 0 1,836 1,851 0.8%

S. Calif. 253 2,537 15 0 2,609 2,805 7.5%

Guam 69 100 2 3 170 174 2.4%

Hawaii 111 607 3 0 778 721 -7.3%

Idaho 97 441 6 3 535 547 2.2%

Montana 115 814 6 5 859 940 9.4%

Nevada 192 975 5 0 1,153 1,172 1.6%

N. Mariana Is. 6 29 0 0 38 35 -7.9%

Oregon 253 930 11 2 1,130 1,196 5.8%

E. Wash 105 558 1 4 646 668 3.4%

W. Wash. 166 1,159 14 0 1,362 1,339 -1.7%

Circuit Total 3,338 19,641 133 23 22,807 23,135 1.4%

1

Includes conditional release, probation, and the former categories known as judge probation and magistrate judge probation.

2

Includes parole, special parole, mandatory release, and military parole. 

3

BOP (Bureau of Prisons)
76

or no compromise to community 

safety. A new funding formula 

implemented in FY 2016 resulted 

in further loss of authorized 

staffing positions. Furthermore, 

space continues to be a challenge 

with all district courts with 

the mandated release of space 

to reduce the amount of rent 

accrued by the courts. Probation 

offices continue to be challenged 

by the number of retroactive 

drug cases being released 

pursuant to federal sentencing 

guidelines Amendment 782 

beginning November 2015, as 

well as facilitating the successful 

reentry of these inmates into 

the community. On the horizon 

is another potential group of 

individuals who may be released 

due to recent case law decisions. 

Some of them have extensive 

criminal records and will 

require significant supervision 

resources. 
77

United States pretrial services officers have significant roles 

in the federal judicial system. In 

the Ninth Circuit, pretrial services 

officers contribute to the fair 

administration of justice, protect 

their communities, and seek to 

bring about positive, long-term 

change to individuals under 

supervision.

Pretrial services officers investigate 

defendants charged with federal 

crimes, recommend to the court 

whether to release or detain them, 

and supervise those who are 

released to the community while 

awaiting trial. While the defendant 

is presumed innocent until proven 

guilty, pretrial services officers 

must balance this presumption 

with the reality that some persons, 

if not detained before their trial, 

are likely to flee or to pose a danger 

to the community.

Pretrial services officers also 

conduct pretrial diversion 

investigations and prepare 

written reports about a diversion 

candidate’s suitability for the 

Office of the U.S. Attorney’s 

Pretrial Diversion Program. They 

are responsible for supervision 

of diverted defendants who are 

deemed appropriate and accepted 

into the program. 

Case Activations

Pretrial services offices in the 

Ninth Circuit continue to rank 

first nationally in new cases 

activated. In fiscal year 2015, 

case activations in the circuit 

numbered 32,911, a decrease 

of 11.7 percent from FY 2014. 

New case activations nationwide 

totaled 94,276, down 5.1 percent 

from the prior year. The Ninth 

Circuit accounts for 34.9 percent 

of all case activations. 

Pretrial Bail Reports, 

Supervision 

Pretrial services officers in the 

Ninth Circuit prepared 32,080 

written pre-bail reports and 470 

post-bail reports over the course 

of the fiscal year. Bail reports 

were prepared in 97.5 percent 

of the cases activated. Officers 

conducted 8,274 pretrial bail 

interviews.

Excluding immigration cases, 

officers made recommendations 

for initial pretrial release to the 

court in 41.7 percent of cases. 

Assistant U.S. attorneys in the 

circuit recommended release 

in 33.9 percent of these cases 

during this period. 

During FY 2015, a total of 

4,855 defendants were received 

for supervision which was down 

3.2 percent from 5,017 in FY 

2014. Of these, 3,601 were 

received for regular supervision; 

1,119 were supervised on a 

courtesy basis from another 

district or circuit; and 135 

were on pretrial diversion 

caseloads which include courtesy 

supervision of diversion cases.

Detention Summary

In the Ninth Circuit, judicial 

officers detained a total of 

23,449 defendants in FY 2015, 

the highest in the nation. 

Excluding immigration cases, 

65.7 percent of defendants were 

detained and never released. 

Defendants were detained 

an average of 211 days. The 

U.S.-Mexico border courts in 

the districts of Arizona and 

Southern District of California 

reported the highest numbers 

of defendants detained. Total 

number of defendants detained 

in the Arizona district was 

9,478, while defendants detained 

in the Southern District of 

California numbered 5,941. 

The Ninth Circuit accounted 

for 20.2 percent of the total 

days of defendant incarceration 

nationally.

Violations

Of 10,691 cases in release 

status, cases with violations 

reported to the court numbered 

1,294. They included 38 

Pretrial Services Cases Activated in Ninth Circuit Courts, 2014-15

Caseload Measure 2014 2015 Change 2014-2015

Reports 36,918 32,550 -11.8%

Interviews 8,541 8,274 -3.1%

Cases Activated 37,264 32,911 -11.7%

Note: Total pretrial services cases activated includes complaints, indictment/information, material 

witness, superseding, and other cases, and includes data reported for previous periods as “transfers 

received.”

Pretrial Services

Officers
78

Pretrial Workload, 2014-2015

Defendant Contact Written Reports

District Interviewed

1

Not

 Interviewed 2

Prebail Postbail

No Reports

Made

Total Cases

Activated 2014

Total Cases

Activated 2015

Change

2014-2015

Alaska 76 123 193 0 6 151 199 31.8%

Arizona 1,674 19,135 20,725 45 39 24,001 20,809 -13.3%

C. Calif. 1,082 436 1,503 7 8 1,603 1,518 -5.3%

E. Calif. 344 341 666 13 6 807 685 -15.1%

N. Calif. 446 375 484 326 11 936 821 -12.3%

S. Calif. 2,965 2,516 5,414 16 51 5,994 5,481 -8.6%

Guam 92 16 107 0 1 91 108 18.7%

Hawaii 141 43 180 4 0 299 184 -38.5%

Idaho 191 145 274 0 62 282 336 19.1%

Montana 117 263 363 5 12 437 380 -13.0%

Nevada 382 228 608 2 0 678 610 -10.0%

N. Mariana Is. 15 2 16 0 1 23 17 -26.1%

Oregon 230 283 495 4 14 662 513 -22.5%

E. Wash 141 218 210 4 145 412 359 -12.9%

W. Wash. 378 513 842 44 5 888 891 0.3%

Circuit Total 8,274 24,637 32,080 470 361 37,264 32,911 -11.7%

National Total 50,537 43,739 88,980 2,390 2,906 99,355 94,276 -5.1%

Circuit % of 

National

16.4% 56.3% 36.1% 19.7% 12.4% 37.5% 34.9% -2.6%

Note: This table includes data for the District of Columbia and includes transfers received.

1

Includes cases in which interviews were refused, includes defendants not available for interview, and includes transfer-received cases in which defendants 

were interviewed in other districts.

2

Includes prebail reports both with recommendations and without, and includes types of reports categorized in previous periods as “other reports.”

violations due to felony rearrests, 56 violations resulting 

from misdemeanor re-arrests, 

29 for “other” re-arrest 

violations, and 119 for failure 

to appear. Technical violations, 

including positive urine tests for 

illegal substances, violation of 

location monitoring conditions, 

possession of contraband, and 

failure to report to a supervising 

pretrial services officer, accounted 

for the remaining violations.

Evidence-Based Practices

Pretrial Services Offices in the 

Ninth Circuit have incorporated 

the Pretrial Services Risk 

Assessment, or PTRA, into its 

businesses practices. The PTRA 

is an objective instrument that 

provides a consistent and valid 

method of predicting risk of 

failure to appear, new criminal 

arrest and revocations due to 

technical violations. Pretrial 

services officers are using this 

tool to improve their ability to 

assess risks and make informed 

recommendations to the court on 

release or detention. The PTRA 

has also been used as a tool to 

assess the level of supervision 

appropriate for defendants 

released on pretrial supervision.

Another evidence-based practice 

being implemented in the Ninth 

Circuit is Staff Training Aimed at 

Reducing Re-Arrest, or STARR. 

Use of STARR communication 

techniques improve the quality 

of the interaction between the 

officer and defendant to effect 

long-term behavioral change. 

The techniques have a cognitive 

behavioral foundation with the 

premise that thinking controls 

behavior. STARR training has 

been provided by the Probation 

and Pretrial Services Office of 

the Administrative Office of the 

U.S. Courts. It is an extensive 

training program requiring 

ongoing coaching and assessment 

of officers’ use of STARR 

skills. The districts of Arizona, 

Central California, Guam, Hawaii, 

and Eastern Washington have 

introduced and incorporated 

STARR, at various stages, into 

their business practices.
79

Specialty Courts and Pre-entry 

Programs

In FY 2015, several pretrial 

services offices in the Ninth 

Circuit were involved in 

innovative specialty courts. 

These programs give defendants 

a chance to have their cases 

dismissed or sentences reduced 

upon successful completion 

of supervision. Programs in 

the Ninth Circuit include the 

Alternative to Prison Solution 

Diversion Program in the 

Southern District of California; 

the Conviction and Sentencing 

Alternatives Program, a 

presentence and post-conviction 

diversion program in the Central 

District of California; and the 

Veterans Court in Arizona, a 

diversionary and post-sentence 

program that assists military 

veterans.

“Pre-entry” programs throughout 

the Ninth Circuit are offered to 

defendants awaiting sentencing. 

The program is designed to 

educate such defendants and their 

family members about Bureau of 

Prisons services and general rules 

to help reduce the level of stress 

and anxiety of going to prison. 

The District of Nevada started 

The Compass which also includes 

a presentation by an ex-offender 

to share their experiences in 

prison with the group. These 

programs help establish a solid 

foundation for future success and 

compliment the post-conviction 

reentry efforts. 
80

Juror Utilization

Juror Utilization, 2014-2015

Petit Juror Utilization Rate

1

Percent Not Selected or Challenged

District

Grand Juries

Empaneled, 2015

Petit Juries

Selected, 2015 2014 2015 Change 2014-2015

Alaska 1 15 36.1 38.4 2.3

Arizona 14 77 27.5 32.2 4.7

C. Calif. 29 155 36.2 47.2 11.0

E. Calif. 9 69 39.6 37.6 -2.0

N. Calif. 9 74 39.8 40.0 0.2

S. Calif. 7 93 38.7 43.4 4.7

Guam 1 3 64.6 18.8 -45.8

Hawaii 1 19 46.6 41.1 -5.5

Idaho 6 10 44.0 47.4 3.4

Montana 4 24 34.2 31.3 -2.9

Nevada 4 39 33.9 40.1 6.2

N. Mariana Is. 2 2 55.2 24.2 -31.0

Oregon 10 27 20.3 18.5 -1.8

E. Wash. 6 22 33.4 22.4 -11.0

W. Wash. 4 44 31.3 27.0 -4.3

Circuit Total 107 673 *** ***

Circuit Average 13 84 38.8 34.0 -4.8

National Total 749 4,149 *** ***

National Average 8 44 37.4 36.8 -0.6

Note: This table includes data on jury selection days only. Data on juror service after the selection day are 

not included. 

1

Includes jurors who completed pre-screening questionnaires or were in the courtroom during the 

conducting of voir dire but were not selected or challenged. Includes other jurors not selected or 

challenged who were not called to the courtroom or otherwise did not participate in the actual voir dire.
81

Interpreter Usage by District Courts, 2015

Language AK AZ CAC CAE CAN CAS GU HI ID MT NV NMI OR WAE WAW

2014

Total

2015

Total

Arabic 0 15 52 0 4 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 50 92

Armenian 0 0 81 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 186 91

Cantonese 2 1 19 85 102 9 0 3 0 0 11 0 3 0 8 225 243

Farsi 0 3 31 0 2 26 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 47 68

Japanese 0 0 2 0 0 7 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 34 16

Korean 34 0 97 26 1 9 19 10 0 0 1 0 0 1 14 249 212

Mandarin 2 3 135 8 94 9 20 11 0 2 16 0 1 0 25 384 326

Navajo 

(Certified) 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 2

Navajo

(Non-Certified) 0 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 33

Russian 0 3 64 210 14 4 0 0 31 0 5 0 0 0 13 207 344

Sign 

(American) 0 0 0 3 7 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 6 48 22

Sign 

(Mexican) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0

Spanish Staff 0 43,885 1,005 698 208 15,252 0 0 0 0 402 0 482 0 0 76,428 61,932

Spanish 

(Certified) 35 9,993 1,214 922 850 557 0 25 213 7 227 0 157 387 526 12,827 15,113

Spanish 

(Non-Certified) 0 0 0 0 3 0 13 26 94 61 84 0 47 7 0 417 335

Tagalog 7 0 18 1 4 1 3 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 67 40

Vietnamese 23 0 35 0 52 4 0 12 0 0 2 0 1 0 44 215 173

All Others 6 167 94 96 20 149 8 12 17 8 34 0 2 9 40 969 662

Total 109 54,105 2,847 2,059 1,361 16,048 63 110 356 78 787 0 693 406 682 92,393 79,704

Court Interpreters
82

District Caseloads

District of Alaska

Caseload Measure 2014 2015 Change 2014-2015 Per Judgeship Unweighted 2015 Authorized Judgeships

District Court District 3

 Filings 450 463 2.9% 154 Bankruptcy 2

Terminations 413 463 12.1% 154 Magistrate

1

Pending 539 537 -0.4% 179 Full-time 2

Bankruptcy Court Part-time 3

Filings 458 426 -7.0% 213

Authorized places of holding court:

Anchorage, Fairbanks, Juneau, 

Ketchikan, Nome

Terminations 557 485 -12.9% 243

Pending 583 524 -10.1% 262

1

2014 total pending cases revised.

Central District of California

Caseload Measure 2014 2015 Change 2014-2015 Per Judgeship Unweighted 2015 Authorized Judgeships

District Court 2

District 28

 Filings 15,390 15,241 -1.0% 544 3

Bankruptcy 24

Terminations 15,695 15,367 -2.1% 549 Magistrate

1

Pending 11,959 11,790 -1.4% 421 Full-time 24

Bankruptcy Court Part-time 1

Filings 60,545 48,487 -19.9% 2,020

Authorized places of holding court:

Los Angeles, Riverside, 4

San Fernando 

Valley, Santa Ana, 4

Santa Barbara

Terminations 66,508 53,817 -19.1% 2,242

1

Pending 48,613 43,285 -11.0% 1,804

1

2014 total pending cases revised.

2

Includes one authorized temporary judgeship.

3

Includes three authorized temporary judgeships.

4

San Fernando Valley and Santa Barbara apply only to the bankruptcy court.

District of Arizona

Caseload Measure 2014 2015 Change 2014-2015 Per Judgeship Unweighted 2015 Authorized Judgeships

District Court 2

District 13

 Filings 12,210 8,964 -26.6% 690 Bankruptcy 7

Terminations 12,304 8,889 -27.8% 684 Magistrate

1

Pending 5,166 5,221 1.1% 402 Full-time 14

Bankruptcy Court Part-time 1

Filings 20,907 17,448 -16.5% 2,493

Authorized places of holding court:

3

Bullhead City, Flagstaff, Kingman, 

Phoenix, Prescott, Tucson, Yuma

Terminations 27,469 23,575 -14.2% 3,368

1

Pending 30,995 24,869 -19.8% 3,553

1

2014 total pending cases revised. 

2

Includes one authorized temporary judgeship.

3

Bullhead City and Kingman apply only to the bankruptcy court.
83

1

2014 total pending cases revised.

2

Includes one authorized temporary judgeship.

3

Modesto applies only to bankruptcy court.

Eastern District of California

Caseload Measure 2014 2015 Change 2014-2015 Per Judgeship Unweighted 2015 Authorized Judgeships

District Court District 6

 Filings 5,424 5,214 -3.9% 869 2

Bankruptcy 7

Terminations 5,469 5,396 -1.3% 899 Magistrate

1

Pending 7,541 7,374 -2.2% 1,229 Full-time 12

Bankruptcy Court Part-time 0

Filings 22,383 17,681 -21.0% 2,526

Authorized places of holding court:

Bakersfield, Fresno, 3

Modesto, Redding, 

Sacramento, Yosemite National Park

Terminations 26,528 21,799 -17.8% 3,114

1

Pending 25,533 21,415 -16.1% 3,059

1

2014 total pending cases revised.

Northern District of California

Caseload Measure 2014 2015 Change 2014-2015 Per Judgeship Unweighted 2015 Authorized Judgeships

District Court District 14

 Filings 6,431 6,277 -2.4% 448 Bankruptcy 9

Terminations 6,864 6,169 -10.1% 441 Magistrate

1

Pending 6,121 6,216 1.6% 444 Full-time 11

Bankruptcy Court Part-time 0

Filings 15,430 11,892 -22.9% 1,321

Authorized places of holding court:

Eureka, Oakland, Salinas, San Francisco, 

San Jose, Santa Rosa

Terminations 19,884 16,275 -18.2% 1,808

1

Pending 29,695 25,313 -14.8% 2,813

Southern District of California

Caseload Measure 2014 2015 Change 2014-2015 Per Judgeship Unweighted 2015 Authorized Judgeships

District Court District 13

 Filings 7,138 6,562 -8.1% 505 Bankruptcy 4

Terminations 7,184 6,502 -9.5% 500 Magistrate

1

Pending 5,365 5,321 -0.8% 409 Full-time 11

Bankruptcy Court Part-time 0

Filings 10,992 8,889 -19.1% 2,222

Authorized places of holding court:

2

El Centro, San Diego

Terminations 11,747 10,667 -9.2% 2,667

1

Pending 11,007 9,226 -16.2% 2,307

1

2014 total pending cases revised.

2

El Centro applies only to the district court.
84

District of Guam

Caseload Measure 2014 2015 Change 2014-2015 Per Judgeship Unweighted 2015 Authorized Judgeships

District Court District 1

 Filings 83 127 53.0% 127 2

Bankruptcy 0

Terminations 128 107 -16.4% 107 Magistrate

Pending 122 140 14.8% 140 Full-time 1

Bankruptcy Court Part-time 0

Filings 147 133 -9.5% 385

Authorized places of holding court:

Hagatna

Terminations 143 120 -16.1% 271

1

Pending 166 179 7.8% 327

Note: The chief district judge in Guam also handles all bankruptcy cases.

1

2014 total pending cases revised.

District of Hawaii

Caseload Measure 2014 2015 Change 2014-2015 Per Judgeship Unweighted 2015 Authorized Judgeships

District Court 2

District 4

 Filings 921 736 -20.1% 184 Bankruptcy 1

Terminations 1,037 853 -17.7% 213 Magistrate

1

Pending 949 848 -10.6% 212 Full-time 3

Bankruptcy Court Part-time 1

Filings 1,805 1,593 -11.7% 1,593

Authorized places of holding court:

Honolulu

Terminations 1,920 1,783 -7.1% 1,783

1

Pending 2,624 2,434 -7.2% 2,434

1

2014 total pending cases revised.

2

Includes one temporary judgeship.

District of Idaho

Caseload Measure 2014 2015 Change 2014-2015 Per Judgeship Unweighted 2015 Authorized Judgeships

District Court District 2

 Filings 781 865 10.8% 433 Bankruptcy 2

Terminations 780 827 6.0% 414 Magistrate

1

Pending 977 1,014 3.8% 507 Full-time 2

Bankruptcy Court Part-time 0

Filings 4,976 4,162 -16.4% 2,081

Authorized places of holding court:

Boise, Coeur d’Alene, Moscow, Pocatello, 

2

Twin Falls

Terminations 5,947 4,818 -19.0% 2,409

1

Pending 4,026 3,370 -16.3% 1,685

1

2014 total pending cases revised.

2

Twin Falls applies only to the bankruptcy court. One of the bankruptcy judges also holds court in Twin Falls once a month.
85

District of Nevada

Caseload Measure 2014 2015 Change 2014-2015 Per Judgeship Unweighted 2015 Authorized Judgeships

District Court District 7

 Filings 3,204 3,533 10.3% 505 2

Bankruptcy 4

Terminations 3,281 3,316 1.1% 474 Magistrate

1

Pending 4,053 4,255 5.0% 608 Full-time 7

Bankruptcy Court Part-time 0

Filings 11,676 9,902 -15.2% 2,476

Authorized places of holding court:

Carson City, Elko, Ely, Las Vegas, 

Lovelock, Reno

Terminations 15,553 14,102 -9.3% 3,526

1

Pending 16,311 12,111 -25.7% 3,028

1

2014 total pending cases revised.

2

Includes one authorized temporary judgeship.

District of Northern Mariana Islands

Caseload Measure 2014 2015 2Change 2014-2015 Per Judgeship Unweighted 2015 Authorized Judgeships

District Court District 1

 Filings 52 35 -32.7% 35 2

Bankruptcy 0

Terminations 54 38 -29.6% 38 Magistrate

1

Pending 90 85 -5.6% 85 Full-time 0

Bankruptcy Court Part-time 0

Filings 5 6 - 1 3

Combination 1

Terminations 4 7 - 2

Authorized places of holding court:

Saipan 1

Pending 13 12 -7.7% 1

Note: The chief district judge in Northern Mariana Islands also handles all bankruptcy cases.

1

2014 total pending cases revised.

2

Percent change not computed when fewer than 10 cases reported for the previous period.

3

Heather Kennedy serves as part-time magistrate judge and clerk of court. 

District of Montana

Caseload Measure 2014 2015 Change 2014-2015 Per Judgeship Unweighted 2015 Authorized Judgeships

District Court District 3

 Filings 1,126 901 -20.0% 300 Bankruptcy 1

Terminations 1,065 948 -11.0% 316 Magistrate

1

Pending 872 828 -5.0% 276 Full-time 3

Bankruptcy Court Part-time 1

Filings 1,625 1,310 -19.4% 1,310

Authorized places of holding court:

Billings, Butte, Great Falls, Helena, 

Missoula

Terminations 2,017 1,753 -13.1% 1,753

1

Pending 2,473 2,030 -17.9% 2,030

1

2014 total pending cases revised.
86

District of Oregon

Caseload Measure 2014 2015 Change 2014-2015 Per Judgeship Unweighted 2015 Authorized Judgeships

District Court District 6

 Filings 2,698 2,794 3.6% 466 Bankruptcy 5

Terminations 2,985 2,704 -9.4% 451 Magistrate

1

Pending 2,620 2,723 3.9% 454 Full-time 6

Bankruptcy Court Part-time 1

Filings 12,660 11,134 -12.1% 2,227 Authorized places of holding court:

2

Bend, 2Coos Bay, Coquille, Eugene, 

Klamath Falls, Medford, Pendleton, 

Portland, 2

Redmond, 2Roseburg, 2Salem

Terminations 15,135 13,116 -13.3% 2,623

1

Pending 15,845 13,863 -12.5% 2,773

1

2014 total pending cases revised.

2

Bend, Coos Bay, Redmond, Roseburg, and Salem apply only to the bankruptcy court.

Eastern District of Washington

Caseload Measure 2014 2015 Change 2014-2015 Per Judgeship Unweighted 2015 Authorized Judgeships

District Court District 4

 Filings 1,088 1,071 -1.6% 268 Bankruptcy 2

Terminations 1,266 1,063 -16.0% 266 Magistrate

1

Pending 953 988 3.7% 247 Full-time 2

Bankruptcy Court Part-time 0

Filings 4,840 4,450 -8.1% 2,225

Authorized places of holding court:

2

Richland, Spokane, 2Walla Walla, Yakima

Terminations 5,169 4,674 -9.6% 2,337

1

Pending 5,085 4,861 -4.4% 2,431

1

2014 total pending cases revised.

2

Richland and Walla Walla apply only to the district court.

Western District of Washington

Caseload Measure 2014 2015 Change 2014-2015 Per Judgeship Unweighted 2015 Authorized Judgeships

District Court District 7

 Filings 3,995 3,925 -1.8% 561 Bankruptcy 5

Terminations 4,349 4,047 -6.9% 578 Magistrate

1

Pending 3,283 3,216 -2.0% 459 Full-time 5

Bankruptcy Court Part-time 2

Filings 17,380 14,567 -16.2% 2,913

Authorized places of holding court:

Bellingham, Seattle, Tacoma, Vancouver

Terminations 19,183 16,554 -13.7% 3,311

1

Pending 19,145 17,157 -10.4% 3,431

1

2014 total pending cases revised.
The Hatfield Courthouse features outdoor terraces, including one with a sculpture garden 

composed of whimsical bronze statues such as this computer and sheet of paper.
Cathy A. Catterson, Circuit & Court of Appeals Executive

P.O. Box 193939, San Francisco, CA 94119-3939

Ph: (415) 355-8800, Fax: (415) 355-8901

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov