inth ircuit
Seated from left are Chief District Judge Audrey B. Collins (CAC); Senior Circuit Judge Procter Hug, Jr.; Circuit 

Judge Sidney R. Thomas; Chief Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski; Circuit and Court of Appeals Executive Cathy A. 

Catterson; *Circuit Judge M. Margaret McKeown; and Chief District Judge Irma E. Gonzalez (CAS). Standing 

from left are District Court Clerk Lance S. Wilson (NV); *Senior District Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr., (CAC); Senior 

District Judge Robert H. Whaley (WAE); Chief District Judge Roger L. Hunt (NV); *Chief Magistrate Judge 

Karen L. Strombom (WAW); *Chief Bankruptcy Judge Randall J. Newsome (CAN); *Chief Probation Officer 

William Corn (WAW); and *Chief Pretrial Services Officer Sandra D. Hall (CAE). 

Not pictured: Circuit Judge Raymond C. Fisher, Circuit Judge Ronald M. Gould, Circuit Judge Johnnie B. 

Rawlinson, Chief District Judge James Ware (CAN), Senior District Judge Stephen M. McNamee (AZ), Chief 

District Judge Robert S. Lasnik (WAW), Chief Bankruptcy Judge Terry L. Myers (ID), Magistrate Judge David K. 

Duncan (AZ), Bankruptcy Court Clerk Michael B. Dowling (HI), Chief Probation Officer Mario Moreno (AZ), 

and Chief Pretrial Services Officer Roy Saenz (CAN).

*Term expired September 30, 2010.
Judicial Council

of the Ninth Circuit

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.

Mission Statement
38 Historic Pioneer Courthouse – 

Oldest in the West

41 Construction of Bakersfield Courthouse 

Underway

42 Courthouse Under Construction

42 Courthouses in Design Phase

44 Court of Appeals Remains Nation’s Busiest

46 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Judges

49 Workload Rises in Federal Trial Courts 

of the Circuit

53 Poor Economy Produces New Wave of 

Bankruptcy Filings

55 Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Sees Caseload 

Rise Again

57 Magistrate Judges Keep Pace with Growing 

Workload

59 Caseloads Rise for Federal Public Defenders

61 Probation Officers Play Key Role in 

Sentencing, Supervision

63 Workload Rises for Ninth Circuit Pretrial 

Services Officers

65 Juror Utilization

66 Court Interpreters

67 District Caseloads

1 Foreword by Chief Judge Alex Kozinski

3 Ninth Circuit Overview

4 Judicial Council and Administration 

8 New Judges

14 New Senior Judges

16 In Memoriam 

20 Ninth Circuit Efforts Spark Renewed Interest 

in Cameras in the Courtroom

23 Judicial Visits, Educational Programs Raise 

Ninth Circuit Profile Overseas

26 Annual Judicial Conference Offers Varied 

Program for Bench, Bar

27 Awards Recognize Leadership, Achievement 

by Bench, Bar and Academia

29 Courts Participate in Disaster Planning Exercise

30 Pro Se Conference Addresses Challenges Posed

by Self-Represented Litigants

31 Ninth Circuit, Justice Kennedy Welcome 

New Appellate Law Clerks

32 New Judges Orientation 

33 Court of Appeals Makes Historic First 

Visit to Pocatello

33 Ninth Circuit Hosts Federal Bar Association

Review of Supreme Court Rulings

34 Jury Instructions Committee Fills 

Critical Role

35 IT Committee Keeps Tabs on 

Technology

36 New Clerks Take Reins 

in District, Bankruptcy 

Courts

 

Table of Contents

Ninth Circuit Overview

Judicial Transitions

Ninth Circuit Highlights

Space & Security

The Work of the Courts
J

udges and staff in all of the federal courts work 

hard to provide the highest level of service to the 

legal community and the public. In matters large 

and small, they strive to follow the law in crafting

 decisions, which often can have far reaching effects 

on our society. The federal courts of the Ninth Circuit 

were once again among the busiest in the nation, 

dispensing criminal justice and settling civil disputes in 

nine western states and two Pacific Island jurisdictions. 

The 2010 Ninth Circuit Annual Report looks back at their 

work this year. I hope you find the report useful and 

encourage you to provide us with feedback.

This was another challenging but productive year 

for our courts. On the operational side, the Ninth 

Circuit was among the busiest in the nation in new 

filings. Nationwide, the Ninth Circuit accounted for 

17.6 percent of district court filings, 21.4 percent of 

appellate court filings and 25 percent of bankruptcy 

filings. Criminal and civil filings in the district court 

rose a combined 4.2 percent, while bankruptcy filings 

were up 28.8 percent. 

While most of our courts saw their caseloads rise, 

they were also more productive as measured by 

case terminations, which were up 7.8 percent in the 

district courts and 58.3 percent in the bankruptcy 

courts. Magistrate judges disposed of 230,638 judicial 

matters, up 10.1 percent from the previous year. At 

the Court of Appeals, hard work by judges and staff 

reduced the pending caseload by 8.2 percent and 

shortened the median time interval from initial filing 

to final disposition of an appeal by 11⁄2 months. Case 

terminations increased by 4.1 percent with appellate 

panels rendering decisions in 47 percent of all cases 

closed. Although new appeals were down 1.9 percent, 

the Ninth Circuit remained the nation’s busiest 

appellate court.

Delays in filling judicial vacancies and the failure of 

Congress to authorize new judgeships, despite ample 

evidence of need, continue to be critical problems 

for the Ninth Circuit in 2010. Just eight district 

judges received their judicial commissions, leaving 12 

district judgeships vacant at year’s end. In the Court 

of Appeals, only one judge was appointed. Mary 

H. Murguia of Arizona received her commission in 

January 2011. Four seats 

were left empty for much 

of the year. No action was 

taken on bills to authorize 

new judges for courts 

where they are badly 

needed, including Arizona 

and the Eastern District of 

California.

The Eastern District of 

California again had 

the heaviest caseload 

in the nation—almost 

three times the national 

average—as the judges 

there continue to labor under a deluge of prisoner 

litigation, which significantly delays other civil matters. 

The District of Arizona saw a 30 percent jump in 

criminal filings in 2010 as a result of increased law 

enforcement efforts along the U.S.-Mexico border. By 

year’s end the Arizona court was preparing to declare a 

judicial emergency that would suspend the time limit 

set by federal statute for bringing criminal defendants 

to trial.

These district courts are receiving assistance from 

other parts of the judiciary, including an extraordinary 

effort organized by the Judicial Council of the Ninth 

Circuit to help the Eastern District of California reduce 

its backlog of prisoner civil rights and habeas cases. 

Volunteer judges from other district courts within the 

circuit and from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 

have closed more than 800 prisoner matters. Visiting 

judges also are helping the District of Arizona try to 

keep pace with its burgeoning caseload. While the 

volunteer judges are to be commended, such assistance 

is only a temporary solution. We remain hopeful 

that vacancies will be filled quickly and new judges 

authorized soon, and we thank the federal bar and 

others for their support in this effort.

Thanks also are due to the senior judges of our courts, 

who are eligible to retire at full salary but choose to 

continue serving the court. During the year, 21 senior 

circuit judges sat on motions and appellate panels, 

Foreword

Chief Judge

Alex Kozinski

1
served on committees and handled other tasks. In the 

district courts, 60 senior judges heard cases, presided 

over procedural matters, served on committees and 

conducted other business during 2010. Without their 

ongoing contributions, courts would quickly fall behind 

rising caseloads.

In the area of court initiatives, 2010 saw progress in 

expanding the use of cameras in the courtroom to 

improve public understanding of judicial processes 

and enhance confidence in the rule of law. The Ninth 

Circuit has allowed cameras at the appellate level since 

1991 and supports testing cameras on a limited basis 

in federal trial courts. Separate pilot programs for this 

purpose have been authorized by the Judicial Council 

of the Ninth Circuit and by the Judicial Conference 

of the United States. The Ninth Circuit program is 

currently being held in abeyance to allow our district 

courts and judges to participate in the national effort in 

2011.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upgraded cameras 

and other equipment to make high-definition digital 

video recordings of important en banc proceedings 

available for viewing from the court’s website. Also 

during the year, the court began distributing live audio/

video feeds of en banc proceedings to other federal 

courthouses in the Ninth Circuit and elsewhere, and 

encouraged law schools to use televised proceedings as 

an enriching educational experience for their students. 

Students at more than a dozen prominent law schools 

across the country tuned into two major cases heard 

late in the year.

The televised proceedings were a new step in an 

ongoing relationship with law schools. In 2010, the 

court also held special sittings at Stanford University, 

the University of Hawaii, the University of Nevada at 

Las Vegas and the University of San Diego. Faculty and 

students observed the proceedings and later engaged in 

informal discussions with the visiting judges. The court 

also welcomed visits by law students to the historic 

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

An ongoing initiative involves support for the rule 

of law overseas. Ninth Circuit courts welcome visits 

by foreign judges and court administrators, and our 

judges also travel overseas on occasion to share their 

expertise. A number of these exchanges occurred in 

2010, including major educational programs organized 

for judges and court staff of the various island nations 

of the Northern Pacific.

In the area of space and facilities, work began on a 

new courthouse in Bakersfield, California, and on the 

remodeling of the Prince Jonah Kuhio Kalaniana’ole 

Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse in Honolulu, 

Hawaii. Work continued on new courthouses in San 

Diego, California, and Billings, Montana. The Court of 

Appeals also celebrated completion of a remodeled U.S. 

Courthouse in Pocatello, Idaho, with a special sitting 

and an open house.

Judges honored during the year included Senior 

District Judge Howard D. McKibben of Nevada, who 

received the prestigious Ninth Circuit Professionalism 

Award from the American Inns of Court, and Senior 

Circuit Judge Dorothy W. Nelson, who received a 

special ADR Lifetime Achievement Award for her 

tireless efforts to promote use of alternative dispute 

resolution. Circuit Judge Harry Pregerson received the 

Peter E. Haas Public Service Award from the University 

of California, recognizing his efforts to build homeless 

shelters, child care centers and job training facilities in 

needy areas of Los Angeles. Circuit Judge M. Margaret 

McKeown received the American Bar Association’s 

Margaret Brent Women Lawyers of Achievement 

Award.

Courts mourned the passing of a number of 

distinguished jurists of our district courts, including 

Judge Franklin D. Burgess of the Western District 

of Washington; Judge Florence-Marie Cooper of the 

Central District of California; Judge Myron D. Crocker 

of the Eastern District of California; Judge Samuel P. 

King of the District of Hawaii; and Judge Howard B. 

Turrentine of the Southern District of California.

We invite you to review this report further for more 

information about the work of the federal courts of the 

West.

2 2010 annual report
ninth circuit overview 3

The United States Courts for the Ninth Circuit consists 

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

the federal trial and bankruptcy courts in the 15 

judicial districts within the circuit, and associated 

administrative units that provide various services to 

the court.

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. 

Today, it is the largest and busiest of federal circuits.

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 has been authorized 29 judgeships and ended 

2010 with four vacant positions. For most of the year, 

the district courts were authorized 112 judgeships, 12 

of which were vacant at the end of 2010. 

Federal courts also rely on senior circuit and senior 

district judges to assist with their workload. These 

are Article III judges, who are eligible for retirement 

but have chosen to continue working with reduced 

caseloads. On the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, 

21 senior circuit judges were at work for most of the 

year, sitting on appellate 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 heard cases, presided 

over procedural matters, served on committees and 

conducted other business during 2010.

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 the court 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. 

In 2010, bankruptcy courts 

in the Ninth Circuit were 

authorized 68 permanent 

and five temporary 

judgeships. The district 

courts were authorized 

102 full-time and 11 

part-time magistrate 

judges. Several courts 

also utilized recalled 

bankruptcy and recalled 

magistrate judges. 

Overall, the Ninth Circuit 

courts experienced 

increased caseloads in 

2010. Unless otherwise 

noted, statistics in this 

report cover the 2010 

fiscal year.

Ninth Circuit Overview
4 2010 annual report

Judicial Council & 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’s statutory 

mission is to support the effective and expeditious 

administration of justice and the safeguarding of 

fairness in the administration of the courts. It 

has statutory authority to “make all necessary and 

appropriate orders for the effective and expeditious 

administration of justice within its circuit,” [28 U.S.C. 

332(d)(1)]. 

Among the noteworthy actions taken by the 

Judicial Council in 2010:

• Directed staff to develop a model 

local rule and suggested guidelines 

for district courts considering 

participating in a pilot program 

allowing cameras in federal trial 

courts.

• Approved an electronic 

devices policy prepared 

by Special Subcommittee 

for Electronic Devices for 

consideration by judges.

• Approved case management 

and budgeting policies 

applicable to non-capital 

representations for counsel 

appointed under the Criminal 

Justice Act.

• Voted to support requests for 

additional judges for bankruptcy 

courts in Arizona, Nevada and 

three of the four judicial districts in 

California.

• Approved revisions to the Ninth Circuit 

Employment Dispute Resolution Model 

Plan and to Procedures Governing 

Complaints of Adverse Actions and 

Grievances.

• Approved amended jury plans for several judicial 

districts in the circuit. 

Also during the year, the Judicial Council agreed 

to encourage all the courts in the Ninth Circuit 

to use the Web Online Federal Court Opinions 

Information System as a means of fulfilling 

obligations under the E-Government Act to provide 

the public with electronic access to all written 

opinions. The council also approved the report 

of the Conference of Chief District Judges Case 

Management Committee in which each district 

will take into account the particular circumstances 

of their district, including judicial vacancies and 

fluctuating caseloads. 

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.

In governing the circuit, the Judicial Council relies 

on advisory groups and committees to accomplish 

its goals. Chairs of three advisory groups attend 

council meetings as observers and sometimes voting 

members. Committee chairs report to the council as 

needed.

Conference of Chief District Judges

The Conference of Chief District Judges advises 

the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit about 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 Vaughn R. Walker of the 

Northern District of California served as chair of the 

conference from October 2009 to September 2010. 

He was succeeded by Chief District Judge Robert S. 

Lasnik of the Western District of Washington, who 

will chair the conference until August 2011.

Elevated to chief district judge during the year was 

District Judge James Ware of the Northern District 

of California.
ninth circuit overview 5

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 and the chief bankruptcy judge of the 

BAP. Chief Bankruptcy Judge Randall J. Newsome 

of the Northern District of California chaired the 

conference from November 2009 to September 2010. 

He was succeeded by Chief Bankruptcy Judge Terry 

L. Myers of the District of Idaho, who will chair the 

conference until August 2011.

Elevated to chief bankruptcy judge during the year 

was Bankruptcy Judge James M. Marlar of the 

District of Arizona.

Magistrate Judges Executive Board

The Magistrate Judges Executive Board 

communicates to the Judicial Council of the Ninth 

Circuit on behalf of the more than 115 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 annual circuit conference. Magistrate 

Judge David K. Duncan of the District of Arizona is 

the current chair. His term began in July 2010 and 

will expire in July 2012.

Executive Committee

Office of the Circuit Executive

Cathy A. Catterson 

Circuit & Court of Appeals Executive

Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit

Chief Judge Alex Kozinski

Judicial Conference 

Executive Committee

• Lawyer Representatives 

Coordinating 

Committee

Associations of

Judicial Officers

• Conference of Chief 

District Judges

• Conference of Chief 

Bankruptcy Judges

• Magistrate Judges 

Executive Board

Liaison Committees

• District Clerks

• Bankruptcy Clerks

• Chief Probation

& Chief Pretrial 

Services Officers

• Jury Trial 

Improvement

• Ninth Circuit

Judges Education

• Pacific Islands

• Public Information & 

Community 

Outreach

• Self Represented 

Litigants (Pro se)

• Space & Security

• Wellness

• Advisory Board

• Alternative 

Dispute 

Resolution

• Capital Case

• Court-Council 

Committee on 

Bankruptcy Judge 

Appointments

• Federal Public 

Defenders

• Information 

Technology

Advisory Standing 

Committees
6 2010 annual report

Clerks of Court

Day-to-day management of the courts rests with 

the chief judges and clerks or district executives of 

the court of appeals and each of the district and 

bankruptcy courts. 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 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 

(self-represented) 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 important 

court-related 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.

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 its 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, 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 annual Ninth Circuit Judicial 

Conference.
Judicial

Transitions
8 2010 annual report

New Judges

Judge Dolly M. Gee was 

confirmed by the Senate to 

serve as a district judge for the 

Central District of California 

on December 24, 2009. She 

received her commission on 

January 4, 2010, and became 

the first Chinese American 

woman to serve as an Article 

III federal judge. Prior to her appointment, Judge Gee 

was a partner at Schwartz, Steinsapir, Dohrmann & 

Sommers LLP in Los Angeles, California, from 1986 to 

2009. She served as a Ninth Circuit Judicial 

Conference lawyer representative for the Central 

District of California from 1993 to 1996. Judge Gee 

received her B.A. in 1981 from the University of 

California at Los Angeles, where she graduated summa 

cum laude. She was an extern for California Supreme 

Court Justice Allen E. Broussard in 1983. Judge Gee 

received her J.D. from the UCLA School of Law in 

1984. Following law school, Judge Gee clerked for the 

late District Judge Milton L. Schwartz of the U.S. 

District Court for the Eastern District of California 

from 1984 to 1986. She maintains chambers in Los 

Angeles.

Judge Leslie E. Kobayashi was 

confirmed by the Senate to 

serve as a district judge for the 

District of Hawaii on 

December 18, 2010. She 

received her commission on 

December 22, 2010. Prior to 

her appointment, she had 

served as a federal magistrate 

judge for the District of Hawaii since 1999. Judge 

Kobayashi was an adjunct professor at the University 

of Hawaii at Manoa, William S. Richardson School of 

Law, in 2000 and 2001. She engaged in private 

practice in Honolulu from 1984 to 1999, and served 

as a deputy prosecuting attorney for the City and 

County of Honolulu, from 1983 to 1984. Judge 

Kobayashi received her B.A. from Wellesley College in 

1979 and her J.D. from Boston College, School of Law, 

in 1983. She maintains chambers in Honolulu. 

Judge Lucy H. Koh was 

confirmed by the Senate to 

serve as a district judge for the 

Northern District of 

California on June 7, 2010. 

She received her commission 

on June 9, 2010. Judge Koh 

served previously as a judge of 

the Santa Clara County 

(California) Superior Court from 2008 to 2010. Prior 

to joining the bench, Judge Koh engaged in private 

practice as a partner at McDermott Will & Emery 

from 2002 to 2008, and as a senior associate at 

Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati from 2000 to 2002. 

Judge Koh served as an assistant U.S. attorney for the 

Central District of California from 1997 to 2000; as a 

special assistant to the U.S. deputy attorney general, 

Department of Justice, from 1996 to 1997; and as a 

special counsel, Office of Legislative Affairs, DOJ, 

from 1994 to 1996. She was a U.S. Senate Judiciary 

Committee Fellow from 1993 to 1994. Judge Koh 

received her B.A. from Harvard University in 1990 

and her J.D. from Harvard Law School in 1993. She 

maintains chambers in San Jose.

Judge Kimberly J. Mueller was 

confirmed by the Senate to 

serve as a district judge for the 

Eastern District of California 

on December 16, 2010. She 

received her commission on 

December 21, 2010. Prior to 

her appointment, she had 

served as a federal magistrate 

judge for the Eastern District of California since 2003. 

Judge Mueller engaged in private practice in 

Sacramento, California, from 2000 to 2003 and from 

1995 to 1999. In between, she served as an adjunct 

professor at the University of the Pacific, McGeorge 

School of Law, from 2000 to 2001, and an adjunct 

professor at UC Davis, School of Law, in 1999. Judge 

Mueller received her B.A. from Pomona College in 

1981 and her J.D. from Stanford Law School in 1995. 

She maintains chambers in Sacramento.

District Judges
judicial transitions 9

Judge Gloria M. Navarro was 

confirmed by the Senate to 

serve as a district judge for the 

District of Nevada on May 5, 

2010. She received her 

commission on May 6, 2010. 

Prior to her appointment, 

Judge Navarro worked as a 

chief deputy district attorney 

in the civil division of the Clark County (Nevada) 

Office of the District Attorney in Las Vegas from 2005 

to 2010. She had worked previously in the Clark 

County Office of the Special Public Defender, from 

2001 to 2004. She had been in a private practice as a 

sole practitioner in Las Vegas from 1996 to 2001, and 

as an associate attorney at Kelly & Sullivan, Ltd., from 

1994 to 1996. Other prior legal experience includes 

work as a research and writing specialist, Office of the 

Federal Public Defender, District of Nevada, from 

1993 to 1994; as a contract law clerk for the Nevada 

Appellate and Post-Conviction Project; and as a 

mitigation investigator for Fitzsimmons Law Offices 

in 1993. Judge Navarro received her B.A. from the 

University of Nevada at Las Vegas in 1989 and her 

J.D. from Arizona State University, College of Law, in 

1992. She worked as a legal extern for District Judge 

Philip M. Pro, U.S. District Court for the District of 

Nevada, where she earned law school credits in 1991. 

She maintains chambers in Las Vegas.

Judge Rosanna M. Peterson 

was confirmed by the Senate 

to serve as a district judge for 

the Eastern District of 

Washington on January 25, 

2010. She received her 

commission on January 26, 

2010. Prior to her 

appointment, Judge Peterson 

served as a director of the externship program at 

Gonzaga University, School of Law, from 2002 to 

2010. She held several teaching positions at Gonzaga 

including assistant professor of law from 2007 to 

2010, visiting professor of law from 2005 to 2007, and 

adjunct professor of law from 1999 to 2005. She 

engaged in private practice in Spokane, Washington, 

where she held various positions including partner at 

Rodgers & Peterson LLP, from 1998 to 2002; associate 

attorney at Powell & Morris LLP, from 1995 to 1997; 

sole practitioner in 1995; and associate attorney at 

Grove & Morgan, P.S., from 1993 to 1994. Judge 

Peterson received her B.A., graduating cum laude in 

1977 from the University of North Dakota, where she 

also received her M.A. in 1983. Judge Peterson 

received her J.D. from the University of North Dakota, 

School of Law, in 1991. She maintains chambers in 

Spokane

Judge Richard G. Seeborg was 

confirmed by the Senate to 

serve as a district judge for the 

Northern District of 

California on December 24, 

2009. He received his 

commission on January 4, 

2010. Prior to his 

appointment, Judge Seeborg 

had served as a federal magistrate judge for the 

Northern District of California since 2001. Prior to 

joining the bench, he engaged in private practice at 

Morrison & Foerster in Palo Alto, California, as an 

equity partner from 1998 to 2001 and from 1987 to 

1991, and as an associate from 1982 to 1987. He 

served as an assistant U.S. attorney for the Northern 

District of California from 1991 to 1998. Judge 

Seeborg received his B.A. from Yale College in 1978 

and his J.D. from Columbia University, School of Law, 

in 1981. Following law school, he clerked for the late 

District Judge John H. Pratt of the U.S. District Court 

for the District of Columbia from 1981 to 1982. 

Judge Seeborg maintains chambers in San Francisco.
10 2010 annual report

Judge Josephine S. Tucker was 

confirmed by the Senate to 

serve as a district judge for the 

Central District of California 

on June 21, 2010. She received 

her commission on June 22, 

2010. Prior to her 

appointment to the federal 

bench, Judge Tucker served as 

an Orange County (California) Superior Court judge, 

from 2002 to 2010. She engaged in private practice as 

an associate then partner at Morrison and Foerster in 

San Francisco from 1987 to 2002. Judge Tucker 

received her undergraduate degree in 1983 from 

William Jewell College, where she graduated summa 

cum laude, and her J.D. from Harvard Law School in 

1986. She maintains chambers in Santa Ana.

Judge Marc Barreca was 

appointed as a bankruptcy 

judge for the Western District 

of Washington on July 13, 

2010. Prior to his 

appointment, Judge Barreca 

was a partner with the law firm 

of K & L Gates LLP and had 

been with the firm since 1987. 

Prior to joining the firm, he was an associate 

representing consumer and small business debtors in 

Chapter 7, 11, and 13 cases from 1985 to 1987. Judge 

Barreca received his B.A. from the University of 

Washington in 1977 and his J.D. in 1983 from the 

University of Washington, School of Law, where he 

graduated with honors. He maintains chambers in 

Seattle.

Judge Catherine E. Bauer was 

appointed as a bankruptcy 

judge for the Central District 

of California on February 26, 

2010. Prior to her 

appointment, Judge Bauer 

served as an assistant U.S. 

attorney for the Central 

District of California from 

2001 to 2010. She has served on the Central District 

of California’s Bankruptcy Mediation Panel since 1995 

and has received recognition for her work as a 

mediator. She served as a former chair of the Central 

District’s California’s Debtor Assistance Project, which 

she helped form. Judge Bauer received her B.A. from 

the University of California at Los Angeles in 1982 and 

her J.D. from the University of Southern California, 

Gould School of Law, in 1985. She maintains 

chambers in Riverside.

District Judges continued Bankruptcy Judges
judicial transitions 11

Judge Stephen L. Johnson was 

appointed as a bankruptcy 

judge for the Northern District 

of California on October 13, 

2010. Prior to his 

appointment, Judge Johnson 

served as an assistant U.S. 

attorney for the Northern 

District of California from 

2002 to 2010. He worked as a trial attorney from 

1995 to 2002 in the U.S. Trustee’s Office in San 

Francisco, where he litigated consumer and business 

bankruptcy proceedings. Prior to that, he was an 

associate at the law firm of Lillick & Charles from 1991 

to 1995. Judge Johnson received his B.S. in 1983 

from the University of San Francisco, where he 

graduated with honors and his J.D. in 1989 from the 

University of California, Hastings College of the Law, 

where he was a member of the law review. He 

maintains chambers in San Jose.

Judge Brian D. Lynch was 

appointed as a bankruptcy 

judge for the Western District 

of Washington on May 11, 

2010. Prior to his 

appointment, Judge Lynch 

served as a Chapter 12 and 

Chapter 13 trustee in the 

Portland Division of the U.S. 

Bankruptcy Court for the District of Oregon from 

2004 to 2010. He was a partner from 1978 to 2004 at 

the Seattle law firm of Bishop, Lynch & White, P.S., 

where he founded, developed and managed the 

bankruptcy department while also acting as the 

primary civil litigation attorney. Judge Lynch received 

his B.A. from the University of San Francisco in 1972 

and his J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center 

in 1975. He maintains chambers in Tacoma.

Judge Margaret M. Mann was 

appointed as a bankruptcy 

judge for the Southern District 

of California on April 2, 2010. 

Prior to her appointment, 

Judge Mann was a partner in 

the San Diego office of 

Sheppard Mullin Richter & 

Hampton LLP, from 2008 to 

2010. From 2003 to 2008, Judge Mann was a 

shareholder in the San Diego office of Heller Ehrman 

LLP, where she managed the firm’s practice group that 

consisted of 20 attorneys in the United States and 

China. From 1984 to 2003, Judge Mann was an 

associate then partner in the San Diego law firm of 

Luce Forward. She received her B.A. with distinction 

from the University of Illinois and attended the 

Tilburg School of Economics, The Netherlands, in 

1978. Judge Mann received her J.D. from the 

University of Southern California, Gould School of 

Law, in 1981. She maintains chambers in San Diego.

Judge Charles D. Novack was 

appointed as a bankruptcy 

judge for the Northern District 

of California on May 13, 2010. 

Prior to his appointment, 

Judge Novack engaged in 

private practice as a selfpractitioner in Oakland, 

California, from 2005 to 2010. 

He worked as an associate then shareholder at the law 

firm of Kornfield, Paul and Nyberg in Oakland from 

1994 to 2005. Judge Novack received his B.A. from 

Rutgers College in 1980 and his J.D. in 1983 from the 

University of California, Hastings College of the Law, 

where he graduated cum laude. He maintains 

chambers in San Jose.
12 2010 annual report

Judge Deborah J. Saltzman was 

appointed as a bankruptcy 

judge for the Central District of 

California on March 18, 2010. 

Prior to her appointment, 

Judge Saltzman was an 

associate with the law firm of 

DLA Piper from 2008 to 2010; 

an associate at Hennigan, 

Bennett & Dorman LLP, from 2006 to 2008; an 

associate then of counsel at O’Melveny & Myers LLP, 

from 1996 to 2000 and from 2001 to 2005; and an 

associate at Klee, Tuchin, Bogdanoff & Stern LLP, from 

2000 to 2001. Judge Saltzman received her B.A. from 

Amherst College in 1991 and her J.D. from the 

University of Virginia, School of Law, in 1996. She 

maintains chambers in Riverside.

Judge Ronald H. Sargis was 

appointed as a bankruptcy 

judge for the Eastern District 

of California on January 14, 

2010. Prior to his 

appointment, Judge Sargis was 

a partner at Hefner, Stark & 

Marois LLP from 1989 to 2010 

and was a managing partner 

from 1997 to 1998. He had served as the general 

counsel to the California Association of Collectors, 

Inc., since 1985. Judge Sargis received his B.A. from 

Stanford University in 1979 and his J.D. in 1982 from 

the University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law, 

where he graduated with distinction. He maintains 

chambers in Modesto.

Judge Laurel Beeler was 

appointed as a magistrate judge 

for the Northern District of 

California on January 4, 2010. 

Prior to her appointment, 

Judge Beeler served as an 

assistant U.S. attorney for the 

Northern District of California. 

While at the U.S. Attorney’s 

Office, she served as a professional responsibility officer, 

deputy chief of the Criminal Division, and major crimes 

supervisor. Judge Beeler received her A.B. from 

Bowdoin College, where she graduated with honors, and 

her J.D. from the University of Washington, School of 

Law, where she was Order of the Coif and an articles 

editor of the Washington Law Review. Following law 

school, she served as a law clerk to the late Circuit Judge 

Cecil F. Poole of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth 

Circuit and was chief of the Civil Appeals Division at the 

Ninth Circuit Office of Staff Attorneys. She maintains 

chambers in Oakland.

Judge Jay C. Gandhi was 

appointed as a magistrate judge 

for the Central District of 

California on April 14, 2010. He 

is only the second IndianAmerican federal judge in U.S. 

history, and the first to serve in 

California. Prior to his 

appointment, Judge Gandhi was 

a litigation partner at Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker 

LLP. He joined the firm in 1998 and became equity 

partner in 2006. In 2004, he served as a volunteer 

deputy district attorney with the Orange County 

(California) District Attorney’s office, and was honored in 

2010 by the State Bar of California for his commitment 

to pro bono service. Judge Gandhi received his B.A. in 

1994 from the California State University at Fullerton, 

where he graduated with honors, and his J.D. in 1997 

from the USC, Gould School of Law, where he graduated 

Order of the Coif. After law school, Judge Gandhi served 

as a law clerk for U.S. District Judge Kenneth M. Hoyt of 

the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. 

He maintains chambers in Los Angeles.

Bankruptcy Judges continued Magistrate Judges 
judicial transitions 13

Judge Paul S. Grewal was 

appointed as a magistrate judge 

for the Northern District of 

California on December 1, 

2010. Judge Grewal engaged in 

private practice at Day Casebeer 

Madrid & Batchelder (later 

Howrey LLP), as a partner and 

member of the firm’s 

management committee. Judge Grewal received his 

B.S. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 

where he was elected to Tau Beta Pi and Sigma Xi honor 

societies, and J.D. from the University of Chicago Law 

School. Following law school, Judge Grewal served as a 

law clerk to District Judge Samuel H. Bell of the U.S. 

District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. After 

working on complex commercial litigation at Pillsbury 

Madison & Sutro, he served as a law clerk to Circuit 

Judge Arthur J. Gajarsa of the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

the Federal Circuit. Judge Grewal is a former president 

of the South Asian Bar of Northern California and the 

North American South Asian Bar Association. He 

maintains chambers in San Jose.

Judge Kendall J. Newman was 

appointed as a magistrate 

judge for the Eastern District 

of California on February 8, 

2010. Prior to his 

appointment, Judge Newman 

served as chief of the Civil 

Affirmative Section in the 

Office of the U.S. Attorney for 

the Eastern District of California, from 2005 to 

2010, and worked as an assistant U.S. attorney from 

1995 to 2005, and in the Southern District of 

California from 1990 to 1994. He engaged in private 

practice as an associate at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher 

in San Diego from 1984 to 1990. Judge Newman 

received his B.S. from Cornell University in 1980 and 

his J.D. from the College of William and Mary in 

1984. He maintains chambers in Sacramento.

Judge Sheila K. Oberto was 

appointed as a magistrate 

judge for the Eastern District 

of California on April 12, 

2010. Prior to her 

appointment, Judge Oberto 

worked in the Office of the 

U.S. Attorney for the Eastern 

District of California, where 

she held several positions including deputy chief and 

unit chief from 1990 to 2010. She engaged in private 

practice as an associate at Baker, Manock & Jensen in 

Fresno from 1988 to 1989, and as an associate at Irell 

& Manella in Los Angeles from 1985 to 1987. Judge 

Oberto received her B.S. from the University of 

Southern California in 1977; her M.S. from the 

University of California at Los Angeles in 1979; and 

her J.D. from USC School of Law in 1985. She 

maintains chambers in Fresno.

Judge Donna M. Ryu was 

appointed as a magistrate 

judge for the Northern District 

of California on March 1, 

2010. Prior to her 

appointment, Judge Ryu 

served as a clinical professor of 

law at the University of 

California, Hastings College of 

the Law, from 2002 to 2010, and as an associate 

professor and associate director of the Women’s 

Employment Rights Clinic at Golden Gate University 

Law School, from 1998 to 2002. She engaged in 

private practice as a founding partner of Ryu, Dickey & 

Larkin in Oakland, California, from 1994 to 1998; as a 

sole practitioner from 1992 to 1994; as an associate 

attorney at Saperstein, Seligman, Mayeda & Larkin in 

Oakland from 1988 to 1992; and as an associate 

attorney at McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enersen in 

San Francisco from 1986 to 1988. Judge Ryu received 

her B.A. in 1982 from Yale University, where she 

graduated with honors and her J.D. in 1986 from U.C. 

Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law, where she was a 

founder of the Berkeley Journal of Gender, Law and 

Justice. She maintains chambers in Oakland.
14 2010 annual report

Judge Michael Daly Hawkins 

was confirmed by the Senate to 

serve as a circuit judge for the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

Ninth Circuit on September 

14, 1994, and received his 

commission on September 15, 

1994. He assumed senior 

status on February 12, 2010. 

Prior to his appointment to the appellate bench, Judge 

Hawkins engaged in private practice in Phoenix, 

Arizona, from 1980 to 1994 and from 1973 to 1976. 

He served as a special prosecutor, The Navajo Nation, 

from 1985 to 1989 and as a U.S. attorney for the 

District of Arizona from 1977 to 1980. Judge Hawkins 

received his B.A. from Arizona State University in 

1967; his J.D. from ASU School of Law in 1970; and his 

LL.M. from the University of Virginia, School of Law, 

in 1998. Judge Hawkins entered active duty as a 

private in the U.S. Marine Corps in 1970 and released 

as a captain in 1973. He maintains chambers in 

Phoenix.

Judge Andrew J. Kleinfeld was 

confirmed by the Senate to 

serve as a circuit judge for the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

Ninth Circuit on September 

12, 1991, and received his 

commission on September 16, 

1991. He assumed senior 

status on June 12, 2010. Prior 

to his appointment to the appellate bench, Judge 

Kleinfeld served as a federal district judge for the 

District of Alaska from 1986 to 1991. He engaged in 

private practice in Fairbanks, Alaska, from 1971 to 

1986. Judge Kleinfeld served as a federal magistrate 

judge for the District of Alaska from 1971 to 1974. He 

received his B.A. from Wesleyan University in 1966 

and his J.D. from Harvard Law School in 1969. 

Following law school, he clerked for the late Justice 

J.A. Rabinowitz of the Alaska Supreme Court from 

1969 to 1971. He maintains chambers in Fairbanks.

Judge Michael J. Seng was 

appointed as a magistrate 

judge for the Eastern District 

of California on April 19, 2010. 

Prior to his appointment, 

Judge Seng had served as an 

administrative law judge with 

the Social Security 

Administration’s Office of 

Disability Adjudication and Review since 2008. He had 

practiced civil litigation in Fresno, California, for 30 

years. He also taught professional responsibility and 

civil procedure at San Joaquin College of Law and 

previously served as special counsel to the California 

State Bar Court and as judge pro tem with the Fresno 

County (California) Superior Court. He received his 

undergraduate degree from the University of 

Tennessee in 1969 and his J.D. from the University of 

Tennessee, College of Law, in 1975. His primary 

chambers are in Yosemite National Park, but he also 

sits periodically in Fresno.

Judge Bernard G. Skomal was 

appointed as a magistrate 

judge for the Southern District 

of California on April 28, 2010. 

He earned his J.D. from Suffolk 

University Law School in 1984 

after which he began his career 

as a criminal defense lawyer at 

Federal Defenders Inc. of San 

Diego. In 1989, he engaged in private practice, 

representing people charged in state court as well as 

federal court. From 1997 to 1998, Judge Skomal took 

a sabbatical from private practice to become the 

assistant public defender of Mendocino County. Judge 

Skomal taught and lectured at the annual Spanish Trial 

Skills Academy presented by the Institute for Criminal 

Defense Advocacy at California Western School of Law. 

He maintains chambers in San Diego.

Magistrate Judges continued Senior Judges
judicial transitions 15

Judge Jeffrey T. Miller was 

confirmed by the Senate to 

serve as a district judge for the 

Southern District of California 

on May 23, 1997, and received 

his commission on May 27, 

1997. He assumed senior 

status on June 6, 2010. Prior 

to his appointment to the 

federal bench, Judge Miller served as a San Diego 

County (California) Superior Court judge, from 1987 

to 1997. He worked as a deputy state attorney 

general, State of California, from 1968 to 1987. Judge 

Miller received his B.A. from the University of 

California at Los Angeles in 1964 and his J.D. from the 

UCLA School of Law in 1967. He maintains chambers 

in San Diego.

Judge Thomas J. Whelan was 

confirmed by the Senate to 

serve as a district judge for the 

Southern District of California 

on October 21, 1998, and 

received his commission on 

October 22, 1998. He 

assumed senior status on 

August 15, 2010. Prior to his 

appointment to the federal bench, Judge Whelan 

served as a San Diego County (California) Superior 

Court judge, from 1990 to 1998. He worked 

previously as a deputy district attorney in San Diego, 

from 1969 to 1989, and as a contracts administrator, 

planner, and estimator for General Dynamics 

Corporation, from 1961 to 1969. Judge Whelan 

received his B.A. from the University of San Diego in 

1961 and his J.D. from the USD School of Law in 

1965. He maintains chambers in San Diego.

Judge Frank R. Zapata was 

confirmed by the Senate to 

serve as a district judge for the 

District of Arizona on July 31, 

1996, and received his 

commission on August 1, 

1996. He assumed senior 

status on August 3, 2010. 

Prior to his appointment to 

the bench, Judge Zapata was an assistant adjunct 

professor at the University of Arizona, College of Law, 

from 1988 to 1990. He served as a chief assistant 

federal public defender for the District of Arizona 

from 1984 to 1994 and as an assistant federal public 

defender from 1974 to 1984. Judge Zapata began his 

legal career working as a staff attorney, Pima County 

(Arizona) Legal Aid Society, from 1973 to 1974. He 

received his B.A. from the University of Arizona in 

1966 and his J.D. from the UA College of Law in 1973. 

He maintains chambers in Tucson.
16 2010 annual report

Judge Franklin D. Burgess, 75, 

a district judge of the U.S. 

District Court for the Western 

District of Washington, died 

on March 26, 2010. 

Nominated by President 

Clinton, Judge Burgess was 

confirmed by the Senate on 

March 25, 1994, and received 

his commission on March 28, 1994. Judge Burgess 

assumed senior status on March 9, 2005. He served as 

a federal magistrate judge for the Western District of 

Washington, from 1981 to 1993. Prior to coming onto 

the bench, he was a regional counsel at the 

Department of Housing and Urban Development in 

Seattle from 1980 to 1981. He served as judge pro 

tem on the Pierce County (Washington) Municipal 

Court and District Court from 1971 to 1980. Judge 

Burgess engaged in private practice in Tacoma, 

Washington, from 1969 to 1980. He was an assistant 

city attorney, City of Tacoma, Washington, from 1967 

to 1969. Judge Burgess received his B.A. from 

Gonzaga University in 1961 and his J.D. from Gonzaga 

University, School of Law, in 1966. Judge Burgess is 

survived by his wife, Treava; children, Cheryl, Carole, 

Steven, Frava, and Whittney; eight brothers and 

sisters; three grandchildren and numerous greatgrandchildren.

Judge Florence-Marie Cooper, 

69, a district judge of the U.S. 

District Court for the Central 

District of California, died on 

January 15, 2010. Nominated 

by President Clinton, Judge 

Cooper was confirmed by the 

Senate on November 10, 1999, 

and received her commission 

on November 15, 1999. Prior to coming onto the 

federal bench, she served as a judge of the Los Angeles 

County (California) Superior Court, from 1991 to 

1999, and Municipal Court, from 1990 to 1991; and as 

a court commissioner of the Los Angeles (California) 

Superior Court, from 1983 to 1990. Judge Cooper was 

an adjunct professor, San Fernando Valley College, 

School of Law, from 1980 to 1985. She was a senior 

research attorney for Justice Arleigh M. Woods, 

California Court of Appeal, from 1980 to 1983 and was 

a senior research attorney for Ninth Circuit Senior 

Judge Arthur Alarcón then justice, California Court of 

Appeal, from 1978 to 1980. Before becoming a deputy 

city attorney for the City of Los Angeles in 1977, Judge 

Cooper served as a law clerk from 1975 to 1977 to 

Judge Alarcón, who was then sitting in the appellate 

department of the Los Angeles Superior Court. Judge 

Cooper attended City College of San Francisco in 1971 

and received her J.D., graduating cum laude, from 

Beverly Law School (now Whittier Law School), in 

1975. Judge Cooper is survived by her husband, Les 

Peckins; children, Joseph and Karen; stepchildren, 

Angela and Christopher; five grandchildren; and sister, 

Maureen.

In Memoriam
judicial transitions 17

Judge Myron D. Crocker, 94, a 

retired district judge of the U.S. 

District Court for the Eastern 

District of California, died on 

February 2, 2010. Nominated 

by President Eisenhower to 

serve on the U.S. District Court 

for the Southern District of 

California, Judge Crocker was 

confirmed by the Senate on September 14, 1959, and 

received his commission on Sept. 21, 1959. His service 

was terminated following reassignment on September 

18, 1966 to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern 

District of California, where he served as chief district 

judge from 1966 to 1967. Judge Crocker assumed 

senior status on January 1, 1981. Prior to his 

appointment to the federal bench, Judge Crocker 

served as a Madera County (California) Superior Court 

judge, from 1958 to 1959 and as a judge on the 

Chowchilla Justice Courthouse Division from 1952 to 

1958. He was an assistant district attorney, Madera 

County, from 1946 to 1951. Judge Crocker engaged in 

private practice in Chowchilla, California, from 1946 to 

1958 and served as a special agent, Federal Bureau of 

Investigation, from 1940 to 1946. Judge Crocker 

received his A.B. from Fresno State College in 1937 and 

his LL.B. from the University of California at Berkeley, 

Boalt Hall School of Law, in 1940. Judge Crocker is 

survived by his children Glenn and Holly, and eight 

grandchildren and great-grandchildren. His wife, 

Elaine, died July 2009.

Judge Cristobal Camacho 

Duenas, 89, a retired district 

judge of the U.S. District Court 

for the District of Guam, died 

on February 14, 2010. He was 

nominated by President Nixon 

in September 1969 and was 

sworn into office on December 

24, 1969. He was nominated 

for a second term by President Carter in 1978, and the 

enactment of Public Law 98-454 extended his term 

another two years, making his second appointment a 

10-year term, expiring May 1988. Prior to coming 

onto the federal bench, Judge Duenas served as a 

judge of the Island Court of Guam, from 1960 to 1969; 

director of the Department of Land Management, 

from 1957 to 1960; and as an assistant attorney 

general for Guam, from 1952 to 1957. Judge Duenas 

received his A.B. from the University of Michigan in 

1950 and his J.D. from the University of Michigan Law 

School in 1952. He is survived by his wife, Juanita, 

and his children, Christopher Joseph, David Gerard, 

Joanna, Ricardo Luis, Therese Ann, Vincent Edward 

and Zerlina Maria.

Judge Robert L. Hughes, 84, a 

retired bankruptcy judge of the 

U.S. District Court for the 

Northern District of 

California, died on March 11, 

2010. He was appointed to the 

court on November 21, 1968, 

and retired in 1984. Active in 

judicial governance at the 

regional and national levels, Judge Hughes was a 

member of the Committee on Bankruptcy of the 

Judicial Conference of the United States, from 1979 to 

1984; the first administrative judge of the Ninth 

Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, from 1979 to 

1983; and a member of the Advisory Committee to the 

director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 

from 1979 to 1981. He was president of the National 

Conference of Bankruptcy Judges from 1980 to 1981. 
18 2010 annual report

Prior to coming onto the bench, he engaged in private 

practice in Oakland, California, from 1958 to 1968, 

and worked as a reporter and as an assistant sports 

editor for the San Francisco Chronicle, from 1949 to 

1959. Judge Hughes received his B.A. from the 

University of California at Berkeley in 1948 and his 

LL.B. from the University of California, Hastings 

College of the Law, in 1957. Judge Hughes is survived 

by his wife, Joan; six children, Mark, Bret, John, Dana, 

Kent, and Erin; brother, Bill; and 12 grandchildren.

Judge Samuel P. King, 94, a 

senior district judge of the U.S. 

District Court for the District 

of Hawaii, died on December 7, 

2010. Nominated by President 

Nixon, Judge King was 

confirmed by the Senate and 

received his commission on 

June 28, 1972. He served as 

chief district judge from 1974 to 1984 and assumed 

senior status on November 30, 1984. Prior to his 

appointment, Judge King engaged in private practice 

in Honolulu, Hawaii, from 1970 to 1972. He served as 

a judge, Family Court of Hawaii, from 1966 to 1970; 

judge, First Circuit of Hawaii, from 1961 to 1970; and 

as a district magistrate, City and County of Honolulu, 

from 1956 to 1961. Judge King received his B.S. from 

Yale University in 1937 and his LL.B. from Yale Law 

School in 1940. Following law school, he engaged in 

private practice in Honolulu from 1941 to 1942 and in 

Washington, D.C., in 1942. He served in the Navy 

from 1942 to 1946 and the Naval Reserve from 1946 

to 1967. Judge King is survived by his wife, Anne; 

three children, Samuel P. King, Jr., Louise and Becky; 

six grandchildren; and sister, Pauline.

Judge Howard B. Turrentine, 

96, a senior district judge of 

the U.S. District Court for the 

Southern District of California, 

died on August 20, 2010. 

Nominated by President 

Nixon, Judge Turrentine was 

confirmed by the Senate on 

April 23, 1970, and received 

his commission on April 24, 1970. He served as chief 

district judge from 1982 to 1984 and assumed senior 

status on January 22, 1984. Prior to his appointment 

to the federal bench, Judge Turrentine served as a San 

Diego County (California) Superior Court judge, from 

1968 to 1970, and was in private practice in San Diego 

from 1945 to 1968. A veteran of World War II, he 

served in the Navy from 1941 to 1945, leaving the 

service at the rank of lieutenant commander. Judge 

Turrentine received his A.B. from San Diego State 

College in 1936 and his LL.B. from the University of 

Southern California, School of Law, in 1939. 

Following law school, he engaged in private practice in 

San Diego from 1939 to 1941. Judge Turrentine is 

survived by his wife, Marlene, and two children.

In Memoriam continued
Circuit

Highilights
20 2010 annual report

The Ninth Circuit has sought to expand the 

use of cameras in the courtroom as a means 

of increasing public understanding of 

judicial processes and confidence in the rule 

of law. In 2010, this effort included promoting pilot 

programs that would allow limited use of cameras in 

federal trial courts, and offering remote viewing of 

high-profile proceedings of the Ninth Circuit Court of 

Appeals, including important cases heard by en banc 

courts.

Cameras in the Trial Courts

Opening federal trial courts to cameras was the aim 

of separate pilot programs authorized by the Judicial 

Council of the Ninth Circuit in December 2009, 

and by the Judicial Conference of the United States 

in September 2010. The Ninth Circuit program 

is currently being held in abeyance pending the 

outcome of the national pilot program, which will 

begin in 2011. Judges from several district courts 

within the Ninth Circuit are expected to participate.

The national program, which will be overseen by 

the JCUS Committee for Court Administration and 

Case Management and the Federal Judicial Center, 

is envisioned as a three-year experiment involving 

as many as 150 individual judges from across the 

country. It would be limited to civil cases in which 

both parties agree to camera coverage. Jury trials 

would be included, although images of jurors may not 

be recorded. 

Under the national program, courts would record 

proceedings, rather than the media. The recordings 

would be converted to electronic files and uploaded 

to an Internet repository for viewing and possibly 

downloading by the public. Where possible, courts 

would use existing equipment to help reduce costs. 

The process of selecting judges for the pilot program 

is now under way.

The groundwork laid for the Ninth Circuit program 

included preparation of a model local rule to allow 

cameras and suggested guidelines for their use by the 

media. The Northern District of California and the 

Western District of Washington have amended their 

local rules to allow cameras under either a national or 

circuit program. Rule changes are being considered 

by several other courts in the circuit.

Cameras at the Court of Appeals

Cameras were first allowed by the Ninth Circuit Court 

of Appeals in 1991 as part of an earlier national pilot 

program. Since then, the court has granted media 

requests for camera access to oral arguments in some 

255 cases. In 2010, camera access was granted 18 

times, including two high-profile cases heard late in 

the year at the James R. Browning U.S. Courthouse in 

San Francisco:

• USA v. State of Arizona, heard November 1, involving 

the constitutionality of an Arizona law requiring state 

and local law enforcement officers to check immigration 

status and arrest suspected illegal immigrants. Portions 

Ninth Circuit Efforts Spark Renewed 

Interest in Cameras in the Courtroom

Left: The Perry panel included, from 

left, Senior Circuit Judge Michael Daly

Hawkins of Phoenix, Circuit Judge

Stephen Reinhardt of Los Angeles,

and Circuit Judge N. Randy Smith of

Pocatello, Idaho. Right: The Circuit 

Library was used for press conferences by 

the parties and as a media workroom for

reporters covering the proceeding.
ninth circuit highlights 21

of the law were held unconstitutional by the federal 

district court in Arizona, prompting an appeal by 

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer.

• Perry v. Schwarzenegger, heard December 6, involved 

a challenge to a California law declaring marriage 

to be a union of one man and one woman, thereby 

prohibiting marriage by same sex partners. Enacted 

by a voter initiative, Proposition 8, the law was 

ruled unconstitutional by a lower federal court in 

California, leading to an appeal by proponents of the 

ballot measure.

C-SPAN broadcast both cases live and operated a 

video pool for other media organizations. The Perry

case, in particular, drew worldwide attention with 

the court receiving dozens of requests for live and 

recorded audio and video broadcasting, Internet 

streaming, and still photography. A number of 

newspapers used the C-SPAN feed on their websites 

and public radio also broadcast the argument live.

En Banc Proceedings

En banc courts, comprised of a panel of 11 judges 

rather than the usual three, are used to resolve intracircuit conflicts or other legal questions of exceptional 

importance. Each year, the court typically receives 

more than 1,000 petitions seeking en banc review and 

grants only about 20 requests. En banc courts are 

convened quarterly to hear such cases, alternating 

between the James R. Browning U.S. Courthouse 

in San Francisco and the Richard H. Chambers 

Courthouse in Pasadena, California.

Except for those proceedings in which the media has 

been granted camera access, en banc courts could 

only be observed by being in the courtroom or by 

watching a live audio/video feed displayed in an 

overflow viewing room elsewhere in the courthouse. 

That changed in March 2010, when the court began 

distributing a live audio/video stream to remote 

viewing locations in other Ninth Circuit courthouses. 

Thus a proceeding taking place in Pasadena could be 

watched at courthouses in San Francisco, Portland 

and Seattle, and from San Francisco to Pasadena, 

Portland and Seattle. 

The court uses its own cameras and equipment to 

distribute the audio/video feed to remote viewing 

areas and to convert recordings into electronic files 

that can be viewed from the court’s website. These 

cameras were upgraded in late 2009 to provide high 

definition images and sound.

The opportunity to watch proceedings live from 

remote locations and to view recordings of 

proceedings online has been welcomed by the public, 

particularly the media. 

Cameras Create Educational Opportunity

Live cable television broadcasts and realtime video 

streaming over the Internet enabled law students 
22 2010 annual report

across the country to watch oral 

arguments in high-profile cases 

before the Ninth Circuit Court of 

Appeals. More than a dozen of 

the nation’s most prominent law 

schools set up viewing areas for 

student to watch arguments in 

USA v. State of Arizona and Perry 

v. Schwarzenegger. Participating 

institutions included New York 

University School of Law; Yale 

Law School; Harvard Law School; 

the Georgetown University Law 

Center; the University of Virginia 

School of Law; the University of 

Chicago Law School; Northwestern 

University Law School; the 

University of Texas School of 

Law; the Sandra Day O’Connor 

College of Law at Arizona State 

University; the James E. Rogers 

College of Law at the University of 

Arizona; Stanford Law School; and 

the University of California at Los 

Angeles School of Law.

Circuit Committee

Promotes Pilot Program

The Ninth Circuit Public 

Information and Community 

Outreach (PICO) Committee 

helped to promote the pilot 

programs for cameras in the 

courtroom with a special program 

in November at the William K. 

Nakamura U.S. Courthouse in 

Seattle. Held in collaboration with 

the Bench-Bar-Press Committee 

of Washington, the luncheon 

program featured a presentation 

by Chief District Judge Vaughan 

Walker of the U.S. District Court 

for the Northern District of 

California. Judge Walker presided 

over the civil bench trial of the 

Perry case and had sought to 

allow camera coverage, but was 

overruled by the U.S. Supreme 

Court. Judge Walker provided 

a look back at electronic media 

coverage of other high profile 

cases.

The program also included a panel 

discussion of Washington’s state 

court experiences, and whether 

they should allay or stoke the fears 

of the federal judiciary. Panelists 

included Chief Judge Robert S. 

Lasnik and Judge Richard A. Jones 

of the U.S. District Court for the 

Western District of Washington; 

King County (Washington) 

Superior Court Judge William 

Downing; and media attorney 

Kelli Sager, a member of the PICO 

Committee.

Standing from left is Chief District Judge Robert S. Lasnik, Western District of 

Washington, and seated are District Judge Richard A. Jones, Western District of 

Washington; and Kelli Sager, media attorney and PICO member.
ninth circuit highlights 23

The American legal system attracts interest 

from around the world. Federal courts in 

the Ninth Circuit regularly welcome visits 

by foreign judges and court administrators 

interested in jurisprudence and court management. 

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. Ninth Circuit judges and staff were involved 

in several noteworthy international exchanges in 

2010.

Rule of Law Takes Root in Chinese Law Schools

Judge Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain of the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit traveled to the 

Chinese capital of Beijing in early March to serve as 

a judge for a preliminary round of the 51st Philip C. 

Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition. 

The Jessup contest is the world’s largest moot court 

competition boasting participants from more than 

500 laws schools in more than 80 countries. Finals 

were held March 21-27 in Washington, D.C., with 

a team from the Australian National University 

selected the 2010 winner.

The Chinese national competition held March 1-4 

at Beijing’s Renmin University of China Law School 

featured close to 100 teams drawn from 34 Chinese 

law schools. They competed against one another, 

presenting oral and written pleadings related to a 

hypothetical legal dispute between nations being 

heard by the International Court of Justice at the 

United Nations. Four finalists were chosen with 

the judging done by jurists from China, the U.S., 

Australia, the United Kingdom and Romania.

Judge O’Scannlain recalls being impressed with the 

Chinese law students, who spoke English in arguing 

their cases and ably presented complex legal concepts 

and issues of law. But the judge’s most lasting 

memories of the trip were provided by the many young 

law students he met at various events, including a talk 

to a class at another Beijing law school at Tsinghua 

University and after a speech he gave at a forum held 

in his honor by the Renmin law school.

“There is a real thirst for the rule of law coming out 

of the Chinese law schools. I think they are really 

looking for courts that are truly independent,” he 

said of the students.

Judge O’Scannlain, who has his chambers in 

Portland, Oregon, has served on the Committee 

on International Judicial Relations of the Judicial 

Conference of the United States since 2009. In 

October 2010, he was selected to chair the committee 

by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., of the Supreme 

Court of the United States.

Judicial Visits, Educational Programs 

Raise Ninth Circuit Profile Overseas

Left: Senior Circuit Judge Michael Daly Hawkins of Phoenix 

met with the Korean judges and gave an overview of the 

appellate review process.

Over: South Korean judges gathered in the Redwood Room 

with Judge Hawkins to learn about appellate practices.
24 2010 annual report

The Committee on International Judicial Relations 

helps establish and expand the rule of law 

throughout the world. It was formed in 1993 

to respond to increasing demand from newly 

emerging democracies and developing countries 

for information about judicial independence, legal 

traditions and effective court administration in the 

United States. The committee is currently involved 

in activities in Africa, Asia and the Pacific Basin, 

Latin America and the Caribbean, the Middle East, 

Europe, and Eurasia. 

In addition to its own initiatives, the committee 

works with executive branch agencies, including 

the State Department, the Agency for International 

Development and the Department of Justice, and with 

other organizations, among them the World Bank, the 

Federal Judicial Center and the Library of Congress.

Ninth Circuit judges who have previously served as 

chair of the committee were the late Senior Circuit 

Judge Cynthia Holcomb Hall of Pasadena and former 

District Judge Fern M. Smith of San Francisco. 

Korean Delegation Visits Court of Appeals

In August, the Ninth Circuit welcomed eight judges 

from the Republic of Korea to the James R. Browning 

U.S. Courthouse in San Francisco, California. Senior 

Circuit Judge Michael Daly Hawkins of Phoenix served 

as official host for the visit, meeting with the group in 

the courthouse’s famed Redwood Room to discuss the 

appellate process and answer questions posed by the 

judges. 

The Korean judges asked about the caseloads 

carried by judges, including the difference in 

workload for active and senior judges, and the 

employment process for law clerks. Also discussed 

were the different stages of the judicial process; oral 

arguments; the court’s electronic case filing system; 

and sentencing guidelines in federal trial courts. 

Also participating in the briefing were supervising 

staff attorney Paul Keller, circuit mediators Stephen 

Liacouras and Peter Sherwood, and staff attorney 

Kathleen Butterfield, who regularly conducts 

courthouse tours for visiting dignitaries.
ninth circuit highlights 25

The Korean delegation was led by 

Chief Judge Wook-seo Koo, Seoul 

High Court, and included Presiding 

Judge Hee-De Jo, Civil Division, 

Seoul High Court; Presiding Judge 

In-wook Kim, Criminal Division, 

Seoul High Court; Presiding Judge 

Chung-Jeong Ko, Seoul Central 

District Court; Presiding Judge 

Jong-gu Yoon, Suwon District 

Court; Judge Hyun-moo Maeng, 

Uijeongbu District Court; Judge 

Gap-seok Kim, Incheon District 

Court; and Judge Jong-chan Won, 

Seoul Southern District Court.

19th Pacific Regional

Judicial Conference

For almost three decades, Ninth 

Circuit judges and court staff have 

contributed to the development 

of the law in the western Pacific 

through educational programs and 

judicial visits. The most recent of 

these events were the 19th Pacific 

Regional Judicial Conference and 

the Pacific Asia Judges’ Science 

and Technology Seminar, held 

November 7-12 in Hagatna, Guam. 

More than 45 judges and justices 

from various island nations 

participated. Represented at the 

conference were the U.S. Territory 

of Guam and the Commonwealth 

of the Northern Mariana Islands, 

both within the jurisdiction of the 

Ninth Circuit; the commonwealths 

of Australia and New Zealand; the 

Federated States of Micronesia 

(Chuuk, Kosrae, Pohnpei and Yap); 

the U.S. Territory of American 

Samoa; the Solomon Islands; the 

republics of Palau and Vanuatu; and 

the State of Brunei. The conference 

was hosted by the judiciary 

of Guam and chaired by Chief 

Justice Robert J. Torres, Jr., of the 

Supreme Court of Guam.

The conference focused on the 

interplay of local customs and 

legal traditions with the welldefined principles and structure of 

Western law. The program included 

presentations on alternative dispute 

resolution; differing models of 

judicial independence in the Pacific; 

and the tension between individual 

and group rights. The gathering 

also provided an opportunity for 

chief justices of the various island 

communities to interact and develop 

relationships with one another.

The science and technology 

seminar provided judges with 

an introduction to scientific 

study of criminal psychopaths; 

evaluation of scientific evidence; 

the neurobiology of addiction; 

cybercrime and computer forensics; 

the structure and function of DNA; 

and other topics.

Also participating in the conference 

were members of the Ninth 

Circuit’s Pacific Islands Committee, 

including its chair, Senior District 

Judge Consuelo B. Marshall of 

the Central District of California, 

Circuit Judge Richard R. Clifton 

of Honolulu, Chief District Judge 

Frances Marie Tydingco-Gatewood 

of the District of Guam, and 

District Judge Patrick J. Walsh of 

the Central District of California. 

Ninth Circuit staff support was 

provided by Assistant Circuit 

Executive Renée Lorda and 

education specialist Sally Pym.

The Ninth Circuit has had a major 

role in organizing the conferences, 

which are held biennially at 

different locations in the western 

Pacific. The first conference, held in 

1972 in Samoa, was the brainchild 

of the chief justices of American 

Samoa and what was then known 

as Western Samoa, and the chief 

judge of the Ninth Circuit, the 

late Richard H. Chambers. The 

work has been carried on by 

Judge Chambers’ successors, most 

notably Chief Judge Emeritus J. 

Clifford Wallace, and by the Pacific 

Islands Committee, which was 

established in 1991.

Circuit Judge Richard R. Clifton addresses the Pacific Regional Judicial Conference.
26 2010 annual report

Annual Conference Offers Varied 

Program for Bench, Bar

Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski speaks at the opening 

of the Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference.

The 2010 Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference, 

held August 16-19 in Maui, Hawaii, drew 

nearly 700 judges, attorneys, court staff and 

special guests, including Justice Anthony M. 

Kennedy of the Supreme Court of the United States.

The conference is held annually pursuant to Section 

333 of Title 28 of the U.S. Code for “the purpose of 

considering the business of the courts and advising 

means of improving the administration of justice 

within such circuit.”

Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski welcomed 

attendees to the annual event, which was last held in 

Maui in 1995. Chief District Judge Irma E. Gonzalez 

of the Southern District of California presided over 

the conference as chair of the Conference Executive 

Committee, while Circuit Judge N. Randy Smith of 

Pocatello, Idaho, served as program chair. 

Structured around the theme “Justice and Beyond: 

Stresses and Timely Strategies,” the conference 

included programs on improving the administration 

of justice, trying alleged terrorists, the challenges 

posed by pro se (self-represented) litigants, case 

management issues, early resolution of disputes, 

and the effect on the administration of justice of the 

economic downturn in the legal field. 

In “Trying Alleged Terrorists: Constitutional and 

Practical Problems in Article III Courts and Military 

Tribunals,” panelists discussed evidentiary issues, 

courtroom security, confrontation issues, jury 

management, and media and public access. The panel 

included three key participants in the trial of accused 

9/11 terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui: District Judge 

Leonie M. Brinkema who presided over the case in 

the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of 

Virginia; Robert Spencer, the former U.S. Attorney 

who prosecuted the case, and attorney Edward B. 

MacMahon, Jr., who defended Moussaoui. Also 

sitting with the panel was Professor Elizabeth I. 

Hillman, University of California, Hastings College of 

the Law, while Professor Jack Landman Goldsmith, 

Henry L. Shattuck Professor of Law, Harvard Law 

School, moderated. 

In the “Justice and the Unrepresented: Managing 

the Caseload” session, panel members discussed 

procedural and substantive challenges posed by 

pro se litigants. Panelists included Senior District 

Judge Marvin E. Aspen, Northern District of Illinois; 

District Judge A. Howard Matz, Central District 

of California; James J. Brosnahan, Esq., Morrison 

& Foerster, LLP; and Professor D. James Greiner, 

Harvard Law School. Kathleen M. Sullivan, Esq., of 

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, moderated the 

panel. The session ended with remarks by Laurence 

H. Tribe, famed Harvard law professor, constitutional 

scholar and recent presidential appointee to the U.S. 

Department of Justice, where he serves as a senior 

counselor for access to justice issues. 

The “Breakfast with the Bench” session featured 

practical tips for judges and lawyers on resolving 

disputes early in the adjudicative process, managing 

costs and delays of litigation, and employing 

techniques to cope with case management issues 

facing judges. Speakers included Chief District Judge 

B. Lynn Winmill, District of Idaho; Chief Bankruptcy 

Judge Randall J. Newsome, Northern District of 

California; Magistrate Judge Anthony J. Battaglia, 

Southern District of California; Magistrate Judge Nita 

L. Stormes, Southern District of California; and Steven 

B. Andersen, Esq., lawyer representative, District of 

Idaho. District Judge Susan R. Bolton of the District 

of Arizona served as moderator.
ninth circuit highlights 27

The “Economic Change in the Legal Profession and Its 

Impact on the Courts” session focused on economic 

changes in private legal practice, technology, and 

budget concerns affecting all parties. Panelists included 

Professor Jeffrey D. Bauman, co-director, Center for 

Study of the Legal Profession, Georgetown University 

Law Center; Mark Chandler, senior vice president, 

general counsel and secretary, CISCO Systems, Inc.; 

Mary C. McQueen, president, National Center for State 

Courts; and William J. Perlstein, co-managing partner, 

Wilmer Hale. Roberta Reiff Katz, vice provost at 

Stanford University, moderated the panel. 

The “Conversation with the Justice” segment, a 

highlight of the final day of the conference, featured 

remarks by Justice Kennedy with a follow-up 

conversation with Judge Gonzalez and attorney 

Robbin L. Itkin, chair of the Ninth Circuit’s Lawyer 

Representatives Coordinating Committee. Topics 

included literature portraying the law with Justice 

Kennedy offering a list of top 10 books every lawyer 

should read.

In addition to the general sessions, the conference 

included various business meetings and smaller 

educational programs, including a review of recent 

Supreme Court cases and a look at the General Motors 

and Chrysler bankruptcy proceedings.

Federal judges from California and Nevada, along with 

an Idaho attorney and the University of Washington, 

School of Law, were honored with awards during the 

2010 Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference.

American Inns of Court Professionalism

Award

Senior District Judge Howard D. McKibben of 

the United States District Court for the District 

of Nevada received the prestigious Ninth Circuit 

Professionalism Award from the American Inns 

of Court. The award is given annually to a senior 

practicing judge or lawyer “whose life and practice 

display sterling character and unquestioned integrity, 

coupled with ongoing dedication to the highest 

standards of the legal profession.”

Judge McKibben, who maintains chambers in Reno, 

has helped establish two American Inns of Court in 

Nevada, one of which is now named in his honor. In 

nominating him for the award, colleagues remarked 

upon his integrity, intellect, generosity and collegiality.

Judge McKibben was nominated to the federal bench 

by President Reagan and confirmed by the Senate in 

1984. He served as chief judge of the district court from 

1997 to 2002 and took senior status in 2005. Prior 

to coming onto the federal bench, he had served as a 

judge of the Nevada Ninth Judicial District Court from 

1977 to 1984, and as the Douglas County (Nevada) 

district attorney from 1971 to 1977 and deputy 

district attorney from 1969 to 1971. He received a B.S. 

from Bradley University in 1962, an M.P.A. from the 

University of Pittsburgh in 1964, and a J.D. from the 

University of Michigan Law School in 1967.

ADR Lifetime Achievement Award

Senior Circuit Judge Dorothy W. Nelson of the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit received 

a special Lifetime Achievement Award for her 

tireless efforts to promote use of alternative dispute 

resolution methods to resolve conflicts prior to court. 

Judge Nelson was nominated to the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by President Carter and 

confirmed by the Senate in 1979. She assumed senior 

status in 1995 but continues to hear cases and serve on 

circuit committees. Prior to coming onto the federal 

bench, she had served for more than two decades on 

the faculty of the University of Southern California Law 

School, culminating in her appointment as dean from 

1969 to 1980. She received her A.B. from the University 

Awards Recognize Leadership, Achievement 

by Bench, Bar and Academia
28 2010 annual report

of California at Los Angeles in 1950, her J.D. from the 

UCLA School of Law in 1953, and her LL.M. from the 

USC Law School in 1956.

Until stepping down as chair in October 2009, Judge 

Nelson had led the Ninth Circuit ADR Committee 

since its inception in December 1997. Under her 

direction, the committee developed an array of ADR 

tools, including a guidebook, a comprehensive model 

local rule for district courts, and no fewer than seven 

educational programs. 

In addition to her work with the courts, Judge Nelson 

also founded the Western Justice Center in Pasadena, 

California, a nonprofit research and development 

organization dedicated to improving justice and 

replicating new conflict resolution methods. 

John P. Frank Award

Attorney Paul “Larry” Westberg of Boise, Idaho, 

received the John P. Frank Award, which recognizes an 

outstanding lawyer practicing in the federal courts of 

the western United States. Mr. Westberg, a partner in 

the law firm of Westberg McCabe & Collins, is widely 

regarded as one of Idaho’s top criminal defense lawyers 

and also practices general litigation. His career spans 

four decades and includes service as a federal prosecutor 

in the Office of the U.S. Attorney for the District of 

Idaho. He is admitted to practice before the Idaho federal 

district court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth 

Circuit, and the Supreme Court of the United States.

Long active in efforts to improve the bar and the 

judicial system, Mr. Westberg served as a director of 

the Federal Defenders of Eastern Washington and 

was the incorporator and first president of the Federal 

Defenders Services of Idaho, Inc. He is a founding 

member of the Idaho Association of Criminal Defense 

Attorneys and the National Association of Criminal 

Defense Attorneys. He also was instrumental 

in organizing the Idaho chapter of the Federal 

Bar Association, served as its first president, and 

represented it to the National Federal Bar Association.

ADR Education Award

The University of Washington School of Law received 

the Ninth Circuit ADR Education Award, recognizing 

institutions which have advanced ADR scholarship 

and research. The UW School of Law has thoroughly 

integrated alternative dispute resolution into its 

educational program, from basic curriculum through 

advanced courses. Among its J.D. graduates, 50 

percent have taken basic negotiations or an ADR 

survey course, and more than 25 percent were enrolled 

in a more specialized, related course offering. Beyond 

the classroom, the school offers ADR clinical programs, 

including a Mediation Clinic that provides intensive 

training, followed by actual mediation of small claims, 

landlord-tenant, workplace and consumer-merchant 

disputes, and inter-personal conflicts.

Pictured from left are Senior District Judge Howard D. McKibben of Reno, Nevada, received the 2010 Ninth Circuit Professionalism 

Award from the American Inns of Court presented by Circuit Judge Mary M. Schroeder. Middle: Senior Circuit Judge Dorothy W. 

Nelson of Pasadena, California, received an ADR Special Lifetime Award presented by Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke, ADR 

Committee chair. Right: Attorney Larry Westberg of Boise, Idaho, received the 2010 John P. Frank Award presented by Circuit Judge N. 
ninth circuit highlights 29

Nearly 200 local, 

state and federal 

government officials 

gathered in March 

2010 in San Francisco to consider 

how their organizations would 

continue to function following a 

“dirty bomb” explosion in a large 

urban setting.

The chilling hypothetical exercise 

was a key part of the San Francisco 

Bay Area Federal Executive 

Board’s Continuity of Operations 

Planning (COOP) Conference held 

at the new Federal Building in San 

Francisco. A number of federal 

courts throughout the Ninth 

Circuit were represented at the 

conference.

Federal Executive Boards (FEBs) 

are responsible for integrating the 

responses of various agencies at 

different stages of an emergency. 

The boards communicate and 

coordinate with the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA), the Department of Energy 

(DOE), and the Department of 

Defense in the event of a major 

catastrophe. Federal courts in the 

Ninth Circuit have representatives 

on FEBs in Hawaii, Los Angeles, 

San Francisco, and Washington 

State. 

Laudan Batino, the Ninth 

Circuit’s coordinator for COOP 

assistance served as master of 

ceremonies and facilitated the 

event. John P. Leonard, 2010 

chair of the San Francisco FEB, 

welcomed the attendees to the 

half-day event, which included a 

“tabletop” exercise on the effects 

of a radiological dispersion device 

(RDD), or “dirty bomb.” Experts in 

the field included representatives 

from the DOE’s Radiological 

Assistance Program based at the 

Lawrence Livermore Laboratory in 

Livermore, California. 

Participants were divided into 

eight groups to cover four 

scenarios in which potentially 

deadly radioactive materials are 

released by an RDD. Groups 

utilized a checklist to determine 

whether their agency’s COOP 

plan addressed such situations. 

Among the lessons learned and 

discussed at end of the exercise 

was the critical need for good 

communications. 

Court representatives also received 

updates on the Infoweb Emergency 

Notification System (ENS) and 

the Administrative Office of the 

U.S. Courts’ Judiciary Emergency 

Response Team (JERT); COOP 

training opportunities; new 

guide to judiciary on emergency 

preparedness; a new COOP Plan 

format from FEMA; and advances 

in radio communications. 

Courts Participate in Disaster 

Planning Exercise

Audience made up of local, state and federal government officials gathered to 

discuss COOP and take part in a “dirty bomb” exercise. Laudan Batino, Ninth 

Circuit COOP coordinator, at left, opened the conference.
30 2010 annual report

Held September 23-24 

in Portland, Oregon, 

the annual Pro Se

Conference drew nearly 

100 participants from 15 district 

courts, one bankruptcy court, and 

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 

Sponsored by the Ninth Circuit 

Pro Se Committee, participants 

included pro se law clerks, judges, 

and other court staff.

Magistrate Judge James P. 

Donohue of the Western District of 

Washington and chair of the Pro Se

Committee, gave opening remarks 

and thanked all who are involved 

in working on the front lines of 

pro se litigation. He provided an 

overview of the program and noted 

that more legal substantive sessions 

were added in response to feedback 

received from previous conferences.

Senior Circuit Judge Edward Leavy 

of Portland, Oregon, welcomed 

the attendees. He emphasized the 

importance of the work pro se law 

clerks provide to the courts and 

expressed his appreciation on behalf 

of the Ninth Circuit.

Legal substantive sessions included 

a Supreme Court Review by 

Erwin Chermerinsky, dean and 

distinguished professor of law, 

University of California at Irvine, 

School of Law; a session on the 

impact of Ashcroft v. Iqbal in section 

1983 litigation by Alexander A. 

Reinert, associate professor of 

law, Cardozo School of Law; and 

a discussion of First Amendment 

issues and of the Religious Land Use 

and Institutionalized Persons Act 

(RLUIPA) by Stewart Jay, professor 

of law and William L. Dwyer Chair 

in Law, University of Washington, 

School of Law.

Several panel discussions were led 

by national and circuit experts. The 

panel on “Working with Mentally 

Ill Litigants” discussed the types 

of challenges faced by prisoners 

suffering from mental illness and on 

how to effectively deal with these 

challenges. Panelists included Dr. 

Jeffrey Metzner, clinical professor, 

University of Colorado at Denver, 

School of Medicine, and Dr. Don 

Lewis, chief of psychiatry, Federal 

Bureau of Prisons.

The panel on “National Pro Se 

Efforts” focused on best practices 

in pro bono programs and self-help 

centers in federal courts. Panelists 

included representatives from the 

Central, Eastern, and Northern 

districts of California, and the 

Northern District of Illinois.

Facilitated by Judge Donohue, 

“How to Streamline the Initial 

Review Process” session included 

a discussion on screening 

hypotheticals. Participants shared 

screening tips with other districts, 

particularly with new pro se law 

clerks.

Judge Donohue and Cynthia Gray, 

director, Center for Judicial Ethics, 

American Judicature Society, 

facilitated a roundtable discussion 

for judges on how to handle pro se 

litigants in the courtroom and the 

extent of assistance that can be 

ethically provided by the court.

Susan Gelmis, supervising attorney, 

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, gave 

a demonstration of a new website 

intended to ease communication 

among pro se law clerks. She 

discussed what district courts can 

do to help facilitate appellate review, 

recent Ninth Circuit cases, and 

other important topics.

The Pro Se Committee consists 

of Magistrate Judge James P. 

Donohue, chair, (WAW); District 

Judge Dale S. Fischer, (CAC); 

Magistrate Judge Carla Woehrle, 

(CAC); Bankruptcy Judge Linda 

B. Riegle, (NV); pro se law clerks, 

Melissa Hartigan (MT), James K. 

McKay (AZ), and Sujean Park (CAE); 

and Yvette Artiga, staff, (OCE).

Pro Se Conference Addresses Challenges Posed 

by Self-Represented Litigants

Seated from left to right are Magistrate Judges Barry M. Kurren, District of Hawaii, 

and James P. Donohue, Pro Se Committee Chair, Western District of Washington; and 

Senior Circuit Judge Edward Leavy of Portland, Oregon.
ninth circuit highlights 31

Remarks by United States Supreme Court 

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy highlighted 

the opening day of the annual law clerk 

orientation program at the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 

The program, held September 22-23, at the James 

R. Browning U.S. Courthouse in San Francisco, was 

a major undertaking by the court to familiarize 

incoming clerks with court organization and 

operations. The agenda also included ethics training, 

presentations on the judicial process and discussion of 

important legal issues. More than 120 clerks attended.

Justice Kennedy, a 

former judge of the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals, 

touched on several topics 

and recalled some of his 

experiences on the Ninth 

Circuit bench, during a 

30-minute talk in the 

atrium of the courthouse 

law library.

Justice Kennedy told the 

clerks that every case is 

important to someone 

and deserving of their 

best efforts.

“You have to find the 

energy and concentration 

to go through these 

cases,” he said of social 

security appeals and other 

seemingly lesser legal 

matters that are regularly resolved by the court.

Referring to the numerous unpublished opinions 

issued by the court, which apply only to the case 

in question and cannot be cited as legal precedent, 

Justice Kennedy suggested they be written “like a 

letter to the parties” rather than a broader audience. 

Since there is no need to restate the facts for the 

parties, the opinion can get to the point on questions 

of law, he explained.

“You should make sure the parties are confident that 

(the court) has heard and understood the issues,” he 

said.

Referring to en banc courts, Justice Kennedy welcomed 

greater use of the 11-judge panels to resolve important 

legal matters, but acknowledged that caseload pressures 

and travel logistics make that difficult.

“We want the benefit of the en banc process,” he said 

of the Supreme Court, adding that the larger panels 

ensure a fair representation of political viewpoints.

With the court’s heavy caseload, Justice Kennedy said 

clerks can expect a lot of hard work in the coming 

year. New technology is both a boon and bane, he said, 

recalling seeing attendees at the Ninth Circuit Judicial 

Conference in Maui, Hawaii, using the Kindle Reader 

to review motions and briefs. He told his clerks the 

device would make it easier to work while traveling.

“That way you can work all the time no matter where 

you are,” the justice quipped.

Ninth Circuit, Justice Kennedy Welcome 

New Appellate Law Clerks

Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy spoke to more than 120 law clerks who attended 

the orientation.
32 2010 annual report

New Judges Orientation

Pictured from left to right, front row: Bankruptcy Judge Margaret M. Mann of the Southern District of California, 

Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto of the Eastern District of California, Chief Judge Alex Kozinski of Pasadena, 

District Judge Gloria M. Navarro of the District of Nevada and District Judge Michael M. Anello of the Southern 

District of California. Middle row: Bankruptcy Judge Ronald H. Sargis of the Eastern District of California, 

Magistrate Judge Ronald E. Bush of the District of Idaho, Magistrate Judge J. Richard Creatura of the Western 

District of Washington, Magistrate Judges John E. McDermott and David T. Bristow of the Central District of 

California, Magistrate Judge D. Thomas Ferraro of the District of Arizona and District Judge Jacqueline H. Nguyen 

of the Central District of California. Back row: Magistrate Judges Laurel Beeler and Donna M. Ryu of the Northern 

District of California, Bankruptcy Judge Deborah J. Saltzman of the Central District of California, Bankruptcy 

Judge Charles Daniel Novack of the Northern District of California, Magistrate Judge Vijay C. Gandhi of the 

Central District of California, Magistrate Judges Jennifer L. Thurston and Michael J. Seng of the Eastern District of 

California, and Bankruptcy Judge Catherine E. Bauer of the Central District of California.
ninth circuit highlights 33

Court of Appeals Makes Historic 

First Visit to Pocatello

Judges, lawyers, law school students and their professors gathered July 21 at the James R. Browning United States 

Courthouse in San Francisco, California, for a review of noteworthy cases decided by the Supreme Court of the United 

States during its 2010 term. Sponsored by the Northern California chapter of the Federal Bar Association, the review 

featured a panel consisting of, from right, Professor Rory K. Little of the University of California, Hastings College of 

the Law; Circuit Judge Marsha S. Berzon of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; attorney Kristin Linsley 

Myles of Munger, Tolles & Olson; and Professor Anne Joseph O'Connell of the UC Berkeley Law School. All of the 

panelists are former law clerks to Supreme Court justices. Attendees filled one courtroom while others watched a live 

video of the discussion in an overflow courtroom.

Ninth Circuit Hosts Federal Bar Association 

Review of Supreme Court Rulings

The United States Court of Appeals for the 

Ninth Circuit made a bit of history in 2010 

with its first sitting in Pocatello, Idaho. 

Much of the Idaho legal community was 

present when a three-judge panel of the nation’s 

largest and busiest federal appellate court heard oral 

arguments May 24 at the U.S. Courthouse there.

The panel, which consisted of Ninth Circuit Chief 

Judge Alex Kozinski of Pasadena, Senior Judge 

Stephen S. Trott of Boise, Idaho, and Judge N. 

Randy Smith of Pocatello, Idaho, heard arguments in 

appeals of two rulings by the U.S. District Court for 

the District of Idaho. 

The proceeding coincided with an open house 

at the Pocatello courthouse, which had been 

recently remodeled by the U.S. General Services 

Administration. The daylong event concluded with 

an open house and building tours.

Judge Smith welcomed visitors to his new chambers, 

which were included in the courthouse-remodeling 

project. The building also provides chambers for 

visiting judges and offices for the U.S. attorney, 

probation services and others. 

Judge Smith, who has lived in Pocatello since 1982, 

was instrumental in bringing the court to Pocatello, a 

city of some 50,000 residents in the southeast corner 

of the state. 

“For any lawyer practicing in the courts of Idaho, 

having the Ninth Circuit come to Pocatello for a 

hearing is a significant event,” Judge Smith said. “We 

are on the outskirts of the circuit and having the 

court come here reminds everyone that we are a part 

of the circuit.”

While this is its first sitting in Pocatello, the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit previously held 

special sittings at other Idaho locations, including 

Boise, Coeur d’Alene, and Moscow.
34 2010 annual report

The instructions given by a judge 

to a jury and the manner in which 

a trial is conducted are critical 

elements of the judicial process. In 

these areas of law, judges in the trial courts 

of the Ninth Circuit benefit from the work 

of the Jury Instructions Committee, which 

oversees the publication of model criminal 

jury instructions and a jury trial procedures 

manual. 

Jury instructions are models and must be 

reviewed carefully before use in a particular 

case. They are not substitutes for the 

individual research and drafting that may 

be required in a particular case, nor are 

they intended to discourage judges from 

using their own forms and techniques for 

instructing juries. The Jury Instructions 

Committee considers suggestions from 

judges, staff and practitioners about 

possible revisions, additions, and deletions 

and encourages communicating with the 

committee.

In 2010, the committee completed a revision 

of the Manual of Model Criminal Jury 

Instructions. An electronic version was posted 

online in August, and a printed version was 

made available in December. The new edition 

added many new instructions. In addition, 

each existing instruction was thoroughly 

reviewed and revised as needed.

Although there are print editions of both 

the Manual of Model Civil Jury Instructions 

and the Manual of Model Criminal Jury 

Instructions, the online versions are most 

current. The committee continually updates 

the instructions as needed due to changes in 

case law or statutes. The model criminal and 

civil jury instructions, respectively, may be 

accessed online at:

www.ca9.uscourts.gov/9thcir_crim_jury

www.ca9.uscourts.gov/9thcir_civil_jury

The Jury Instructions Committee was reconstituted in 

September 2010 with several new members appointed and a 

new chair named. Stepping down from the committee after 

many years of service were District Judge Anna J. Brown of 

the District of Oregon, the current chair, and District Judges 

David C. Bury of the District of Arizona and Richard G. 

Seeborg of the Northern District of California. Appointed to 

the committee were Chief District Judge Susan Oki Mollway 

of the District of Hawaii and District Judges Cormac J. 

Carney of the Central District of California and Benjamin 

Hale Settle of the Western District of Washington.

Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski selected Senior 

District Judge John W. Sedwick of the District of Alaska 

as the new chair. Continuing members are Senior Circuit 

Judge A. Wallace Tashima of the Ninth Circuit Court of 

Appeals; Senior District Judges Robert H. Whaley of the 

Eastern District of Washington and Thomas J. Whelan of 

the Southern District of California; and Magistrate Judge 

Alicia G. Rosenberg of the Central District of California.

Jury Instructions Committee Fills 

Critical Role

Seated from left to right are District Judges David C. Bury of the 

District of Arizona, Anna J. Brown of the District of Oregon, and 

Richard G. Seeborg of the Northern District of California. Standing 

in the middle from left are Senior District Judge John W. Sedwick of 

the District of Alaska and Magistrate Judge Alicia G. Rosenberg of the 

Central District of California. Standing in the back from left are Senior 

District Judges Thomas J. Whelan of the Southern District of California 

and Robert H. Whaley of the Eastern District of Washington, and Senior 

Circuit Judge A. Wallace Tashima of Pasadena. Not pictured are District 

Judges Cormac J. Carney of the Central District of California and 

Benjamin Hale Settle of the Western District of Washington; and Chief 

District Judge Susan Oki Mollway of the District of Hawaii.
ninth circuit highlights 35

F

ederal courts depend 

heavily on information 

technology to manage 

calendars and dockets, 

to store and retrieve electronic 

documents, and to process 

financial and other transactions. 

The Ninth Circuit Information 

Technology Committee, consisting 

of judges, attorneys and court 

staff, monitors developments 

in the IT field to alert courts 

to promising innovations and 

potential problems.

The Ninth Circuit IT Committee 

is chaired by Chief District Judge 

B. Lynn Winmill of the United 

States District Court for the 

District of Idaho. The committee 

met twice in 2010 to discuss a 

variety of subjects important to 

the technological operations in the 

courts. Topics considered by the 

committee included:

• The cameras in the courtroom 

trial initiative which the Ninth 

Circuit has been pushing the 

Judicial Conference of the U.S. 

to pursue;

• Providing wi-fi access in 

courthouses for attorneys and the 

public;

• Developing recommendations 

for the use of cellphones and 

smartphones in the courthouse;

• Developing recommendations 

for the use of tablet computers by 

judges and others;

• Promoting the establishment 

of effective IT committees at the 

district level to assist in longterm IT planning, budgeting, and 

training at the local level;

• Supporting the IT Training 

Initiative sponsored by the Federal 

Judicial Center (FJC), ensuring 

that every court unit has a local 

trainer;

• Organizing IT awareness 

sessions and training at many 

gathering of judges and lawyers.

For the past two years, the 

committee has scheduled their 

meetings to coincide with the 

annual Ninth Circuit's Technology 

User Group (TUG) Conference. 

This helps to increase the 

presence of judges during the 

conference and provides a forum 

for judges to exchange ideas 

with key IT staff and court unit 

executives. 

IT awareness sessions have been 

offered at the Ninth Circuit 

Judicial Conference and the FJC’s 

Mid-Winter Conference. In 2011, 

the committee hopes to add an IT 

Awareness session to the Ninth 

Circuit new judges’ orientation 

program sponsored by the Office 

of the Circuit Executive. 

Presentations given at past IT 

Awareness sessions include, how 

to use Blackberry, iPhones, iPads, 

netbooks/laptops, remote access 

to the courts via virtual private 

networks (VPN), and proprietary 

systems developed for the federal 

judiciary.

The committee hopes to continue 

its work with drafting technology 

related IT policies for the circuit, 

working closer with the many 

local IT committees within the 

Ninth Circuit, and continue 

working with the Administrative 

Office of the U.S. Courts on 

national IT issues.

IT Committee Keeps Tabs 

on Technology

Seated from left to right are District Judge James L. Robart (WAW); Chief District 

Judge B. Lynn Winmill (ID); Circuit Judge Johnnie B. Rawlinson of Las Vegas; and 

Chief Pretrial Services Officer George Walker (CAC). Standing from left to right are 

Don Vincent, Assistant Circuit Executive for IT; Bankruptcy Judges Frank R. Alley 

(OR) and Paul B. Snyder (WAW); Barry K. Lander, Bankruptcy Court Clerk (CAS); 

Brian Tucek, Systems Manager (AZ); Sue Beitia, District Court Clerk (HI); Daphne 

Keller, Esq.; and District Judge Percy Anderson (CAC). Not Pictured: Circuit Judge 

Sidney R. Thomas, District Judge Timothy M. Burgess (AK), Magistrate Judge 

Robert J. Johnston (NV), and Cathy A. Catterson, Circuit and Court of Appeals 

Executive.
36 2010 annual report

New clerks of court were appointed to 

two district courts and two bankruptcy 

courts in 2010.

Wayne Blackwelder was appointed 

as the clerk of court for the United 

States Bankruptcy Court for the 

Eastern District of California on 

August 16, 2010. He previously 

served for two years as the clerk 

of court for the U.S. Bankruptcy 

Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Prior 

to judicial service, Mr. Blackwelder held various 

management positions in both private industry and 

within government, including Peace Corps and the 

United Nations. He was the Peace Corps’ regional 

manager in the Pacific Northwest from 2002 to 

2008. Mr. Blackwelder received a bachelor’s degree 

in mathematics from the University of Tampa and an 

M.B.A. from the University of Oregon.

Kathleen J. Campbell was 

appointed executive officer/clerk 

of court for the U.S. Bankruptcy 

Court for the Central District of 

California on February 1, 2010. 

Ms. Campbell has been with the 

court for more than 15 years and 

has held various management positions, including 

five years as chief deputy of administration. Ms. 

Campbell left the court in 2006 to accept a position 

as the manager of human resources and risk 

management for the City of Santa Paula in Ventura 

County, California. As the executive officer/clerk 

of court for the Central District, Ms. Campbell 

manages a staff of approximately 300 employees 

with headquarters in Los Angeles and divisional 

offices in the San Fernando Valley, Riverside, Santa 

Ana, and Santa Barbara. She received her B.A. 

from the University of California at Santa Barbara, 

and an M.P.A. from the University of Southern 

California, where she was enrolled in the Judicial 

Administration Program.

Marvel M. Hansbraugh was 

appointed the clerk of court for 

the U.S. District Court for the 

District of Alaska on July 5, 2010. 

Ms. Hansbraugh has worked 

for the federal court in Alaska 

for over 28 years and served 

as an acting clerk prior to her appointment. She 

previously served as chief deputy clerk, supervisor 

of courtroom operations and finance manager. Prior 

to beginning her judicial service, Ms. Hansbraugh 

worked as a paralegal in a law firm in Anchorage, 

Alaska. She completed the Federal Court Leadership 

Program in 2000 and the Public Manager’s Program 

in 2003. Ms. Hansbraugh received her bachelor’s 

degree in political science/law and justice with 

a minor in sociology from Central Washington 

University in Ellensburg, Washington.

William M. McCool was appointed 

the district court executive/

clerk of court for the U.S. District 

Court for the Western District 

of Washington in September 

2010. Prior to his appointment, 

he served as clerk of court for 

the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of 

Florida, from 2002 to 2010. From 1996 to 2002, 

he was the chief deputy clerk for the U.S. District 

Court for the District of Arizona in Tucson. Prior to 

that, Mr. McCool was the court administrator for the 

Glendale City Court in Arizona for five years and was 

a judicial administrator with the Maricopa County 

Justice Courts in Arizona for two years. Mr. McCool 

received his bachelor’s degree from the University 

of Oregon and his master’s degree in judicial 

administration from the University of Denver, 

College of Law. He is past president of the Federal 

Court Clerk’s Association.

New Clerks Take Reins in District, 

Bankruptcy Courts
Space &

Security
38 2010 annual report

The Pioneer Courthouse has been the Portland home 

of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth 

Circuit since 1973. It is the oldest surviving federal 

building in the Pacific Northwest and the second oldest 

courthouse west of the Mississippi River. Authorized during the 

administration of President Ulysses S. Grant, it was designed 

by Alfred B. Mullett, supervising architect of the U.S. Treasury 

Department, and built between 1869 and 1875. Two west wings 

were added in 1905. Originally named the United States Building, 

the structure provided space for the federal courts, the Customs 

Service, the Postal Service and the Internal Revenue Service.

Designed in the classical Italian Renaissance style, the courthouse 

is constructed primarily of Tenino sandstone quarried in 

northwest Washington. Classical pediments adorn each of the 

building’s elevations. The first story has rusticated pilasters 

that flank segmental arched openings with a stone stringcourse 

separating the first floor from the second and third floors. Smooth 

Doric pilasters resting on the stringcourse span the second and 

third floors. Crowning the hipped roof are eight stone chimneys 

and an octagonal wood cupola with arched windows. The interiors 

feature terrazzo floors bordered by marble, oak, and fir casework, 

plaster cornices, and a grand staircase at the north end of the 

main lobby. The two-story courtroom is richly adorned with Doric 

pilasters, a massive ceiling entablature, and the original oak floor. 

On October 22, 1875, District Court Judge Matthew P. Deady 

became the first judge to establish chambers in the new U.S. 

Building. The building saw heavy use through the years and, 

by the 1930s, could no longer support all the functions of the 

federal government. In 1933, the post office and the federal court 

moved to new quarters and the building became vacant. In 1939, 

the government decided to demolish the building and replace it 

Historic Pioneer Courthouse – 

Oldest in the West

Left: The Pioneer 

Courthouse as it 

existed in 1901, 

when it was known 

as the United States 

Building. Right: 

A floor-to-ceiling 

panoramic view 

of the renovated 

courtroom with a 

portrait of Senior 

Circuit Judge 

Edward Leavy.
Space & Security 39

with a 20-story structure. These plans were shelved as 

the country, still in the grips of the Great Depression, 

reluctantly began to prepare for the possibility of war with 

Germany and Japan. When war finally came to America, 

the building was put into service to support military 

recruiting, bond drives, and ration board offices.

By the early 1960s, the Pioneer Courthouse was 

once again vacant and now in a deteriorating state. 

Plans were undertaken to demolish the building and 

construct a parking lot in its place. Through the timely 

intervention of Circuit Judges Richard H. Chambers 

and John F. Kilkenny, supported by U.S. Senator Mark 

Hatfield and Representative Edith Green, the building 

was again saved from the wrecking ball. In 1971, plans 

were developed to renovate and rehabilitate the building 

for use by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In 1973, 

the building was added to the National Register of 

Historic Places and reopened as the Pioneer Courthouse, 

with resident chambers for Judge John F. Kilkenny and 

Judge Alfred T. Goodwin. In 1977, the courthouse was 

designated a National Historic Landmark. In subsequent 

years, resident chambers were established in the building 

for Circuit Judges Otto R. Skopil, Jr., Diarmuid F. 

O’Scannlain, Edward Leavy, and Susan P. Graber. 

In the early 1990s, studies determined that the Pioneer 

Courthouse was extremely vulnerable to catastrophic 

damage in the event of an earthquake. In August 1996, 

the General Services Administration, the Ninth Circuit 

Court of Appeals, SERA Architects of Portland, and a team 

of consultants completed designs for the rehabilitation, 

preservation, and seismic reinforcing of the courthouse. 

Due to funding problems, it was not until May 2001 

that Congress approved the $16.5 million budget for the 

project. Work began in late 2002 and the renovation was 

completed in November 2005.

The primary goal of the rehabilitation of the Pioneer 

Courthouse was to restore, maintain, and preserve 

the bold and elegant design of the original building 

while also integrating modern structural elements, 

and rehabilitating mechanical, electrical, plumbing, 

heating and communications systems. The renovation 

included the preservation and restoration of significant 

historic spaces and the adaptive reuse of other spaces 

in the building. The historic courtroom was restored 

to its original grandeur. The original oak flooring, 

From Top: An illuminated Pioneer Courthouse as seen 

from the adjacent Courthouse Square, and the courthouse 

lobby, which serves as the starting point for the public selfguided tours.
40 2010 annual report

once concealed under wall-to-wall carpeting, was 

repaired and refinished. The plaster walls, ornamental 

woodwork, and original plaster ceilings were 

meticulously repaired and restored. 

The most important element of the renovation 

and restoration of the courthouse was the seismic 

modifications completed beneath the existing structure. 

To improve the building’s ability to survive a major 

earthquake, 75 state-of-the-art friction pendulum groundbase isolators were installed between the foundation 

and the ground. Friction pendulum isolators are sliding 

bearings which incorporate a spherical stainless steel dish. 

A slider, coated with a low-friction material, supports the 

weight of the building and moves within the dish during 

an earthquake. Each isolator weighs 9,000 pounds and 

supports 3 million pounds of building load. This system 

allows the ground to move up to 18 inches in any direction 

relative to the structure, thereby reducing the risk of 

damage to the building and its contents.

As a very visible public project, the renovation of the 

Pioneer Courthouse required community involvement. 

The GSA formed a volunteer Citizens Advisory Panel 

to advise and assist the government in developing a 

public outreach program for the building. The intent 

of this program was to explain to the public the history 

and architecture of the building in the context of the 

community, the region, and the nation. Many of these 

efforts were undertaken by the Pioneer Courthouse 

Historical Society, which developed a series of permanent 

exhibits highlighting the building’s history and 

architecture, and also the American judicial system. 

Today, the courthouse is open to the public Monday 

through Friday, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., and visitors have 

unrestricted access to the public spaces throughout the 

building, including the courtroom and cupola. Between 

6,000 and 8,000 people visit the Pioneer Courthouse 

each year. 

The rehabilitation, renovation, and adaptive reuse of 

the Pioneer Courthouse serve as a model for historic 

courthouse restoration and preservation. This project 

demonstrates that new technologies, which support the 

court’s contemporary and future requirements, can be 

integrated into the structure without compromising its 

historic character and integrity.

From Top: The judges’ conference room, the chambers of 

Circuit Judge Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain, and the historic 

second-floor courtroom.
Space & Security 41

S

pecials guests, and judges 

and staff of the United 

States District Court for the 

Eastern District of California 

gathered July 12 for a groundbreaking 

ceremony marking the beginning of 

construction. Pictured from left to 

right are Jeffrey Neely, GSA acting 

administrator, Pacific Rim Region; 

Martha Johnson, GSA administrator; 

Congressman Jim Costa, California 

District 20; Mayor Harvey Hall, City 

of Bakersfield; and Chief District 

Judge Anthony W. Ishii (also pictured 

below), U.S. District Court for the 

Eastern District of California. The 

$28.5 million funding for the new 

courthouse was made possible 

through the American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act. The new 

courthouse will house a magistrate 

judge, clerk’s office, U.S. Marshals 

office, and U.S. Probation and Pretrial 

Services offices. Construction is 

scheduled to be completed in 2012.

Construction of Bakersfield 

Courthouse Underway

Bakersfield Courthouse

Gross Square Footage: 35,000

Architects: NBBJ (San Francisco)

Completion Date: 2012
42 2010 annual report

Yuma U.S. Courthouse

Gross Square Footage: 56,789

Architects: Ehrlich Architects

Completion Date: 2013

Courthouses in Design Phase

Prince Jonah Kuhio Kalaniana’ole Federal Building

and U.S. Courthouse

Gross Square Footage: 862,269

Architects: Gensler and Associates

Renovation Completion Date: 

Courthouse (Phase I) 2014, Federal Building (Phase II) 2017

Courthouses Under Construction

San Diego U.S. Courthouse

Gross Square Footage: 466,886

Architects: Richard Meier & Partners

Completion Date: 2013

Billings Courthouse

Gross Square Footage: 146,742

Architects: Design/Build ARRA, project run 

with Mortenson Construction & NBBJ (Seattle)

Completion Date: 2012
The Work 

of the

Courts
44 2010 annual report

The United States Court of Appeals for the 

Ninth Circuit reported a slight decline in 

new filings and a significant reduction in 

pending caseload in fiscal year 2010.

New appeals numbered 11,982, down 1.9 percent 

from 2009. The court remained the nation’s busiest 

appellate court with 21.4 percent of all new appeals 

nationally. Appellate filings nationwide numbered 

55,992, down 3.0 percent overall and by as much as 

12.4 percent among the individual circuits.

The court continued to conclude more appeals than 

it received, terminating 13,340 cases in 2010, up 4.1 

percent from the prior year. As result, the court’s 

pending caseload was reduced by 8.2 percent from 

the previous year with 15,142 cases open at year’s 

end.

The downturn in new filings in the Ninth Circuit was 

due primarily to fewer appeals of decisions rendered 

by the U.S. Department of Justice’s Board of 

Immigration Appeals. The BIA reviews actions taken 

by the nation’s immigration judges. In the Ninth 

Circuit, BIA appeals numbered 3,169 in 2010, down 

5.4 percent from the year before.

Breakdown of New Appeals

District courts, which serve as trial courts in the 

federal judicial system, generated 7,759 appeals, 

or 64.8 percent, of the 2010 new filings. Agency 

appeals, which include BIA cases, numbered 3,169, or 

26.4 percent. Original proceedings numbered 739, 

while bankruptcy cases totaled 159.

The Central District of California, the largest and 

busiest court in the circuit, had the greatest number 

of appeals among the district courts. In 2010, the 

Central District reported 2,144 appeals, or 27.6 

percent of the total district court filings. Central 

District filings were up by 65 cases from the prior year.

Also generating more appeals in 2010 were the 

Northern District of California, 950 appeals, up 20.1 

percent; the District of Idaho, 130 appeals, up 6.6 

percent; the District of Montana, 278 appeals, up 

1.5 percent; the District of Nevada, 600 appeals, up 

14.1 percent; and the District of Northern Mariana 

Islands, 16 appeals, up 14.3 percent.

Fewer appeals were generated by the District of 

Alaska, 97 appeals, down by 7 cases; the District 

of Arizona, 730 appeals, down 3.7 percent; the 

Eastern District of California, 1,087 appeals, down 

3.8 percent; the Southern District of California, 554 

cases, down by 10 cases; the District of Guam, 12 

cases, down 50 percent; the District of Hawaii, 123 

cases, down by 9 cases; District of Oregon, 412 cases, 

down by 9 cases; the Eastern District of Washington, 

188 cases, down 13 percent; and the Western District 

of Washington, 438 cases, down 8.4 percent.

Of the appeals originating in the district courts, 

6,104, or 78.7 percent, were civil in nature. Prisoner 

petitions, including those brought against the federal 

government, numbered 3,305, or 42.6 percent of the 

total district court filings. Other private civil filings 

totaled 2,138, or 17.8 percent of new filings.

Criminal appeals numbered 1,655, or 21.3 percent of 

the total, down slightly from 1,682 filings the prior 

year. The circuit had 12.7 percent of criminal appeals 

filed nationally. The most numerous criminal appeals 

involved immigration offenses, 446 filings; drug 

offenses, 440 filings; property offenses, 237 filings; 

fraud, 198 filings; firearms and explosives offenses, 

149 filings; and sex offenses, 140 filings. Violent 

offenses numbered 80, down 20 percent from 2009.

Terminations and Pending Cases

Of the 13,340 appeals closed in 2010, 6,324 were 

terminated on the merits, 6,515 on procedural 

grounds and 501 cases through consolidation. 

Of those cases terminated on the merits, 1,870 

Court of Appeals Remains

the Nation’s Busiest

Caseload Measure

2009

Total

2010

Total

Change

2009-2010

Filings 12,211 11,982 -1.9%

Terminations 12,818 13,340 4.1%

1

Pending Cases 16,500 15,142 -8.2%

1

2009 pending cases revised

Appellate Caseload Profile, 2009-2010 1
the work of the courts 45

 Number of Months

 Ninth Circuit National 

By Stage of Appeal 2009 2010 2009 2010

From Filing of Notice of Appeal to Filing Last Brief 6.4 6.6 5.7 5.5

From Filing of Last Brief to Hearing or Submission 12.0 9.9 4.8 4.4

From Hearing to Final Disposition 1.3 1.3 2.1 2.1

From Submission to Final Disposition 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.6

From Filing Notice of Appeal to Final Disposition 17.9 16.4 12.2 11.7

From Filing in Lower Court to Final Disposition in Appellate Court 37.3 36.4 32.1 30.3

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

3

Median Time Intervals in Cases Terminated After Hearing or Submission

2009-2010

Type of Appeal

2009

Filings

2010

Filings

Change

2009-10

% of 

Circuit

Total

2009

Terminations

2010

Terminations

Change

2009-10

2009

Pending

2010

Pending

Change

2009-10

Civil

U.S. Prisoner

Petitions 539 428 -20.6% 3.6% 423 457 8.0% 575 506 -12.0%

Private Prisoner

Petitions 2,694 2,877 6.8% 24.0% 2,087 2,669 27.9% 3,323 3,430 3.2%

Other U.S. Civil 623 661 6.1% 5.5% 655 691 5.5% 780 707 -9.4%

Other Private 

Civil 2,095 2,138 2.1% 17.8% 2,202 2,216 0.6% 2,530 2,265 -10.5%

Criminal 1,682 1,655 -1.6% 13.8% 1,644 1,712 4.1% 2,010 1,795 -10.7%

Other

Bankruptcy 145 159 9.7% 1.3% 203 172 -15.3% 196 172 -12.2%

Administrative 

Appeals 3,542 3,325 -6.1% 27.7% 4,687 4,651 -0.8% 7,601 6,130 -19.4%

Original

Proceedings 891 739 -17.1% 6.2% 917 772 -15.8% 291 137 -52.9%

Circuit Total 12,211 11,982 -1.9% 12,818 13,340 4.1% 17,306 15,142 -12.5%

National 

Appellate Total 57,740 55,992 -3.0% 60,508 59,526 1.0% 50,564 46,351 -8.3%

Ninth Circuit 

as % of 

National Total 21.1% 21.4% -0.3% 21.2% 22.4% -1.2% 34.2% 32.7% -1.6%

Note: This table includes appeals reopened and remanded as well as original appeals. This table does not include data for the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Beginning in 2007, the category entitled “reopened,” which includes all reopened appeals, has replaced the 

category entitled “reinstated.” Therefore, data on reopened cases for 2007 and thereafter are not comparable to data published previously 

on reinstated cases.

2 Filings, Terminations and Pending Cases by Appeal Type, 2009-2010
46 2010 annual report

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Judges

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Judges in Order of Seniority and Chambers 

Alex Kozinski Pasadena

James R. Browning San Francisco

Alfred T. Goodwin Pasadena

J. Clifford Wallace San Diego

Procter Hug, Jr. Reno

Otto R. Skopil Portland

Mary M. Schroeder Phoenix

Betty Binns Fletcher Seattle

Jerome Farris Seattle

Harry Pregerson Woodland Hills

Arthur L. Alarcón Los Angeles

Dorothy W. Nelson Pasadena

William C. Canby, Jr. Phoenix

Robert Boochever Pasadena

Stephen Reinhardt Los Angeles

Robert R. Beezer Seattle 1

Cynthia Holcomb Hall Pasadena

John T. Noonan, Jr. San Francisco 2

David R. Thompson San Diego

Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain Portland

Edward Leavy Portland

Stephen S. Trott Boise

Ferdinand F. Fernandez Pasadena

Pamela Ann Rymer Pasadena 3

Thomas G. Nelson Boise

Andrew J. Kleinfeld Fairbanks

Michael Daly Hawkins Phoenix

A. Wallace Tashima Pasadena

Sidney R. Thomas Billings

Barry G. Silverman Phoenix

Susan P. Graber Portland

M. Margaret McKeown San Diego

Kim McLane Wardlaw Pasadena

William A. Fletcher San Francisco

Raymond C. Fisher Pasadena

Ronald M. Gould Seattle

Richard A. Paez Pasadena

Marsha S. Berzon San Francisco

Richard C. Tallman Seattle

Johnnie B. Rawlinson Las Vegas

Richard R. Clifton Honolulu

Jay S. Bybee Las Vegas

Consuelo M. Callahan Sacramento

Carlos T. Bea San Francisco

Milan D. Smith, Jr. El Segundo

Sandra S. Ikuta Pasadena

N. Randy Smith Pocatello

Mary H. Murguia Phoenix

1

Deceased February 26, 2011

2

Deceased February 19, 2011

3

Deceased May 4, 2011
the work of the courts 47

were decided after oral arguments and 4,454 after 

submission on the briefs. The majority of cases were 

terminated by the court on the basis of unpublished 

opinions.

Of the appeals terminated on the merits, the most 

common categories were administrative appeals, 

2,221; criminal appeals, 1,166; and private civil, 1,070. 

The reversal rates in these categories were 7.5 percent 

for administrative appeals, 6.8 percent for criminal, 

and 15.9 percent for private civil. 

Most prisoner petitions were terminated on 

procedural grounds. In 2010, 124 petitions involving 

the U.S. government and 855 private petitions were 

decided on the merits. The reversal rates were 6.5 

percent for U.S. cases and 7.3 percent for private cases.

En banc courts, used to resolve intra-circuit conflicts 

or other legal questions of exceptional importance, 

heard 24 cases in 2010. En banc decisions reached by 

the court in 2010 numbered 15, 14 of those following 

oral argument and one without oral argument.

Pending cases numbered 15,142 compared to 16,500 

cases the year before. About 53.9 percent had been 

pending for less than a year and 46.1 percent for 

more than a year.

Median Time Intervals

Median time intervals, which measure how long 

it takes for cases decided on the merits to proceed 

through the appellate process, declined in 2010. The 

median time interval from filing of a notice of appeal 

to final disposition of a case was 16.4 months in 

2010, down from 17.9 months in 2009. The median 

time interval from the filing of a case in a lower court 

to final appellate disposition was 36.4 months, down 

from 37.3 months the year before.

Once an appeal was fully briefed, Ninth Circuit judges 

decided cases fairly quickly. In 2010, the median 

time interval for final disposition remained constant 

at 1.3 months for a case in which oral arguments 

were heard, and .5 months for a case submitted on 

briefs, slightly up from the prior year.

The national median time interval from notice 

of appeal to final disposition by a circuit court of 

appeals was 11.7 months in 2010 compared to 12.2 

months the prior year. The national median time 

interval from the filing of a case in a lower court to 

final disposition by a circuit court was 30.3 months 

compared to 32.1 months in 2009.

Pro Se Filings and Terminations

In 2010, the court received 5,856 pro se appeals, 

down 1.9 percent from the prior year. Pro se filings 

District

Appeals

Total % of Total

Alaska 97 0.8%

Arizona 730 6.1%

C. Calif. 2,144 17.9%

E. Calif. 1,087 9.1%

N. Calif. 950 7.9%

S. Calif. 554 4.6%

Guam 12 0.2%

Hawaii 123 1.0%

Idaho 130 1.1%

Montana 278 2.3%

Nevada 600 5.0%

Northern Mariana Islands 16 0.1%

Oregon 412 3.4%

E. Wash. 188 1.6%

W. Wash. 438 3.7%

Bankruptcy 159 1.3%

Administrative Agencies, Total 3,325 27.7%

 IRS 39 0.3%

 National Labor Relations Board 24 0.2%

 BIA 3,169 26.4%

 Other Administrative Agencies 93 0.8%

Original Proceedings 739 12.6%

Circuit Total 11,982

Note: Total includes reopened and remanded appeals as well 

as original appeals. Administrative agency cases previously 

reported as immigration service (INS) are shown under Board 

of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and U.S. Tax Court is shown 

under IRS.

Source of Appeals and Original 4 Proceedings Commenced, 2010
48 2010 annual report

accounted for 48.9 percent of all new appeals. 

Prisoner petitions, 2,794, and agency appeals, 

1,256, accounted for 69.2 percent of new pro se

filings.

The court terminated 6,324 pro se appeals in 

2010. Of that number, 4,053, or 64.1 percent, 

were closed on procedural grounds, while 2,226 

were terminated on the merits after either oral 

argument or submission on the briefs.

Contributions by Active, Senior and

Visiting Judges

The court ended the year with 26 active circuit 

judges and 21 senior circuit judges. In 2010, 

active circuit judges participated in 60.7 of 

the cases terminated on the merits, down 7.5 

percent from the prior year. Senior circuit 

judges participated in 33.3 percent, while 

visiting judges helped decide 6.0 percent.

In addition to sitting on panels, senior circuit 

judges served on screening and motions 

panels and various administrative court 

committees.

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

2010 1,002 58 24 34

2009 1,014 36 14 22

2008 1,208 31 19 12

2007 1,339 47 22 25

2006 1,310 38 21 17

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals En banc Ballots, 2006-2010 5
the work of the courts 49

District courts serve as trial courts in the 

federal judicial system. Criminal and 

civil filings in the district courts of the 

Ninth Circuit totaled 63,543 filings in 

2010, up 4.2 percent from the previous year. The 

Ninth Circuit had 17.6 percent of all district court 

filings nationally, which numbered 361,323, up 

slightly to 2.3 percent for the year.

Criminal Filings, Terminations and

Pending Cases

District courts in the circuit reported 19,395 criminal 

filings in 2010, up 10.6 percent from the prior year. 

Criminal matters constituted 30.5 percent of the 

circuit’s total district court filings for the year.

Immigration offenses constituted the largest 

category of criminal cases with 8,973 filings, up 16.6 

percent from the prior year and accounting for 46.3 

of the total criminal filings in the circuit. The most 

common immigration offense, improper reentry by 

an alien, numbered 7,338, up 22.7 percent from the 

prior year.

Drug offenses were the second most numerous type 

of case. Drug offense filings numbered 3,641, down 

7.9 percent from the prior year and representing 18.8 

percent of the criminal filings in the circuit. Almost 

45.8 percent of all drug offenses, 1,667 filings, 

involved marijuana. All other drug offenses totaled 

1,974 filings, 

Increases were reported in 12 of 19 categories of 

criminal filings (see Table 7). Large numerical 

increases were seen in fraud with 2,580 filings, up 

25.9 percent; and traffic offenses, with 651 filings, 

up 41.2 percent. Also showing upturns were general 

offenses; regulatory offenses; burglary, larceny 

and theft; assault and other violent offenses; 

embezzlement and other property offenses. 

Homicide filings numbered 47, up 9.3 percent.

Eleven out of 15 district courts in the circuit 

reported increases in criminal filings in 2010. The 

districts of Arizona and Southern California, which 

border Mexico, had the largest criminal caseloads, 

much of it stemming from drug smuggling. The 

District of Arizona reported 6,831 criminal filings, 

up 30 percent from 2009. The Arizona court had 

37.8 percent of all drug offense filings in the circuit 

and ranked second in the nation in drug offenses. 

The Southern District of California reported 4,924 

criminal cases, up 1.5 percent.

Other courts with large criminal caseloads were the 

Western District of Washington with 1,132 cases, up 

21.3 percent; the Eastern District of California with 

989 cases, up 2.8 percent; the District of Nevada with 

691 cases, up 25.2 percent; the District of Oregon 

with 678 cases, up 2.6 percent; the District of Hawaii 

with 545 cases, up 33.3 percent; and the Eastern 

District of Washington with 397 cases, up 11.2 

percent.

Criminal case filings decreased in the Central District 

of California with 1,418 filings, down 7.6 percent; 

the Northern District of California with 832 filings, 

down 20.3 percent; the District of Montana with 

333 filings, down 8 percent; and the District of Idaho 

with 273 filings, down .7 percent.

The District of Guam had 73 criminal case filings, an 

increase of 9 percent, while the District of Northern 

Mariana Islands had 43, up 138.2 percent.

The district courts of the Ninth Circuit terminated 

19,699 criminal cases in 2010, up 11.9 percent the 

prior year. The number of pending criminal cases 

reported at the end of the year was 15,159, down 2 

percent from 2009.

Civil Filings, Terminations and Pending

Cases

New civil filings in the district courts numbered 

44,148 in 2010, up 1.6 from the prior year. The 

circuit accounted for 15.6 percent of the 282,895 

civil filings in the district courts nationally in 2010. 

Civil filings increased nationally by 2.4 percent over 

the previous year.

Private civil cases numbered 36,662 and accounted 

for 83 percent of all new civil filings in district 

courts of the circuit. The U.S. government acted as 

a plaintiff or defendant in the remaining 17 percent 

Workload Rises in Federal Trial 

Courts of the Circuit
50 2010 annual report

Caseload Measure

2009

Total

2010

Total

1

Change 

2009-2010

Civil Filings 43,456 44,148 1.6%

Criminal Filings 17,534 19,395 10.6%

Total Filings 60,990 63,543 4.2%

Civil Terminations 41,540 44,047 6.0%

Criminal Terminations 17,607 19,699 11.9%

Total Terminations 59,147 63,746 7.8%

Pending Civil Cases 40,727 40,828 0.2%

Pending Criminal Cases 15,463 15,159 -2.0%

Total Pending Cases 56,190 55,987 -0.4%

Civil Case Termination Index 

(in months) 11.8 11.1 -5.9%

Criminal Case Termination Index 

(in months) 10.5 9.2 -12.4%

Overall Case Termination Index 11.4 10.5 -7.9%

Median Months (from filing to 

disposition) Civil Cases 7.3 7.3 0.0%

Median Months (from filing to 

disposition) Criminal Defendants 5.5 5.2 -5.5%

Median Months National Total 

(from filing to disposition) 

Civil Cases 8.9 7.6 -14.6%

Median Months National Total 

(from filing to disposition) 

Criminal Defendants 6.5 6.3 -3.1%

1

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

previous period.

Note: Pending totals exclude each case in which the defendant has been a 

fugitive since before Oct. 1, 2009. However, no case with multiple defendants 

has been excluded unless all defendants in the case have been fugitives since 

before Oct. 1, 2009. This table includes all felony and Class A misdemeanor 

cases, but includes only those petty offense cases that have been assigned to 

district judges. Median time intervals computed only for 10 or more cases and 

only for 10 or more defendants. This table includes defendants in all felony and 

Class A misdemeanor cases, but includes only those petty offense defendants 

whose cases have been assigned to district judges. Median time intervals 

computed from the date case was filed to the date the defendant was either 

found not guilty or was sentenced.

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

Filed, Terminated and Pending, 2009-2010 6

of the new filings. Prisoner petitions 

totaled 9,731 or 26.5 percent of all new 

private civil cases which increased to 

3.2 percent in 2010. 

Other major categories of new private 

civil filings were civil rights, 5,390 cases 

or 14.7 percent; contracts, 4,345 cases 

or 11.9 percent; labor suits, 2,657 cases 

or 7.2 percent; real property, 2,593 or 

7.1 percent; and copyright and patent 

trademark, 2,520 cases or 6.9 percent.

Civil filings in which the government 

was a party numbered 7,486. Social 

security cases were most numerous, 

2,726 cases or 36.4 percent of the total. 

Other major categories were prisoner 

petitions 1,223 cases or 16.3 percent, 

and contracts, 713 cases or 9.5 percent.

Among the 15 districts in the circuit, 

nine reported increased civil filings in 

2010. The Central District of California 

had the largest civil caseload with 

13,850 new filings, up 1.8 percent from 

2009. Following were the Northern 

District of California, 6,092 cases, 

up .5 percent; the Eastern District 

of California, 5,842, up 2.5 percent; 

the District of Arizona, 3,756 cases, 

up 3.5 percent; the Western District 

of Washington, 2,927 cases, up 7.6 

percent; the District of Oregon, 2,332 

cases, up 8.1 percent; the Eastern 

District of Washington, 744 cases, up 

5.4 percent; the District of Hawaii, 742 

cases, up 19.3 percent; and the District 

of Idaho, 710 cases, up 6.9 percent.

Civil filings declined in the districts of 

Alaska, Southern District of California, 

Guam, Montana, Nevada, and the 

Northern Mariana Islands. 

Civil case terminations in the Ninth 

Circuit numbered 44,047, up 6 percent 
the work of the courts 51

AK AZ

C. 

Calif.

E. 

Calif.

N. 

Calif.

S. 

Calif. GU HI ID MT NMI NV OR

E. 

Wash.

W. 

Wash.

2009

Total

2010

Total

Change

2009- 10

Violent 

Offenses

Homicide 0 30 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 8 0 0 1 1 1 43 47 9.3%

Robbery 4 15 28 10 13 16 0 8 2 1 0 28 37 1 6 214 169 -21.0%

Assault 2 107 21 9 6 19 2 4 8 27 0 18 4 1 14 213 242 13.6%

Other 0 18 8 4 4 5 0 0 2 9 1 7 4 6 4 55 72 30.9%

Property

Offenses

Burglary, 

Larceny & 

Theft 7 55 78 44 19 9 22 21 3 8 0 16 29 4 170 423 485 14.7%

Embezzlement 9 13 7 8 7 11 0 1 2 8 0 5 4 1 14 85 90 5.9%

Fraud 17 1,272 281 88 146 381 15 32 26 18 4 134 63 32 71 2,049 2,580 25.9%

Forgery & 

Counterfeiting 1 8 40 9 5 3 1 1 5 0 1 5 6 7 7 108 99 -8.3%

Other 0 3 7 2 2 1 0 0 2 5 0 1 3 2 9 27 37 37.0%

Drug Offenses

Marijuana 0 1,107 14 87 16 333 0 5 1 5 0 1 25 10 63 2,087 1,667 -20.1%

All Other 

Drugs 55 271 149 112 97 721 14 64 54 93 9 107 72 50 106 1,867 1,974 5.7%

Firearms and

Explosives 

Offenses 17 143 61 52 88 46 1 15 32 36 1 88 81 70 81 880 812 -7.7%

Sex Offenses 12 82 50 61 25 46 0 13 17 61 0 38 38 11 31 521 485 -6.9%

Justice 

System 

Offenses 2 45 11 10 20 31 0 0 1 7 0 3 4 6 10 186 150 -19.4%

Immigration

Offenses

Improper 

Alien Reentry 10 3,309 507 423 272 2,189 1 0 102 20 0 195 68 188 54 5,979 7,338 22.7%

Other 1 251 30 1 5 1,040 1 0 2 0 21 4 217 2 60 1,714 1,635 -4.6%

General 

Offenses 2 22 32 20 14 17 3 133 2 13 0 4 4 0 83 209 349 67.0%

Regulatory 

Offenses 22 77 79 43 34 53 1 20 9 14 6 35 18 5 24 312 440 41.0%

Traffic 

Offenses 2 3 14 6 59 1 12 228 0 0 0 2 0 0 324 461 651 41.2%

All Offenses 

Total 163 6,831 1,418 989 832 4,924 73 545 273 333 43 691 678 397 1,132 17,433 19,322 10.8%

Note: This table includes all felony and Class A misdemeanor cases but includes only those petty offense cases that have 

been assigned to district judges.

Ninth Circuit District Courts - Types of Criminal Cases Commenced, by Major Offense 

and District (Excluding Transfers), 2009-2010 7
52 2010 annual report

from 41,540 in 2009. Pending 

civil cases totaled 40,828, a slight 

increase of .2 percent.

Case Processing Times

Case processing times in the 

district courts of the Ninth 

Circuit improved in 2010. The 

Case Termination Index, which 

computes how long it would take 

to clear the pending caseload 

if the current termination rate 

remained constant, was 10.5 

months in 2010, down from 11.4 

the previous year.

The median time from filing to 

disposition for civil cases in the 

Ninth Circuit remained constant 

at 7.3 percent. The national 

median time for civil cases 

decreased to 7.6 months in 2010 

compared with 8.9 months in 

2009.

For criminal cases, the median 

time from filing to disposition in 

the Ninth Circuit was 5.2 months 

compared to 5.5 months the year 

before. The national median time 

was 6.3 months, down from 6.5 

months in 2009.

Unweighted Filings Per Judgeship Weighted Filings Per Judgeship

District

Authorized

Judgeships Civil Criminal

Supervised 

Release 

Hearings

2010

Total Civil Criminal

Supervised

Release 

Hearings

2009 

Weighted

Total

2010

Weighted

Total

Change

2009-2010

Alaska 3 111 70 3.33 185 121 63 0.52 205 184 -10.2%

Arizona 13 264 603 119.31 986 280 357 16.72 609 653 7.2%

C. Calif. 28 476 74 39.89 590 537 59 5.64 622 602 -3.2%

E. Calif. 6 943 231 50.67 1,225 941 173 7.09 1,097 1,122 2.3%

N. Calif. 14 416 72 45.07 533 532 54 6.41 607 593 -2.3%

S. Calif. 13 212 430 121.08 763 250 263 17.01 539 530 -1.7%

Hawaii 4 181 162 42.25 385 215 81 6.13 280 302 7.9%

Idaho 2 345 197 33.50 575 397 172 4.93 532 574 7.9%

Montana 3 168 132 59.33 360 180 131 9.24 368 320 -13.0%

Nevada 7 423 121 36.71 581 494 103 5.70 577 603 4.5%

Oregon 6 379 135 54.83 569 403 104 7.70 481 515 7.1%

E. Wash. 4 172 117 122.50 411 178 92 17.25 268 287 7.1%

W. Wash. 7 402 187 44.71 634 471 102 6.56 538 580 7.8%

Circuit 

Total 110 4,492 2,531 773.18 7,797 4,999 1,754 110.90 6,723 6,865 2.1%

Circuit 

Mean

*** 346 195 59.48 600 385 135 8.53 517 528 2.1%

Circuit 

Median

*** 345 135 45.07 575 397 103 6.56 538 574 6.7%

National 

Mean

*** 319 145 33.53 497 341 115 5.42 443 461 4.1%

Note: Case weights are based on the 2003-2004 district court case weighting study conducted by the Federal Judicial Center. 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 felony and Class A misdemeanor cases, but includes only those petty offense defendants whose 

cases have been assigned to district judges. Remands and reopens for criminal defendants are excluded. This table excludes data for the 

territorial courts. Data are reported for supervised release and probation hearings (both evidentiary and non-evidentiary) previously not 

presented in this table. Data are obtained from the monthly reports of trials and other court activities conducted by resident and visiting 

judges. Due to rounding, subtotals for weighted and unweighted civil, criminal, and revocation filings may not equal totals for weighted 

and unweighted filings. 

8

U.S. District Courts: Weighted and Unweighted Filings Per Authorized Judgeship, 2009-2010
the work of the courts 53

Bankruptcy filings in the Ninth 

Circuit rose 28.8 percent in 2010 

with 399,343 new cases reported. 

There were 89,000 more bankruptcy 

filings than in 2009. Filings were up in 13 

of the 15 judicial districts of the circuit with 

the biggest increases reported by bankruptcy 

courts in Arizona, California and Washington.

The Central District of California, which 

includes the Los Angeles metropolitan area, 

led the nation in bankruptcy filings. The 

court reported 138,585 new filings, up 

42.2 percent from 2009. Chapter 7 filings 

numbered 106,627, up 42.1 percent. Chapter 

13 filings numbered 30,783, up 43.8 percent. 

Of the new cases, 133,116 were nonbusiness 

filings and 5,469 were business filings. 

Chapter 7 filings accounted for 76.8 percent 

of nonbusiness filings.

Similar numbers were reported by 

bankruptcy courts elsewhere in California. 

The Eastern District of California, which 

includes Sacramento and Fresno, received 

54,389 new filings in 2010, up 23.5 percent. 

The court’s Chapter 7 filings rose to 21.2 

percent to 44,194 filings, while Chapter 13 

filings increased 35.1 percent to 9,910 filings. 

Nonbusiness filings numbered 52,910 and 

business filings 1,479. Chapter 7 filings 

accounted for 81.5 percent of the total 

nonbusiness filings in the district.

The Northern District of California, which 

takes in San Francisco and San Jose, reported 

38,632 filings, up 28.6 percent from 2009. 

Chapter 7 filings increased by 26.9 percent 

to 25,597, while Chapter 13 filings rose 32.3 

percent to 12,601 filings. Nonbusiness and 

business filings numbered 36,990 and 1,642, 

respectively. Chapter 7 made up 66.1 percent of 

the nonbusiness filings.

Bankruptcy filings in the Southern District of 

California totaled 23,509 cases, up 21.9 percent 

from 2009. Chapter 7 filings numbered 18,888, 

Poor Economy Produces New Wave 

of Bankruptcy Filings

Caseload Measure 2009 2010

Change

2009-2010

Filings

 Business Chapter 7 9,708 10,680 10.0%

 Business Chapter 11 2,534 2,762 9.0%

 Business Chapter 12 77 126 63.6%

 Business Chapter 13 950 988 4.0%

 Nonbusiness Chapter 7 230,989 299,231 29.5%

 Nonbusiness Chapter 11 505 926 83.4%

 Nonbusiness Chapter 13 65,239 84,621 29.7%

 Circuit Total 310,002 399,334 28.8%

Terminations 228,462 361,652 58.3%

1

Pending Cases 263,805 301,506 14.3%

Note: (1) 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 2009

Central Calif. (Chapter 15 = 2); Southern Calif. (Chapter 15 = 3); Hawaii 

(Chapter 15 = 1); Nevada (Chapter 15 = 1); Western Wash. (Chapter 9 = 

1; Chapter 15 = 18)

Fiscal Year 2010

Arizona (Chapter 15 = 3); Central Calif. (Chapter 15 = 2); Eastern Calif. 

(Chapter 9 = 1); Hawaii (Chapter 15 = 1); Idaho (Chapter 9 = 1); Western 

Wash. (Chapter 15 = 1)

Due to differences among districts in reporting intra-district transfers, 

the total provided above for cases pending on September 30, 2010, may 

not equal the number obtained by adding totals for cases pending at the 

end of the prior period plus cases filed during the current period, then 

subtracting cases terminated during the current period. 

1

2009 pending cases revised

Business and Nonbusiness Bankruptcy Cases 

Commenced, by Chapter of the U.S. Bankruptcy 

Code, 2009-2010 9
54 2010 annual report

an increase of 17.3 percent, while Chapter 13 

filings increased 46.3 percent in 2010. Chapter 

7 nonbusiness filings numbered 18,358, up 18.1 

percent and made up 80.4 percent of the total 

nonbusiness filings in the district. 

Within the circuit, the District of Arizona reported 

the second largest increase in caseload percentagewise, up 36.1 percent with 42,216 new filings. 

Chapter 7 filings were 34,726, up 36.5 percent, while 

Chapter 13 filings rose 35.2 percent to 6,789 filings. 

The court had 40,507 nonbusiness filings and 1,709 

business filings. Chapter 7 made up 83.1 percent of 

the district’s total nonbusiness filings.

The Western District of Washington experienced an 

18.8 percent increase with 26,671 filings in 2010. 

Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 filings totaled 20,627 and 

5,749, respectively. Nonbusiness and business filings 

were 25,743 and 928. Chapter 7 accounted for 77.6 

percent of nonbusiness filings.

The District of Nevada reported 30,637 bankruptcy 

filings, up 11.2 percent from 2009. Chapter 7 

filings increased 15.9 percent to 22,931 filings, 

while Chapter 13 filings decreased 2.2 percent to 

7,221. Chapter 7 made up 75 percent of the total 

nonbusiness filings.

The District of Oregon reported 20,460 new 

filings, up 19 percent from 2009. Chapter 7 filings 

totaled 16,062, up 20.7 percent, while Chapter 7 

nonbusiness numbered 15,643, up 21.6 percent from 

the prior year.

The districts of Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana and 

Eastern Washington also experienced increases in 

filings for fiscal year 2010. The Idaho court reported 

8,392 filings, up 16.5 percent compared to the prior 

year with 7,203 cases. In Alaska, filings rose 21.3 

percent to 1,132; Hawaii had 3,862 cases, up 31.3 

percent; Montana’s filings were up 22.1 percent to 

3,167 cases, and Eastern Washington had 7,471 

cases, up 18.8 percent.

The only districts reporting decreased filings are the 

District of Guam with 211 filings, slightly down .5 

percent and the District of Northern Mariana Islands 

with 9 filings, down 18.2 percent from last year with 

only 11 reported cases.

District

2009

Total

 2010 

Total

Change

2009-2010

Alaska 933 1,132 21.3%

Arizona 31,017 42,216 36.1%

C. Calif. 97,481 138,585 42.2%

E. Calif. 44,023 54,389 23.5%

N. Calif. 30,052 38,632 28.6%

S. Calif. 19,282 23,509 21.9%

Guam 212 211 -0.5%

Hawaii 2,941 3,862 31.3%

Idaho 7,203 8,392 16.5%

Montana 2,593 3,167 22.1%

Nevada 27,560 30,637 11.2%

N. Mariana Is. 11 9 -18.2%

Oregon 17,200 20,460 19.0%

E. Wash 7,070 7,471 5.7%

W. Wash. 22,450 26,671 18.8%

Circuit Total 310,028 399,343 28.8%

Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Courts

2009-2010 10
the work of the courts 55

The Ninth Circuit 

Bankruptcy Appellate 

Panel (BAP) operates 

under the authority of 

the Judicial Council of the Ninth 

Circuit. Bankruptcy judges are 

appointed to the BAP by the 

chief judge of the circuit. They 

serve seven-year terms and may 

be reappointed to an additional 

three-year term. BAP judges are 

precluded from hearing matters 

arising from their own districts.

The BAP is authorized seven 

bankruptcy judges, but has left 

one seat vacant since 2003 due 

to a reduced workload. The BAP 

has seen an increase in new filings 

each of the past two years. If the 

trend continues, it may request 

that the vacant seat be filled.

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

For fiscal year 2010, the BAP 

received 783 new appeals, up 24.9 

percent from the prior fiscal year. 

The BAP handled 51 percent of 

all bankruptcy appeals brought 

during the year; district courts 

heard the remainder. Historically, 

the BAP has handled between 

49 percent and 60 percent of 

all appeals. Table 12 shows 

bankruptcy appeal filings for the 

last ten years, and reflects that 

total annual filings increased in 

calendar year 2009 and fiscal year 

2010 from an all-time low in CY 

2008. Table 11 shows bankruptcy 

appeal filings by district for fiscal 

year 2010.

Dispositions

The BAP terminated 410 appeals 

in fiscal year 2010. Of those, 107 

appeals were merits terminations. 

Oral argument was held in 97 

appeals, and 10 appeals were 

submitted on briefs. Of the 

107 merits decisions, 33 were 

published opinions. The reversal 

rate was 18 percent. The median 

time for an appeal decided on the 

merits was 8.3 months. Of the 

remaining 303 closed cases, two 

were terminated by consolidation 

and 89 were transferred to the 

district courts after appellee 

elections or in the interest of 

justice. The remaining 212 

closed appeals were terminated 

on procedural grounds, such 

as for lack of prosecution, lack 

of jurisdiction, or voluntary 

dismissal. The BAP ended fiscal 

year 2010 with 204 appeals 

pending.

Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Sees 

Caseload Rise Again

The Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy 

Appellate Panel consists of, seated 

from left, Bankruptcy Judges Randall 

L. Dunn of the District of Oregon, 

Jim D. Pappas of the District of Idaho 

(chair of the BAP), Meredith A. Jury 

of the Central District of California; 

and standing from left, Bankruptcy 

Judges Eileen W. Hollowell of the 

District of Arizona, Bruce A. Markell 

of the District of Nevada, and Chief 

Bankruptcy Judge Ralph B. Kirscher 

of the District of Montana.
56 2010 annual report

Appeals to the Ninth Circuit

Decisions of the BAP or a district court may be 

appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for 

second-level appellate review. In fiscal year 2010, 

151 second-level appeals were filed. Of these, 61 

were appeals from decisions by the BAP and 90 

were from decisions by the district courts. Thus, of 

the 410 appeals that were disposed of by the BAP, 

roughly 85 percent were fully resolved, with only 

about 15 percent seeking second-level review.

New BAP Judge and New BAP Chief Judge

In May 2010, Chief Bankruptcy Judge Ralph B. 

Kirscher of the District of Montana was appointed 

to a seven-year term on the BAP, replacing Northern 

District of California Bankruptcy Judge Dennis 

Montali, who completed a ten-year term serving as 

the BAP’s chief judge during his final year of BAP 

service. Bankruptcy Judge Jim D. Pappas of the 

District of Idaho succeeded Judge Montali as the 

BAP’s chief judge.

Year

Appeals 

Totals

Raw Appeals

Received by 1

BAP

Net 

Appeals

2

BAP

Net Appeals

District 

3

Court

Election 

4

Rate

CY 2001 844 631 470 374 44%

CY 2002 904 673 527 377 42%

CY 2003 818 649 417 401 49%

CY 2004 869 646 473 396 46%

CY 2005 764 521 420 344 45%

CY 2006 735 477 374 361 49%

CY 2007 658 479 379 279 42%

CY 2008 542 348 265 277 51%

CY 2009 656 421 332 324 49%

5

FY 2010 783 481 396 387 49%

Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appeal Filings, 2001-2010 12

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 appeal heard in district court.

5

The use of fiscal year numbers was 

requested for this report.

District

Bankruptcy 

Appellate Panel 1District Court Total

Alaska 3 7 10

Arizona 56 38 94

C. Calif. 166 129 295

E. Calif. 48 38 86

N. Calif. 41 63 104

S. Calif. 9 4 13

Hawaii 2 8 10

Idaho 5 5 10

Montana 9 6 15

Nevada 16 36 52

Oregon 7 7 14

E. Wash. 2 14 16

W. Wash. 32 31 63

Totals 396 (51%) 386 (49%) 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 (“AOUSC Table 

B-23”). The numbers for bankruptcy appeals to the BAP are 

calculated based on data from AOUSC Table B-23 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). The BAP numbers exclude all such appeals.

New Bankruptcy Appeal Filings, 2010 11
the work of the courts 57

Magistrate judges 

make significant 

contributions to the 

work of the federal 

district courts. In 2010, 102 fulltime and 11 part-time magistrate 

judges and recalled magistrate 

judges were serving in the Ninth 

Circuit. They assisted district 

judges in a wide range of judicial 

matters, including presiding over 

preliminary proceedings, trial 

jurisdiction cases, civil consent 

cases, other duties related to 

criminal and civil matters, and 

reviewing prisoner petitions.

Magistrate judges disposed of 

a combined 230,638 judicial 

matters during the year, up 10.1 

percent from 2009. Increases 

were reported in 21 categories of 

dispositions.

The largest category numerically 

was preliminary proceedings, 

which numbered 92,780 in 

2010, up 3.9 percent. Initial 

appearances, arraignments, 

detention hearings and warrants 

for searches and arrests made 

up the bulk of the proceedings. 

The largest increase within 

the category was preliminary 

examinations, up 14.4 percent.

Additional duties related to 

criminal matters numbered 42,500 

in 2010, up 28.2 percent. This 

category includes pretrial motions 

and conferences, taking of guilty 

pleas, hearings on probation 

revocation and supervised release, 

and evidentiary hearings. Pretrial 

conference increased to 16,915 in 

2010, up 92.3 percent from the 

prior year.

Additional duties related to civil 

matters declined slightly with 

27,554 dispositions reported, 

down 1.3 percent. Motions, 

pretrial conferences and 

settlement conferences made up 

the bulk of this work.

Trial jurisdiction cases, which 

include Class A misdemeanors 

and petty offenses, increased 

to 42,343, up 16 percent. Petty 

offenses numbered 39,453, up 

16.4 percent.

Civil consent cases, in which a 

magistrate judge presides at the 

consent of the parties, numbered 

3,695 in 2010, up 22.5 percent. 

The great majority of cases were 

disposed of without trial. 

Prisoner petitions increased by 

13.1 percent to 6,410 in 2010. 

State habeas and civil rights claims 

made up the bulk of this work.

New Magistrate Judges

and Governance

Eight new full-time magistrate 

judges were sworn into office over 

the course of the year. They were 

Laurel Beeler, Paul S. Grewal, and 

Donna M. Ryu of the Northern 

District of California; Jay C. 

Gandhi of the Central District of 

California; Kendall J. Newman, 

Sheila K. Oberto and Michael J. 

Seng of the Eastern District of 

California; and Bernard Skomal 

of the Southern District of 

California.

Magistrate Judge David K. 

Duncan of the District of Arizona 

is chair of the Magistrate Judges 

Executive Board and serves as an 

official observer at meetings of 

the Judicial Council of the Ninth 

Circuit. He succeeded Magistrate 

Judge Karen L. Strombom 

whose term as chair of the board 

expired in September 2010. New 

members of the board in 2010 

include Magistrate Judges Jan 

M. Adler of the Southern District 

of California, Dennis J. Hubel of 

the District of Oregon, Joseph C. 

Spero of the Northern District 

of California, and Mary Alice 

Theiler of the Western District of 

Washington.

Members of the Magistrate Judges 

Executive Board participated in 

the orientation of new magistrate 

judges and discussed chambers 

management, evidentiary matters, 

search warrant issues, and the 

history of the Ninth Circuit’s 

Magistrate Judges Executive Board. 

Also included in the discussion was 

the crisis intervention programs 

for defendants charged with 

possession of child pornography 

developed with U.S. Attorneys and 

Federal Public Defenders offices in 

the districts of Central California, 

Northern California, and Western 

Washington. 

Educational Programs

At the 2010 Ninth Circuit 

Judicial Conference in Maui, 

Hawaii, the Magistrate Judges 

Education program featured a 

panel discussion on the growing 

challenges on privacy rights as 

technology thrives. Panelists 

included Ovie L. Carroll, director, 

Cybercrime Lab, United States 

Department of Justice, Computer 

Crime and Intellectual Property 

Magistrate Judges Keep Pace 

with Growing Workload
58 2010 annual report

1

Before 2000, category included contested motions 

only. Beginning in 2000, uncontested motions were 

added.

2

Before 2000, category did not include status 

conferences. Beginning in 2000, status conferences 

were added.

3

Category includes mental competency hearings, 

motion hearings, and writs.

4

Category includes fee applications, summary jury 

trials, and motion hearings. Beginning in 2006, early 

neutral evaluations were added.

5

Category includes material witness hearings and 

attorney appointment hearings.

6

Before 2000, this category included seizure/

inspection warrants and orders of entry; judgement 

debtor exams; extradition hearings; contempt 

proceedings; Criminal Justice Act fee applications; 

naturalization proceedings; grand/other jury returns; 

civil and criminal IRS enforcement proceedings; 

calendar calls; and voir dire. Beginning in 2000, civil 

and criminal other jury matters and international 

prisoner transfer proceedings were added.

Section; Mitch Dembin, assistant U.S. 

attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern 

District of California; Steven Kalar, senior 

litigator, Federal Public Defender’s Office, 

Northern District of California; and Ninth 

Circuit Judge M. Margaret McKeown, 

chair, Judicial Conference of the U.S., 

Committee on Codes of Conduct. Judge 

McKeown discussed issues that can arise 

when judges and their staff partake in 

online social networking. Magistrate Judge 

Dennis L. Beck, U.S. District Court of the 

Eastern District of California, served as 

moderator.

Activity

2009

Total

2010

Total

Change

2009-2010

Total Matters 209,464 230,638 10.1%

Preliminary Proceedings 89,293 92,780 3.9%

 Search Warrants 9,711 9,681 -0.3%

 Arrest Warrants 6,814 7,057 3.6%

 Summonses 1,124 1,181 5.1%

 Initial Appearances 23,738 25,318 6.7%

 Preliminary Examinations 6,486 7,418 14.4%

 Arraignments 18,238 19,208 5.3%

 Detention Hearings 13,790 13,917 0.9%

 Bail Reviews/Nebbia Hearings 1,903 1,875 -1.5%

 5Other 7,489 7,125 -4.9%

Trial Jurisdiction Cases 36,503 42,343 16.0%

 Class A Misdemeanors 2,619 2,890 10.3%

 Petty Offenses 33,884 39,453 16.4%

Civil Consent Cases 3,016 3,695 22.5%

 Without Trial 2,961 3,642 23.0%

 Jury Trial 42 41 -2.4%

 Nonjury Trial 13 12 -7.7%

Additional Duties

 Criminal 33,141 42,500 28.2%

 1 Motions 636(b)(1)(A) 11,950 12,109 1.3%

 Motions 636(b)(1)(B) 409 293 -28.4%

 Evidentiary Proceedings 191 160 -16.2%

 2Pretrial Conferences 8,795 16,915 92.3%

 Probation Revocation and

 Supervised Release Hearings 745 1,032 38.5%

 Guilty Plea Proceedings 9,251 10,440 12.9%

 3Other 1,800 1,551 -13.8%

 Civil 27,923 27,554 -1.3%

 Settlement Conferences 3,165 2,833 -10.5%

 2

Other Pretrial Conferences 3,829 4,296 12.2%

 1 Motions 636(b)(1)(A) 15,453 14,983 -3.0%

 Motions 636(b)(1)(B) 958 1,559 62.7%

 Evidentiary Proceedings 33 78 136.4%

 Social Security 498 522 4.8%

 Special Master References 67 7 -89.6%

 4Other 3,920 3,276 -16.4%

 Prisoner Petitions 5,667 6,410 13.1%

 State Habeas 3,082 3,543 15.0%

 Federal Habeas 354 364 2.8%

 Civil Rights 2,212 2,468 11.6%

 Evidentiary Proceedings 19 35 84.2%

6

Miscellaneous Matters 13,921 15,356 10.3%

Matters Disposed of by Ninth Circuit 13 Magistrate Judges, 2009-2010
the work of the courts 59

F

ederal public defenders 

and community defenders 

in the Ninth Circuit saw 

their caseloads increase in 

2010. Defenders working in the 

districts of Arizona, Oregon and 

Southern California reported the 

largest percentage increases.

New defender cases nationally 

numbered 118,094, down 4.1 

percent from the prior fiscal year. 

Ninth Circuit defenders, however, 

reported an increase of 3.7 

percent, opening 31,691 new cases 

in 2010. 

New cases were most numerous 

in the circuit’s two border courts. 

The District of Arizona led all 

offices with 10,481 new cases 

in 2010, up 12.6 percent from 

9,307 in 2009. Of Arizona’s new 

cases, 9,410 or 89.8 percent of 

the total were criminal in nature, 

many of them involving illegal 

Caseloads Rise for Federal 

Public Defenders

District

Opened

2009

Opened

2010

Change

2009-2010

Closed

2009

Closed

2010

Change

2009-2010

Pending

2010

Alaska 296 296 0.0% 329 292 -11.2% 107

Arizona 9,307 10,481 12.6% 9,169 10,419 13.6% 1,288

C. Calif. 3,546 3,436 -3.1% 3,542 3,587 1.3% 1,391

E. Calif. 2,037 2,102 3.2% 2,037 2,003 -1.7% 1,108

N. Calif. 1,274 1,147 -10.0% 1,198 1,165 -2.8% 500

1

S. Calif. 6,853 7,259 5.9% 5,946 6,836 15.0% 2,929

Guam 127 115 -9.4% 123 118 -4.1% 72

Hawaii 550 514 -6.5% 553 458 -17.2% 526

1

Idaho 319 302 -5.3% 330 319 -3.3% 136

1

Montana 610 562 -7.9% 634 609 -3.9% 222

Nevada 1,254 1,043 -16.8% 1,122 1,146 2.1% 707

Oregon 1,465 1,554 6.1% 1,523 1,587 4.2% 917

1

E. Wash. 876 847 -3.3% 862 793 -8.0% 344

W. Wash. 2,038 2,033 -0.2% 1,948 2,176 11.7% 506

Circuit Total 30,552 31,691 3.7% 29,316 31,508 7.5% 10,753

National Total 123,195 118,094 -4.1% 123,055 119,118 -3.2% 44,165

Circuit Total as % 

of National Total 24.8% 26.8% 2.0% 23.8% 26.5% 2.6% 24.3%

1

Community Defender Organizations: In addition to handling criminal defenses and appeals, public defenders are assigned 

to court-directed prisoner and witness representations, bail/pre-sentencing, and probation and parole revocation hearings. 

Eastern Washington and Idaho are combined into one organization. Northern Mariana Islands is not served by a defender 

organization.

Federal Defender Organizations: Summary of Representations by District, 2009-2010 15

Cases 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Change

2009-2010

Opened 25,779 28,676 29,700 30,552 31,691 3.7%

Closed 25,795 28,253 29,233 29,316 31,508 7.5%

Pending 8,471 8,880 9,340 10,580 10,753 1.6%

Federal Defender Organizations: 14 Cases Opened, Closed and Pending, 2006-2010
60 2010 annual report

immigration. New cases opened in 

the Southern District of California 

totaled 7,259, up 5.9 percent from 

the prior year. Of the Southern 

District of California’s new cases, 

2,977 or 41 percent were criminal 

in nature, many of them also 

involving illegal immigration.

Other offices with notable increases 

were the District of Oregon, 1,554 

new cases, up 6.1 percent, and 

the Eastern District of California, 

2,102 new cases, up 3.2 percent.

Caseload of federal and 

community defenders in the 

circuit have varied with increases 

reported in six of the last eight 

years. The pending caseload of 

Ninth Circuit federal public and 

community defenders numbered 

10,753 in 2010, a slight increase 

of 1.6 percent from the prior year, 

when 10,580 pending cases were 

reported. 

Congress created the Office of the 

Federal Public Defender to fulfill 

the constitutional requirement 

that indigents charged with federal 

crimes be provided with no-cost, 

professional legal representation. 

Congress funds public defender 

and community defender offices 

through the Defender Services 

Division of the Administrative 

Office of the U.S. Courts.

Community defender 

organizations are non-profit legal 

service organizations staffed 

by non-government employees, 

while public defender offices 

are federal agencies staffed 

by employees of the judiciary. 

Both types of organizations are 

staffed with experienced federal 

criminal law practitioners who 

provide a consistently high level 

of representation. In addition 

to criminal defense and appeals, 

public defenders are assigned 

to court-directed prisoner and 

witness representations, bail/presentencing, 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 2010, the Ninth Circuit 

Court of Appeals announced the 

reappointments of two federal 

public defenders: John T. Gorman 

in the District of Guam and Sean 

K. Kennedy in the Central District 

of California. Their reappointments 

are effective in 2011.
the work of the courts 61

United States 

probation officers 

prepare presentence 

investigative reports 

on convicted offenders and 

supervise offenders who have been 

placed on probation, supervised 

release, parole or conditional 

release. In the Ninth Circuit, 

some 872 probation officers 

are performing these duties 

in a variety of settings, from 

courthouses in large metropolitan 

areas to one-person offices in rural 

areas.

Presentence reports assist a 

judge in sentencing convicted 

offenders. Probation officers 

investigate the offense conduct, 

identify applicable guidelines and 

policy statements, and calculate 

the defendant’s offense level and 

criminal history category. They 

report the resulting sentencing 

range, identifying factors relevant 

to the appropriate sentence. In 

the area of supervision, probation 

officers establish supervision plans 

and utilize numerous programs to 

foster long-term positive changes 

in individuals who are supervised 

and to reduce recidivism. 

Presentence Reports

Standard guideline presentence 

reports are generally prepared in 

felony and Class A misdemeanor 

cases for which the U.S. 

Sentencing Commission has 

promulgated a guideline. In the 

Ninth Circuit, probation officers 

prepared 16,702 such reports 

in 2010, up 5.8 percent from 

the prior year. The majority of 

the presentence reports were 

prepared for three major offense 

types: immigration (44 percent), 

drugs (29 percent), and property 

offenses (11 percent). Nonguideline presentence reports, 

prepared for crimes in which the 

U.S. Sentencing Commission has 

not promulgated a guideline, 

numbered 81 in 2010, up 32.8 

percent. Probation officers also 

completed 1,006 supplemental 

reports to the Bureau of Prisons 

for defendants who did not receive 

presentence report.

Offenders Under Supervision

Persons under supervision in the 

Ninth Circuit totaled 21,046 in 

2010, up 2.3 percent from 20,571 

in 2009. The circuit accounted 

for 16.5 percent of the national 

total of 127,324 persons under 

supervision.

Among those under supervision, 

4,070 were on probation, while 

16,760 were on supervised release. 

Another 203 persons were on 

parole and 13 in the custody of 

the BOP. The Central District 

of California with 5,474 cases 

and the District of Arizona with 

3,293 cases had the most persons 

under supervision. The District of 

Northern Mariana Islands reported 

the greatest percentage increase, 

up 46.2 percent with 57 cases. The 

District of Idaho followed with 

438 cases, up 5.8 percent from the 

previous year.

Five judicial districts in the Ninth 

Circuit reported decreases in 

the number of persons under 

supervision. The District of Guam 

reported 168 cases, down 8.7 

percent, followed by the District 

of Alaska with 304 cases, down 5.9 

percent. The District of Hawaii 

with 779 cases, down 2.6 percent; 

the District of Oregon with 1,060 

cases, down 2.7 percent; and the 

District of Montana with 646 cases, 

down by 1.5 percent.

Drug offenders comprised the 

largest group of persons under 

supervision both in the Ninth 

Circuit and nationwide. In 2010, 

drug offenders under supervision 

totaled 8,673, up 4.9 percent from 

8,271 in the prior year. Drug cases 

accounted for 41.2 percent of 

persons under supervision in the 

Ninth Circuit.

Probation offices in the Ninth 

Circuit have recently turned 

to “evidence based practices” 

to make decisions regarding 

the supervision of individual 

offenders, and to design 

Probation Officers Play Key 

Role in Sentencing, Supervision

Persons Under Supervision 2009 2010 Change 2009-2010

From Courts 4,025 4,070 1.1%

From Institutions 16,546 16,976 2.6%

Total 20,571 21,046 2.3%

Ninth Circuit Federal Probation System: 16 Persons Under Post-Conviction Supervision, 2009-2010
62 2010 annual report

and deliver policies and practices that reduce 

recidivism. Probation officers are moving forward 

with initiatives built on evidence based practices, 

including re-entry courts, offender workforce 

development programs, cognitive based treatment 

programs, motivational interviewing skills for 

probation officers, moral reconation therapy 

programs, assisted recovery and treatment 

programs, and interactive journaling programs. 

Revocations and Early Terminations

Ninth Circuit cases which were revoked and closed 

after post-conviction supervision numbered 3,483 

in 2010, an increase of 21.4 percent from 2009. The 

Ninth Circuit had 23 percent of all cases revoked 

nationwide. Of the revocations, 279 were from 

probation sentences and 3,184 were from supervised 

release terms. Nationally, 15,115 cases were revoked 

and closed, an increase of 12.2 percent from 2009. 

Since 2002, the Committee on Criminal Law of 

the Judicial Conference of the United States has 

encouraged officers to identify offenders who qualify 

for early termination. In general, when the conditions 

of supervision have been met and the offender 

does not pose a foreseeable risk to public safety or 

any individual third party, the probation officer 

may request the sentencing judge to consider early 

termination. The number of cases terminated early by 

judges in the Ninth Circuit totaled 1,050 cases in 2010. 

Transitions

In 2010, Michelle A. Carey was appointed as 

chief probation officer for the Central District of 

California following the retirement of Chief Loretta 

S. Martin, and Felix Mata was appointed as chief 

probation officer for the District of Hawaii following 

the retirement of Chief Richard Crawford.

From Courts Referred by Institutions

District 1

Probation

 Supervised

Release 2Parole 3BOP Custody

2009

 Total Cases

2010

 Total Cases

Change

2009-2010

Alaska 94 207 3 0 323 304 -5.9%

Arizona 702 2,567 21 3 3,177 3,293 3.7%

C. Calif. 1,051 4,372 51 0 5,354 5,474 2.2%

E. Calif. 290 1,358 21 0 1,621 1,669 3.0%

N. Calif. 481 1,179 26 0 1,598 1,686 5.5%

S. Calif. 244 2,118 17 0 2,275 2,379 4.6%

Guam 57 102 3 6 184 168 -8.7%

Hawaii 75 700 4 0 800 779 -2.6%

Idaho 110 323 5 0 414 438 5.8%

Montana 105 533 4 4 656 646 -1.5%

Nevada 278 856 7 0 1,128 1,141 1.2%

N. Mariana 

Is. 21 36 0 0 39 57 46.2%

Oregon 214 825 21 0 1,089 1,060 -2.7%

E. Wash 59 437 2 0 471 498 5.7%

W. Wash. 289 1,147 18 0 1,442 1,454 0.8%

Circuit Total 4,070 16,760 203 13 20,571 21,046 2.3%

1

 Includes judge and magistrate judge probation

2

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

3

 BOP (Bureau of Prisons)

Ninth Circuit Federal Probation System:

Persons Under Post-Conviction Supervision by District, 2009-2010

17
the work of the courts 63

United States pretrial 

services officers have 

significant roles in the 

federal judicial system. 

In the Ninth Circuit, 178 pretrial 

services officers contribute to 

the fair administration of justice, 

protect the community, and seek 

to bring about positive, longterm change to individuals under 

supervision.

Pretrial services officers prepare 

bail reports that help judges 

decide whether to detain or 

release a defendant prior to trial. 

They monitor and supervise 

those defendants who have been 

released, working diligently to 

ensure that defendants appear 

for court as required and do not 

commit any crime while awaiting 

trial. In addition, pretrial services 

officers recommend eligibility 

for and supervision of diversion 

programs in each district.

Pretrial services offices in the 

Ninth Circuit again ranked first 

nationally in the number of new 

cases activated. In 2010, their 

case activations numbered 35,457, 

an increase of 16.8 percent from 

2009. New case activations 

nationwide totaled 110,547, up 

5.9 percent from the prior year. 

The Ninth Circuit accounted for 

32.1 percent of the national total 

of case activations, up from 29.1 

percent in 2009.

Increased law enforcement efforts 

along the U.S.-Mexico border 

resulted in a significant increase in 

case activations in the Districts of 

Arizona. Pretrial services officers 

there opened 18,424 cases, an 

increase of 40.2 percent from 

13,145 cases in 2009. It was the 

largest number of new cases in the 

nation.

Elsewhere in the Ninth Circuit, 

increases were reported by the 

Southern District of California 

with 7,305 cases, up 2.5 percent; 

the District of Oregon with 887 

cases, up 17.8 percent; the Eastern 

District of California with 1,173 

cases, up 9.8 percent; the District 

of Nevada with 956 cases, up 7.8 

percent; the District of Idaho with 

396 cases, up 2.1 percent; and 

the District of Northern Mariana 

Islands with 55 cases, up 103.7 

percent.

Seven districts reported fewer new 

cases, including the Central District 

of California which had 2,462 

cases activated in 2010, down 

9.7 percent; the Western District 

of Washington with 1,230 cases, 

down 10.2 percent; the Northern 

District of California with 1,105 

cases, down 17.4 percent; and the 

Eastern District of Washington, 

511 cases, down 4.8 percent.

Pretrial Bail Interviews, 

Supervised Defendants

Total interviews conducted by 

pretrial services officers in the Ninth 

Circuit numbered 9,438, down 6.4 

percent from 10,087 in 2009. Prebail written reports increased by 

17.3 percent to 34,435 from 29,352, 

while post-bail reports decreased by 

7.1 percent to 618 cases from 665 

cases. 

Pretrial services officers made 

recommendations to the court in 

97 percent of cases with interviews, 

compared to the national average 

of 92.5 percent. Detention was 

recommended in 79 percent of 

all cases in 2010, up from 73.9 in 

2009. In comparison, offices of 

the U.S. attorneys in the circuit 

made recommendations in 97 

percent of cases, and detention 

was recommended in 73.6 percent 

of cases, up from 69.8 percent in 

2009.

In 2010, 5,398 defendants in 

the Ninth Circuit were released 

from custody to pretrial services 

supervision, up 1.3 percent the 

previous year. Of these, 4,280 

were released on standard pretrial 

services supervision, up 2.1 

percent from 2009; 981 were 

supervised on a courtesy basis 

from another district or circuit, 

down 3.8 percent; and 137 were 

on pretrial diversion caseloads, 

down 15.1 percent.

Workload Rises for Ninth Circuit 

Pretrial Services Officers 

Caseload Measure 2009 2010 Change 2009-2010

1

Reports 29,352 34,435 17.3%

Interviews 10,087 9,438 -6.4%

Cases Activated 30,369 35,457 16.8%

1 Includes prebail reports with and without recommendations, and includes types of 

reports categorized in previous periods as “other reports.”

Pretrial Services Cases Activated in Ninth Circuit Courts

2009-2010 18
64 2010 annual report

Nonappearance

and Re-Arrest Rates

The rate of bail revocations due to 

nonappearance and/or re-arrest of 

supervised defendants remained 

significantly low in 2010. The 

rate of nonappearance in the 

circuit was just .5 percent. The 15 

district courts of the Ninth Circuit 

revoked the bail of 111 defendants 

who absconded from supervision.

Violations

Of 12,479 cases in release status 

in 2010, 1,269 had violations 

reported to the court. They 

include 86 violations for felony 

re-arrest, 110 for misdemeanor 

re-arrest, 34 for other re-arrest 

violations, and 59 for failure to 

appear. Technical violations, 

which include positive urine tests 

for illegal substances, violation of 

electronic monitoring conditions, 

possession of contraband, and 

failure to report to officer, 

accounted for the remainder of the 

1,187 reported violations.

Transition

In 2010, Brian Crist was appointed 

as chief pretrial services officer for 

the District of Oregon following 

the retirement of Chief Cynthia G. 

Swearingen. 

Defendant Contact Written Reports

District Interviewed

1

Not

 Interviewed 2

Prebail Postbail

No 

Reports 

Made

Total Cases

Activated 

2009

Total Cases

Activated 

2010

Change

2009-2010

Alaska 67 125 189 0 3 192 192 0.0%

Arizona 1,781 16,643 18,304 56 64 13,145 18,424 40.2%

C. Calif. 1,426 1,036 2,450 8 4 2,726 2,462 -9.7%

E. Calif. 429 744 1,103 20 50 1,068 1,173 9.8%

N. Calif. 442 663 745 348 12 1,337 1,105 -17.4%

S. Calif. 3,205 4,100 7,187 77 41 7,128 7,305 2.5%

Guam 60 23 82 0 1 88 83 -5.7%

Hawaii 241 40 280 1 0 295 281 -4.7%

Idaho 95 301 383 1 12 388 396 2.1%

Montana 237 160 385 8 4 428 397 -7.2%

Nevada 543 413 948 6 2 887 956 7.8%

N. Mariana Is. 55 0 55 0 0 27 55 103.7%

Oregon 321 566 885 1 1 753 887 17.8%

E. Wash 144 367 292 13 206 537 511 -4.8%

W. Wash. 392 838 1,147 79 4 1,370 1,230 -10.2%

Circuit Total 9,438 26,019 34,435 618 404 30,369 35,457 16.8%

National Total 63,012 47,535 101,294 5,962 3,291 104,248 110,547 6.0%

Circuit % of 

National 15.0% 54.7% 34.0% 10.4% 12.3% 29.1% 32.1% 2.9%

Note: This table excludes 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 with and without recommendations, and includes types of reports categorized in previous periods as “other 

reports.”

Pretrial Workload, 2009-2010

19
the work of the courts 65

Juror Utilization

Petit Juror Utilization Rate 1

Percent Not Selected or Challenged

District

 Grand Juries 

Empaneled, 

2010

Petit Juries 

Selected, 

2010 2009 2010

Change

2009-2010

Alaska 3 16 44.2 42.8 -1.4

Arizona 16 107 37.6 36.1 -1.5

C. Calif. 37 172 63.9 56.0 -7.9

E. Calif. 11 86 49.3 51.8 2.5

N. Calif. 6 72 48.5 39.4 -9.1

S. Calif. 8 106 43.8 47.8 4.0

Guam 2 5 49.6 58.6 9.0

Hawaii 6 21 44.2 37.9 -6.3

Idaho 6 17 24.4 36.8 12.4

Montana 4 38 30.5 33.7 3.2

Nevada 5 51 50.4 37.6 -12.8

N. Mariana Is. 1 3 46.1 51.6 5.5

Oregon 9 39 39.0 30.4 -8.6

E. Wash. 7 17 40.6 33.6 -7.0

W. Wash. 4 40 26.5 34.0 7.5

Circuit Total 125 790 *** ***

Circuit Average 8 53 42.5 41.9 -0.6

National Total 784 5,332 *** ***

National Average 8 57 39.9 38.7 -1.2

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. Also includes jurors, not 

selected or challenged, who were not called to the courtroom or otherwise did not participate 

in the actual voir dire.

Juror Utilization, 2009-2010

20
66 2010 annual report

Court Interpreters

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

Arabic 0 9 71 21 6 10 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 121

Armenian 0 0 189 17 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 209

Cantonese 0 6 76 189 204 25 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 3 510

Farsi 0 0 26 0 8 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 49

Japanese 3 0 8 3 1 1 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 23

Korean 3 5 96 8 50 31 20 10 0 0 2 0 1 0 25 251

Mandarin 0 52 174 25 58 19 13 1 11 0 16 0 0 0 17 386

Navajo 

(Certified) 0 162 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 162

Navajo 

(Non-Certified) 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

Russian 0 0 19 14 10 4 0 0 1 4 8 0 4 0 15 79

Sign 

(American) 2 3 0 2 10 3 0 0 0 1 3 0 20 0 1 45

Sign (Mexican) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Spanish Staff 65 68,946 1,689 1,455 622 23,442 0 0 0 0 675 0 432 0 0 97,326

Spanish 

(Certified) 2 9,971 3,871 1,878 1,846 848 0 13 46 13 320 0 932 946 779 21,465

Spanish 

(Non-Certified) 0 43 0 3 0 0 0 36 549 91 314 0 79 66 12 1,193

Tagalog 4 0 54 0 6 1 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 78

Vietnamese 0 0 120 34 101 10 0 0 0 1 0 0 5 38 59 368

All Others 0 717 142 184 50 158 4 14 1 3 17 0 9 1 48 1,348

Total 79 79,917 6,535 3,833 2,973 24,563 43 82 608 113 1,365 0 1,482 1,051 972 123,616

Interpreter Usage by District Courts, 2010 21
the work of the courts 67

District Caseloads

1 Alaska 6

Northern

California

Central

California

Eastern

California

Arizona

Montana

Hawaii

Idaho

Southern

California

Guam

Western 

Washington

Eastern

Washington

Nevada

Oregon

N. Mariana 

Islands 2 7

3 8

4 9

5 10

11

12

13

14

15

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15
68 2010 annual report

District Caseloads

Caseload Measure 2009 2010

Change

2009-2010

Per Judgeship 

Unweighted 2010

District Court

 Filings 545 516 -5.3% 172

 Terminations 584 541 -7.4% 180

 1

Pending 569 544 -4.4% 181

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 933 1,132 21.3% 566

 Terminations 910 1,086 19.3% 543

 1

Pending 1,139 1,185 4.0% 593

1

2009 total pending cases revised.

Caseload Measure

 

2009 2010

Change

2009-2010

Per Judgeship 

Unweighted 2010

District Court

 Filings 15,164 15,279 0.8% 546

 Terminations 14,946 15,243 2.0% 544

 1

Pending 12,539 12,575 0.3% 449

Bankruptcy Court

 2

Filings 97,481 138,585 42.2% 5,774

 Terminations 67,610 131,030 93.8% 5,460

 1

Pending 73,550 81,117 10.3% 3,380

Caseload Measure

 

2009 2010

Change

2009-2010

Per Judgeship 

Unweighted 2010

District Court

 Filings 8,890 10,596 19.2% 815

 Terminations 7,946 9,934 25.0% 764

 1

Pending 5,827 6,489 11.4% 499

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 31,017 42,216 36.1% 6,031

 Terminations 20,009 31,175 55.8% 4,454

 1

Pending 31,904 42,947 34.6% 6,135

Central District of California

District of Arizona

District of Alaska

Authorized Judgeships

 3

District 28

 4

Bankruptcy 24

 Magistrate

 Full-time 24

 Part-time 1

Authorized Judgeships

 2

District 13

 Bankruptcy 7

 Magistrate

 Full-time 13

 Part-time 1

Authorized Judgeships

 District 3

 Bankruptcy 2

 Magistrate

 Full-time 2

 Part-time 4

Authorized places of holding court:

Anchorage, Fairbanks, Juneau, 

Ketchikan, Nome

Authorized places of holding court:

3

Bullhead City, Flagstaff, 3Kingman, 

Phoenix, Prescott, Tucson, Yuma

1 2009 total pending cases revised. 

2 Includes one authorized temporary judgeship.

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

Authorized places of holding court: 

Los Angeles, Riverside, 

5

San Fernando Valley, Santa Ana, 

5

Santa Barbara

1 2009 total pending cases revised.

2 2009 total bankruptcy filings revised.

3 Includes one authorized temporary judgeship.

4

 Includes three authorized temporary judgeships.

5

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

AK

AZ

CAC
the work of the courts 69

Caseload Measure

 

2009 2010

Change

2009-2010

Per Judgeship 

Unweighted 2010

District Court

 Filings 6,665 6,835 2.6% 1,139

 Terminations 6,177 6,332 2.5% 1,055

 1

Pending 8,499 9,002 5.9% 1,500

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 44,023 54,389 23.5% 7,770

 Terminations 36,930 47,143 27.7% 6,735

 1

Pending 27,395 34,639 26.4% 4,948

1 2009 total pending cases revised.

2 Includes one authorized temporary judgeship.

CAE Eastern District of California

Authorized Judgeships

 District 6

 2

Bankruptcy 7

 Magistrate

 Full-time 12

 Part-time 0

Authorized places of holding court: 

Bakersfield, Fresno, Redding, 

Sacramento, South Lake Tahoe, 

Yosemite

Caseload Measure

 

2009 2010

Change

2009-2010

Per Judgeship 

Unweighted 2010

District Court

 Filings 7,112 6,931 -2.5% 495

 Terminations 6,923 8,191 18.3% 585

 1

Pending 8,718 7,458 -14.5% 533

Bankruptcy Court

 2

Filings 30,052 38,632 28.6% 4,292

 Terminations 21,971 34,176 55.6% 3,797

 1

Pending 29,638 34,093 15.0% 3,788

1 2009 total pending cases revised.

2 2009 total bankruptcy filings revised.

CAN Northern District of California

Authorized Judgeships

 District 14

 Bankruptcy 9

 Magistrate

 Full-time 11

 Part-time 0

Authorized places of holding court: 

Eureka, Oakland, Salinas, San 

Francisco, San Jose, Santa Rosa

Caseload Measure

 

2009 2010

Change

2009-2010

Per Judgeship 

Unweighted 2010

District Court

 Filings 8,034 8,059 0.3% 620

 Terminations 8,308 8,692 4.6% 669

 1

Pending 5,561 4,928 -11.4% 379

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 19,282 23,509 21.9% 5,877

 Terminations 16,379 21,205 29.5% 5,301

 1

Pending 10,780 13,083 21.4% 3,271

1 2009 total pending cases revised.

2 El Centro applies only to the district court.

CAS Southern District of California

Authorized Judgeships

 District 13

 Bankruptcy 4

 Magistrate

 Full-time 11

 Part-time 0

Authorized places of holding court: 

2

El Centro, San Diego
70 2010 annual report

Authorized Judgeships

 District 2

 Bankruptcy 2

 Magistrate

 Full-time 2

 Part-time 0

Caseload Measure

 

2009 2010

Change

2009-2010

Per Judgeship 

Unweighted 2010

District Court

 Filings 941 986 4.8% 493

 Terminations 856 916 7.0% 458

 1

Pending 935 1,005 7.5% 503

Bankruptcy Court

 2

Filings 7,203 8,392 16.5% 4,196

 Terminations 6,442 7,261 12.7% 3,631

 Pending 6,305 7,436 17.9% 3,718

Authorized places of holding court: 

Boise, Coeur d’Alene, Moscow, 

Pocatello, 3Twin Falls

1

 2009 total district court pending cases revised.

2 2009 total bankruptcy filings revised.

3

 Twin Falls applies only to the bankruptcy court. Only one of the two bankruptcy judges holds court in Twin Falls once a month.

ID District of Idaho

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

1

 2009 total pending cases revised.

Authorized Judgeships

 District 1

 Bankruptcy 0

 Magistrate

 Full-time 1

 Part-time 0

Caseload Measure

 

2009 2010

Change

2009-2010

Per Judgeship 

Unweighted 2010

District Court

 Filings 103 105 1.9% 105

 Terminations 98 98 0.0% 98

 1

Pending 116 123 6.0% 123

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 212 211 -0.5% 385

 Terminations 153 218 42.5% 271

 1

Pending 173 166 -4.0% 327

Authorized place of holding court:

Hagatna

GU District of Guam

Authorized Judgeships

 2

District 4

 Bankruptcy 1

 Magistrate

 Full-time 3

 Part-time 1

Caseload Measure

 

2009 2010

Change

2009-2010

Per Judgeship 

Unweighted 2010

District Court

 Filings 1,033 1,293 25.2% 323

 Terminations 1,169 1,344 15.0% 336

 1

Pending 1,099 1,048 -4.6% 262

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 2,941 3,862 31.3% 3,862

 Terminations 2,439 3,290 34.9% 3,290

 Pending 2,072 2,644 27.6% 2,644

Authorized place of holding court:

Honolulu

HI District of Hawaii

1 2009 total district court pending cases revised. 2 Includes one authorized temporary judgeship.

District Caseloads
the work of the courts 71

Caseload Measure

 

2009 2010

Change

2009-2010

Per Judgeship 

Unweighted 2010

District Court

 Filings 72 74 2.8% 74

 Terminations 61 64 4.9% 64

 1

Pending 93 103 10.8% 103

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 11 9 -18.2% 32

 Terminations 6 7 16.7% 12

 Pending 26 28 7.7% 49

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

1

 2009 total pending cases revised.

Authorized Judgeships

 District 1

 Bankruptcy 0

 Magistrate

 Full-time 0

 Part-time 0

Authorized place of holding court: 

Saipan

NMI District of Northern Mariana Islands

Caseload Measure

 

2009 2010

Change

2009-2010

Per Judgeship 

Unweighted 2010

District Court

 Filings 3,884 3,787 -2.5% 541

 Terminations 3,158 3,492 10.6% 499

 1

Pending 3,938 4,233 7.5% 605

Bankruptcy Court

 2

Filings 27,560 30,637 11.2% 7,659

 Terminations 14,162 33,960 139.8% 8,490

 1

Pending 34,326 31,003 -9.7% 7,751

1

 2009 total pending cases revised.

2 2009 total bankruptcy filings revised. 3 Includes one authorized temporary judgeship.

Authorized Judgeships

 District 7

 Bankruptcy 4

 Magistrate

 Full-time 7

 Part-time 0

Authorized places of holding court:

Carson City, Elko, Ely, Las Vegas, 

Lovelock, Reno

NV District of Nevada

Caseload Measure

 

2009 2010

Change

2009-2010

Per Judgeship 

Unweighted 2010

District Court

 Filings 984 854 -13.2% 285

 Terminations 1,054 1,028 -2.5% 343

 1

Pending 965 791 -18.0% 264

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 2,593 3,167 22.1% 3,167

 Terminations 2,192 2,656 21.2% 2,656

 1

Pending 3,089 3,600 16.5% 3,600

1

 2009 total pending cases revised.

Authorized Judgeships

 District 3

 Bankruptcy 1

 Magistrate

 Full-time 3

 Part-time 1

Authorized places of holding court:

Billings, Butte, Great Falls, Helena, 

Missoula

MT District of Montana
72 2010 annual report

Caseload Measure

 

2009 2010

Change

2009-2010

Per Judgeship 

Unweighted 2010

District Court

 Filings 3,662 4,067 11.1% 581

 Terminations 3,874 3,946 1.9% 564

 1

Pending 3,496 3,617 3.5% 517

Bankruptcy Court

 2

Filings 22,450 26,671 18.8% 5,334

 Terminations 18,206 23,158 27.2% 4,632

 1

Pending 20,143 23,660 17.5% 4,732

Authorized Judgeships

 District 7

 Bankruptcy 5

 Magistrate

 Full-time 5

 Part-time 2

Authorized places of holding court: 

Bellingham, Seattle, Tacoma, 

Vancouver

1

 2009 total pending cases revised.

2 2009 total bankruptcy filings revised.

WAW Western District of Washington

Caseload Measure

 

2009 2010

Change

2009-2010

Per Judgeship 

Unweighted 2010

District Court

 Filings 1,069 1,143 6.9% 286

 Terminations 1,060 1,022 -3.6% 256

 1

Pending 875 996 13.8% 249

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 7,070 7,471 5.7% 3,736

 Terminations 6,641 7,313 10.1% 3,657

 1

Pending 5,857 6,015 2.7% 3,008

WAE

Authorized Judgeships

 District 4

 Bankruptcy 2

 Magistrate

 Full-time 2

 Part-time 0

Authorized places of holding court:

2

Richland, Spokane, 2Walla Walla, 

Yakima

1

 2009 total pending cases revised.

2 Richland and Walla Walla apply only to the district court.

Eastern District of Washington

Caseload Measure

 

2009 20010

Change

2009-2010

Per Judgeship 

Unweighted 2010

District Court

 Filings 2,832 3,018 6.6% 503

 Terminations 2,933 2,903 -1.0% 484

 1

Pending 2,960 3,075 3.9% 513

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 17,200 20,460 19.0% 4,092

 Terminations 14,412 17,974 24.7% 3,595

 1

Pending 17,408 19,890 14.3% 3,978

District of Oregon

Authorized Judgeships

 District 6

 Bankruptcy 5

 Magistrate

 Full-time 6

 Part-time 1

Authorized places of holding court:

2

Bend, 2Coos Bay, Coquille, Eugene, 

Klamath Falls, Medford, Pendleton, 

Portland, 2Redmond, 2Roseburg, 2Salem

1

 2009 total pending cases revised.

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

OR

District Caseloads
The Office of the Circuit Executive would like to 

acknowledge the following for their contributions to the 

2010 Ninth Circuit Annual Report:

Chief Judge Alex Kozinski

Cathy A. Catterson, Circuit and Court of Appeals Executive

Molly C. Dwyer, Clerk of Court

Mario Moreno, Chief Probation Officer, District of Arizona

Susan M. Spraul, Clerk, Bankruptcy Appellate Panel

Robert Walch, Senior Deputy Clerk, Pioneer Courthouse 

Project Manager (2001-2005), Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Photographs and design details in 

this report were adapted from new 

and archived images of the Pioneer 

Courthouse in Portland, Oregon. 

More details of the renovation and 

rededication of the courthouse can 

be found starting on page 38 of this 

publication. 

Photographs provided by GSA; Robert 

Walch; Rollins Emerson, Court Archivist; 

and the Office of the Circuit Executive.
Office of the Circuit Executive

Cathy A. Catterson, Circuit & Court of Appeals Executive

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

Ph: (415) 355-8900, Fax: (415) 355-8901

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov