Annual Report 2003 1

NI NT H CI R C U I T ANNUAL REPORT

Annual Report 2003

TAB L E OF CONT ENT S

Ninth Circuit Overview

2 Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit

3 Foreword, Chief Judge Mary M. Schroeder

4 An Overview of the Ninth Circuit

5 The Judicial Council and Administration of the Circuit

6 Judicial Council Organization Chart

Judicial Transitions

7 New Judges in 2003

12 Deceased Judges

Space and Security

13 Committee Manages Circuit Space Needs

14 Courthouses Planned, in Design or Under Construction

Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference 2003

17 Circuit Celebrates Marbury v. Madison

18 Awards Honor Judge, Eminent Lawyer

The Business of the Courts in 2003

19 Another Record Year for Filing of Appeals

21 District Courts See Slight Rise in Caseload

23 Fewer Bankruptcy Filings Reported

25 Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Going Strong

27 Magistrate Judges See Duties Expand

28 Federal, Community Defenders See Decline

29 Pretrial Services Ranks First in New Cases

30 Probation Caseloads Hold Steady

31 Summary of District and Bankruptcy Court Caseloads

Published by the Office of the Circuit Executive

Gregory B. Walters, Circuit Executive
NI NT H CI R C U I T ANNUAL REPORT

The Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit

M I S S I O N S T A T E M E N T

United States Courts for 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.

Front row, from left: Chief District Judge William B. Shubb, Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski, Chief Circuit Judge Mary M.

Schroeder, Circuit Judge A. Wallace Tashima, Circuit Judge Sidney R. Thomas. Back row, from left: Senior District

Judge Robert J. Bryan, Chief Bankruptcy Judge Edward D. Jellen, Chief District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel, Circuit Judge

William A. Fletcher, Senior Circuit Judge Betty Binns Fletcher, Magistrate Judge Virginia Mathis, Senior District Judge

Jack D. Shanstrom, Chief District Judge David A. Ezra.

2 Annual Report 2003
Annual Report 2003 3

NI NT H CI R C U I T ANNUAL REPORT

Annual Report 2003

F O R E W O R D

Chief Judge Mary M. Schroeder

I

am pleased to present the 2003 Annual Report of the

United States Courts for the Ninth Circuit. This report

highlights the work of the federal courts serving nine

western states and two Pacific Island jurisdictions. It recaps

major developments in court administration and provides fiscal

year statistics on caseloads and other matters. We hope you

find it useful and welcome your comments.

2003 was a challenging year for our courts. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals set

another record for case filings. Our FY2003 filings reached 12,872, up 12.7 percent from

the prior fiscal year. Many of the new appeals involve decisions by the Board of

Immigration Appeals (BIA), which last year implemented new procedures to clear a large

backlog of cases. Since the BIA changes went into effect in early 2002, the number of

immigration cases appealed to the Court of Appeals has increased by 341 percent.

Immigration cases rose from 954 in FY2001 to 2,670 in FY2002 to 4,206 in FY2003. Thus,

while the Ninth Circuit had about 21.2 percent of all national appellate filings last year, we

had 47.6 percent of all immigration appeals.

Immigration also figures into the larger caseloads reported by 10 of the circuit's 15

district courts. Immigration case filings grew by 17 percent in FY2003 and now account

for 38 percent of all criminal filings in the district courts. Drug offenses, which actually

declined by 9 percent from the prior fiscal year, still account for 21 percent of all criminal

filings. Our "border court" districts of Arizona and Southern California reported the

greatest number of new criminal cases. Immigration accounted for more than half of

the new criminal cases in each of those districts.

We were better able to deal with the increase in workload thanks to seven new district

court judgeships that came into effect this year. Five of those went to the Southern

District of California, while the Central District of California and Arizona claimed one

each. We also were fortunate to have had judicial vacancies filled relatively quickly. We

welcomed three new judges on the Court of Appeals and 12 in our district courts. 

Our courts also continue to rely heavily on senior circuit and senior district judges.

These are judges who are eligible for retirement but have chosen to continue working

with a reduced caseload. In FY2003, the Ninth Circuit's 21 senior circuit judges sat on

appellate panels, served on circuit and national judicial committees, and handled a variety

of administrative matters. In the district courts, 54 senior judges heard cases, presided

over procedural matters, served on committees and conducted other business of their

courts. Not enough can be said of their important contribution to the judicial system.
4 Annual Report 2003

NI NT H CI R C U I T ANNUAL REPORT

An Overview of

the Ninth Circuit

The United States Courts for the Ninth

Circuit consists of the U.S. Court of

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the district

and bankruptcy courts in the 15 federal

judicial districts that comprise the circuit,

and associated administrative units,

including probation and pretrial services.

The Ninth Circuit includes 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 United States

Constitution establishing the federal judiciary.

Article III judges are nominated by the President, confirmed by Congress and serve for life. The Ninth Circuit

Court of Appeals has been authorized 28 judgeships and ended

2003 with two vacant positions. District courts were authorized 110

judgeships, four of which were vacant at year’s end. 

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 a reduced caseload. In 2003,

21 senior circuit judges sat on appellate panels, served on circuit and national judicial committees and handled a

variety of administrative matters. In the district courts, 54 senior judges heard cases, presided over procedural

matters, served on committees and conducted other business of their courts.

In addition to Article III judges, the Ninth Circuit has a number of Article I judges, who serve as magistrate

judges in the district courts or as bankruptcy judges in the bankruptcy courts. Bankruptcy judges are

appointed by the Court of Appeals for a term of 14 years, while magistrate judges are appointed by the

district courts and hold their positions for eight years. During 2003, there were 66 bankruptcy judges,

including nine retired bankruptcy judges who rendered assistance, and 86 full-time magistrate judges

(10 part-time magistrate judges and seven retired magistrate judges). 

Overall, the Ninth Circuit courts experienced increased caseloads in 2003. Unless otherwise noted,

statistics in this report cover the fiscal year, beginning October 1, 2002, and ending September 30, 2003. 
Annual Report 2003 5

NI NT H CI R C U I T ANNUAL REPORT

The Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit is the

governing body of the United States Courts for

the Ninth Circuit. 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)]. The 13 members are looked upon

as a “judicial board of directors.” Chaired by the

chief judge of the circuit, the judicial council’s role is

to provide policy guidance and leadership. The

council meets quarterly to review issues and

resolve problems facing the courts, conducting

additional business by conference call or mail

ballot when necessary.

The Office of the Circuit Executive provides staff

support to the Judicial Council 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

Judicial Council. The circuit executive and his staff

assist in identifying circuit-wide needs, conducting

studies, proactively developing and implementing

policies, providing training, public information,

and human resources support, coordinating

building and automation projects, and advising the

council on procedural and ethical matters. The

Office of Circuit Executive provides management

and technical assistance to courts within the circuit

upon request. It also administers the annual Ninth

Circuit Judicial Conference.

Day-to-day management of the courts rests with

the Court of Appeals and each of the district and

bankruptcy courts. Under the direction of the

individual courts’ chief judge and clerk of court,

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 units. The

Office of the Appellate Commissioner, also located

in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Clerk’s

Office, reviews Criminal Justice Act vouchers for

cases that come before the Court of Appeals. 

District courts in the Ninth Circuit maintain

oversight of Probation and Pretrial Services

offices, which are responsible for supervision of

convicted and accused criminal defendants

including background investigations and reports.

The circuit’s Federal Public Defender offices

represent indigent defendants unable to afford

private counsel. A public defender office is located

in each Ninth Circuit district, with the exception

of Northern Mariana Islands, which relies on a

Criminal Justice Act panel of attorneys.

The Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit also relies

on three associations of judicial officers for vital input

on policy matters and to serve as conduits of

information to judges of the courts: 

Conference of Chief District Judges

The Conference of Chief District Judges advises the

Judicial Council about the administration of justice

in each of the circuit’s 15 district courts. The

Conference, which is comprised of the chief district

judge of each district, meets twice a year. Chief

District Judge William Shubb, of the Eastern

Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit

The Judicial Council is widely inclusive.

Members include, at left, Magistrate

Judge Virginia Mathis and Chief

Bankruptcy Judge Edward Jellen. At

right are Senior Judge Jack Shanstrom,

representing senior judges, and Senior

Judge Robert Bryan, president of the

Federal Judges Association.
6 Annual Report 2003

NI NT H CI R C U I T ANNUAL REPORT

Ninth Circuit

Judicial

Conference

Executive

Committee

Budget & Finance

Program

Resolutions

Activities

Lawyer Rep

Coordinating

Committee

Judicial Officer

Organizations

Conference of

Chief District

Judges

Conference of

Chief Bankruptcy

Judges

• Education 

Committee

Magistrate Judges

Executive Board

• Education 

Committee

Liaison

Committees

District Clerks

Bankruptcy Clerks

Chief Probation

Officers

Pretrial Services

Officers

Advisory & 

Standing

Committees

Advisory Board

Alternative Dispute

Resolution

Article III Judges

Education

Automation

Capital Case

Court-Council

Committee on

Bankruptcy Judge

Appointments

Fairness

Federal Public

Defenders

Task Forces

CJA Oversight

Self-Represented

Litigants

Chief Judge

Mary M. Schroeder

District of California, served as chair from

September 2002 to May 2003. He was succeeded

by Chief District Judge John C. Coughenour of the

Western District of Washington, who will serve

through August 2004. 

Conference of Chief Bankruptcy Judges

The Conference of Chief Bankruptcy Judges

advises the Judicial Council on the administration

of the bankruptcy courts within the circuit. It

consists of the chief bankruptcy judges of each

district and the presiding judge of the

Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP). Chief

Bankruptcy Judge Edward Jellen, of the

Northern District of California, chaired the

conference from October 2002 to September 30,

2003, when Chief Bankruptcy Judge Patricia

Executive Committee Office of the Circuit Executive

Judicial Wellness

Jury Instructions 

Jury Trial

Improvement

Library

Pacific Islands

Public Information

& Community

Outreach

Space & Security

Williams of the Northern District of California,

became chair. Judge Williams will serve through

June 2004.

Magistrate Judges Executive Board

The Magistrate Judges Executive Board provides

a channel of communication between the

Judicial Council and the circuit’s 86 full-time, 10

part-time, and seven recalled magistrate judges.

The 11-member board meets twice a year and

meets with all magistrate judges at the annual

circuit conference. Judge Virginia Mathis, of the

District of Arizona, began a two-year term as

chair of the Board in September 2002. As

chair, she serves as an observer member of the

Judicial Council.
Annual Report 2003 7

NI NT H CI R C U I T ANNUAL REPORT

New Judges of the Ninth Circuit

New Circuit Judges

Judge Carlos T. Bea was appointed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on

October 1, 2003. Prior to his appointment to the federal bench, Judge Bea served as

a California Superior Court judge, San Francisco, 1990 to 2003. Judge Bea engaged

in private practice as a sole proprietor at Carlos Bea Law Corporation, 1975 to 1990.

He was a partner in the law firm of Dunne, Phelps & Mills, San Francisco, 1967 to

1975, and practiced as an associate of the firm, 1959 to 1966. Judge Bea received his

B.A. from Stanford University in 1956 and his juris doctorate from Stanford Law

School in 1958. He maintains chambers in San Francisco.

Judge Jay S. Bybee was appointed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on March

21, 2003. Prior to his appointment, Judge Bybee served as an assistant attorney general

at the United States Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel, 2001 to 2003.

Judge Bybee was a professor at the University of Nevada, William S. Boyd School of

Law, 1999 to 2000. He also served on the faculty of the Louisiana State University,

Paul M. Hebert Law Center, as a professor from 1998 to 1999, as an associate professor,

1994 to 1998, and an assistant professor, 1991 to 1994. Judge Bybee received his

B.A. from Brigham Young University in 1977 and his juris doctorate from

Brigham Young University, J. Reuben Clark Law School in 1980. He maintains

chambers in Las Vegas.

Judge Consuelo M. Callahan was appointed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

on May 28, 2003. Prior to her appointment to the federal bench, Judge Callahan

served as an associate justice of the California Court of Appeal, 1996 to 2003, and as

a California Superior Court judge, San Joaquin County, from 1992 to 1996. Judge

Callahan served as commissioner for the Municipal Court of Stockton, 1986 to 1992.

She served in the San Joaquin County District Attorney's Office as the deputy

district attorney, 1976 to 1986, and as the supervisory district attorney, 1982 to 1986.

Judge Callahan received her A.B. from Stanford University in 1972 and her juris

doctorate from McGeorge School of Law, the University of the Pacific in 1975. She

maintains chambers in Sacramento.
New District Judges

Judge Larry A. Burns was appointed a district judge for the Southern District of

California on September 25, 2003. Prior to his appointment, Judge Burns served as a

magistrate judge for the Southern District of California, 1997 to 2003. He was an

assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of California, 1985 to 1997,

and served as a deputy district attorney for San Diego County, 1979 to 1985. Judge

Burns received his B.A. from Point Loma College in 1976 and his juris doctorate

from the University of San Diego School of Law in 1978. He maintains chambers in

San Diego.

Judge David G. Campbell was appointed a district judge for the District of Arizona

on July 15, 2003. Prior to his appointment, Judge Campbell was a partner at Osborn

Maledon, P.A., Phoenix, 1995 to 2003. He was a partner in Meyer, Hendricks, Victor,

Osborn & Maledon, Phoenix, 1986 to 1995, and an associate there, 1982 to 1986.

Judge Campbell received his B.S. from the University of Utah in 1976 and his juris

doctorate from the University of Utah College of Law in 1979. Following law

school, he served as a law clerk to (now Chief) Justice William H. Rehnquist of the

United States Supreme Court, 1981 to 1982. He maintains chambers in Phoenix.

Judge Cormac J. Carney was appointed a district judge for the Central District of

California on April 9, 2003. Prior to his appointment to the federal bench, Judge

Carney served as a California Superior Court judge, Orange County, 2001 to 2003.

Judge Carney was a partner in the law firm of O'Melveny & Myers, Los Angeles,

1995 to 2001, an associate, 1991 to 1995. He was an associate at Latham & Watkins,

Los Angeles, 1987 to 1991. Judge Carney received his B.A. from the University of

California at Los Angeles in 1983 and his juris doctorate from Harvard Law School

in 1987. He maintains chambers in Los Angeles. 

Judge Dale S. Fischer was appointed a district judge for the Central District of

California on November 5, 2003. Prior to her appointment to the federal bench,

Judge Fischer served as a California Superior Court judge, Los Angeles County, 2000

to 2003, and as a Municipal Court judge, Los Angeles Judicial District, 1997 to 2000.

Judge Fischer was special counsel at Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe, Los

Angeles, 1996 to 1997. She was a partner in the law firm of Kindel & Anderson, Los

Angeles, 1986 to 1996, and an associate there, 1980 to 1986. Judge Fischer received

her B.A. from the University of Florida in 1977 and her juris doctorate from Harvard

Law School in 1980. She maintains chambers in Los Angeles.

Judge William Q. Hayes was appointed a district judge for the Southern District of

California on October 6, 2003. Prior to his appointment, Judge Hayes was an assistant United States Attorney, Southern District of California, 1987 to 2003, serving as

chief of the Criminal Division from 1999 to 2003. He previously practiced law in

Denver, Colorado, as an associate at Stone and Associates, 1984 to 1986, and as an

associate at Scheid and Horlbeck, 1983 to 1984. Judge Hayes received his B.S. from

Syracuse University in 1979, his M.B.A. from Syracuse University Graduate School

of Business in 1983, and his juris doctorate from Syracuse University School of Law

in 1983. He maintains chambers in San Diego.

8 Annual Report 2003

NI NT H CI R C U I T ANNUAL REPORT
Annual Report 2003 9

NI NT H CI R C U I T ANNUAL REPORT

Judge John A. Houston was appointed a district judge for the Southern District of

California on October 8, 2003. Prior to his appointment, Judge Houston served as a

magistrate judge for the Southern District of California, 1998 to 2003. He served in

the U.S. Attorney's Office, Southern District of California, as a senior financial litigation

counsel, 1996 to 1998; as a senior counsel for asset forfeiture, 1994 to 1996; as chief of

the Asset Forfeiture Unit, 1987 to 1994; and as an assistant U.S. Attorney, 1981 to

1987. Judge Houston received his B.S. from North Carolina A & T University in 1974

and his juris doctorate from the University of Miami at Coral Gables School of Law

in 1977. He maintains chambers in San Diego.

Judge Robert C. Jones was appointed a district judge for the District of Nevada on

November 30, 2003. Prior to his appointment, Judge Jones served as a U.S. bankruptcy

judge for the District of Nevada, 1983 to 2003. He was an attorney at Jones & Holt,

Las Vegas, 1977 to 1982, and an attorney at Albright & McGimsey, Las Vegas, 1976 to

1977. Judge Jones received his B.S. from Brigham Young University in 1971 and his

juris doctorate from the University of California at Los Angeles in 1975. After law

school, he served as law clerk to U.S. Circuit Judge J. Clifford Wallace of the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in 1975. He maintains chambers in Las Vegas.

Judge Michael W. Mosman was appointed a district judge for the District of Oregon

on September 26, 2003. Prior to his appointment, Judge Mosman served as United

States Attorney for the District of Oregon, 2001 to 2003, and as an assistant U.S.

attorney, 1988 to 2001. He was an associate at Miller Nash, LLP, Portland, 1986 to

1988. Judge Mosman received his B.S. from Utah State University in 1981 and his

juris doctorate from Brigham Young University, J. Reuben Clark Law School in 1984.

Following law school, he clerked for United States Supreme Court Justice Lewis F.

Powell, 1985 to 1986, and Circuit Judge Malcolm Wilkey of the District of Columbia

Circuit Court, 1984 to 1985. He maintains chambers in Portland.

Judge S. James Otero was appointed a district judge for the Central District of

California on February 12, 2003. Prior to his appointment to the federal bench,

Judge Otero served as a California Superior Court judge, Los Angeles County, 1990

to 2003; as a Municipal Court judge in Los Angeles, 1988 to 1990. He was the

regional counsel in charge for the Southern Pacific Transportation Company in Los

Angeles, 1987 to 1988. Judge Otero received his B.A. from California State

University at Northridge in 1973 and his juris doctorate from Stanford Law School

in 1976. He maintains chambers in Los Angeles.

2001 Appointment

Judge Frederick J. Martone was appointed a district judge for the District of

Arizona on December 21, 2001. Prior to his appointment, Judge Martone served as

justice of the Supreme Court of Arizona, 1992 to 2001; as judge of the Superior

Court of Arizona, Maricopa County, 1985 to 1992. He was an associate then partner

at Jennings, Strouss and Salmon, Phoenix, 1973 to 1985. Judge Martone received his

B.S. from College of the Holy Cross in 1965, his juris doctorate from the University

of Notre Dame in 1972, and his LL.M. from Harvard University in 1975. Following

law school, he served as law clerk to Justice Edward F. Hennessey of the Supreme

Judicial Court of Massachusetts, 1972 to 1973. We regret leaving Judge Martone out

of the 2001 Annual Report.
10 Annual Report 2003

NI NT H CI R C U I T ANNUAL REPORT

Judge Dana M. Sabraw was appointed a district judge for the Southern District of

California on September 26, 2003. Prior to his appointment, Judge Sabraw served as

a California Superior Court judge, San Diego County, 1998 to 2003. He served as

judge of the North County Municipal Court, San Diego, 1995 to 1998, as presiding

judge in 1998, and as an assistant presiding judge in 1997. Judge Sabraw was a

partner at Baker & McKenzie, San Diego, 1992 to 1995, and was an associate at the

firm, 1989 to 1992. He was an associate at Price, Postel & Parma, Santa Barbara, 1985

to 1989. Judge Sabraw received his B.S. from San Diego State University in 1980 and

his juris doctorate from the University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law in

1985. He maintains his chambers in San Diego.

Judge James V. Selna was appointed a district judge for the Central District of

California on March 27, 2003. Prior to his appointment to the federal bench, Judge

Selna served as a California Superior Court judge, Orange County, 1998 to 2003. He

was a partner at O'Melveny & Myers, Los Angeles, 1978 to 1998, and an associate at

the firm, 1970 to 1977. Judge Selna received his A.B. from Stanford University in

1967 and his juris doctorate from Stanford Law School in 1970. He maintains

chambers in Los Angeles.

Judge Lonny R. Suko was appointed a district judge of the Eastern District of

Washington on July 16, 2003. Prior to his appointment, Judge Suko served as a

magistrate judge for the Eastern District of Washington, 1995 to 2003, and as a part-time

magistrate judge, 1971 to 1991. He was associated with the Lyon Law Offices,

Yakima, as a shareholder, 1991 to 1995; a partner, 1972 to 1991; and an associate,

1969 to 1972. Judge Suko received his B.A. from Washington State University in

1965 and his juris doctorate from the University of Idaho College of Law in 1968.

He maintains chambers in Yakima.

New Bankruptcy Judge

Judge Maureen A. Tighe was appointed a bankruptcy judge for the Central District

of California on November 3, 2003. Prior to her appointment, Judge Tighe served as

U.S. Trustee for the Central District of California, 1998 to 2003. She also had served

as an interim U.S. trustee in the districts of Southern California, Hawaii, Guam and

Northern Mariana Islands. Judge Tighe served as an assistant United States

Attorney in Los Angeles, 1988 to 1998, where she was deputy chief of the major

frauds section and chaired the bankruptcy fraud task force. She engaged in private

practice at Sullivan and Cromwell, New York City, 1986 to 1988. Judge Tighe

received her B.A. from Douglass College of Rutgers University in 1979 and her juris

doctorate from Rutgers Law School in 1984. Following law school, she served as a

law clerk for United States District Judge Harold Ackerman of the District of New

Jersey, 1984 to 1986. She maintains chambers in Los Angeles.
Annual Report 2003 11

NI NT H CI R C U I T ANNUAL REPORT

New Magistrate Judges 

Judge Jan M. Adler was appointed a magistrate judge for the Southern District of

California on July 8, 2003. Prior to his appointment, Judge Adler was a partner at

Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes, & Lerach, San Diego, 1987 to 2003, and an associate

there, 1982 to 1986. He was an attorney at Jennings, Strouss & Salmon, Phoenix,

1978 to 1982. Judge Adler received his A.B. from Cornell University, College of Arts

and Sciences in 1975, and his juris doctorate from Duke University School of Law in

1978. He maintains chambers in San Diego.

Judge Theresa Goldner was appointed a magistrate judge of the Eastern District of

California on August 1, 2003. Prior to her appointment to the federal bench, Judge

Goldner served as a California State Superior Court commissioner, Bakersfield, 1996

to 2003. She engaged in private practice, Bakersfield, 1984 to 1996, and was an associate

at Pettit & Martin, San Francisco, 1982 to 1984. Judge Goldner received her B.A.

from the University of California at Davis in 1979 and her juris doctorate from the

University of California at Los Angeles School of Law in 1982. She maintains

chambers in Bakersfield.

Judge Kimberly J. Mueller was appointed a magistrate judge for the Eastern

District of California on March 28, 2003. Prior to her appointment to the federal

bench, Judge Mueller engaged in private practice in Sacramento, 2000 to 2003. She

worked at the law firm of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, Sacramento, 1995 to 2000.

Judge Mueller received her B.A. from Pomona College in 1981 and her juris doctorate

from Stanford Law School in 1995. She maintains chambers in Sacramento.

Judge Karen L. Strombom was appointed a magistrate judge for the Western

District of Washington on April 4, 2003. Prior to her appointment to the federal

bench, Judge Strombom served as a State of Washington Superior Court judge,

Pierce County, 1990 to 2003. She was an associate and partner at Burgess, Kennedy,

Fitzer & Strombom, Tacoma, 1978 to 1990. Judge Strombom received her B.S. from

the University of Wisconsin, Stevens Point, in 1974 and her juris doctorate from the

University of Wisconsin, Madison, in 1978. She maintains chambers in Tacoma.

Judge Mary Alice Theiler was appointed a magistrate judge for the Western District

of Washington on April 25, 2003. Prior to taking the federal bench, Judge Theiler

engaged in private practice as a partner with the Seattle firm of Theiler Douglas

Drachler & McKee, LLP, 1979 to 2003. Judge Theiler received her B.A. from the

University of Michigan in 1971 and her juris doctorate from Wayne State University

in 1974. She maintains chambers in Seattle.
12 Annual Report 2003

NI NT H CI R C U I T ANNUAL REPORT

In Memoriam

Judge Hollis G. Best (1926-2003) was appointed a magistrate judge for the Eastern

District of California on February 28, 1994 and reappointed in 2002. Prior to his

appointment to the federal bench, Judge Best sat on the California Court of Appeal,

Fifth Appellate District, where he was a presiding justice, 1990 to 1994, and an

associate justice, 1984 to 1990. He served as judge of California Superior Court,

Fresno County, 1972 to 1984, including two terms as presiding judge 1980-1981 and

1974-1977. Judge Best engaged in private practice at McCormick, Barstow,

Sheppard, Coyle and Best, Fresno, 1963 to 1972. He received his B.A. from Fresno

State College in 1948 and his juris doctorate from Stanford University School of Law

in 1951. He passed away on August 15, 2003. Judge Best is survived by his wife,

Jeanne, his four children, and eight grandchildren.

Judge Loren Dahl (1921-2003) was appointed a bankruptcy judge for the Eastern

District of California on February 6, 1980. Prior to his appointment, Judge Dahl

engaged in private practice. At the time of his appointment to the bench, he was a

senior partner at the law firm of Dahl, Hefner, Stark & Marois in Sacramento. Judge

Dahl received his A.A. from the University of the Pacific, Stockton, in 1940, and his

LL.B. and juris doctorate from Hastings College of the Law, University of California,

in 1949. He passed away on March 12, 2003. Judge Dahl is survived by his wife,

Pamela, his two children, his sister, and three grandchildren.

Judge William H. Orrick (1915-2003) was appointed a district judge for the

Northern District of California on July 8, 1974 and took senior status on October 31,

1985. Prior to his appointment, Judge Orrick engaged in private practice as a partner

at Orrick, Herrington, Rowley and Sutcliffe, San Francisco, 1965 to 1974. He served

as an assistant attorney general in the United States Department of Justice, 1963 to

1965, and was the deputy undersecretary for administration, United States

Department of State, 1962 to 1963. Judge Orrick received his B.A. from Yale

University in 1937 and his LL.B. from the University of California Boalt Hall School

of Law in 1941. He passed away on August 15, 2003. Judge Orrick is survived by

his wife, Suzanne, three children, and six grandchildren.
Annual Report 2003 13

NI NT H CI R C U I T ANNUAL REPORT

The Space and Security Committee acts on behalf of the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit with

regard to judiciary policies and guidelines related to space and security. This committee reviews

and approves all new projects including major prospectus projects and lease build-to-suits, lease

renewals, space expansions and releases, parking, furniture expenditures over the cost ceilings, and

expenditures of funding for construction. The committee acts as liaison to the General Services

Administration (GSA), assisting court units to resolve issues and ensure that court requirements

are met. This committee works closely with the Administrative Office of the United States Courts to

ensure that Ninth Circuit projects receive priority and funding as required.

In 2003, the committee, chaired by Senior Circuit Judge Melvin Brunetti, faced the challenge of increasing

space needs and decreasing amounts of funding for courthouse projects. As judges take senior status

and replacements come on board and new judgeships are approved, the need for additional courtrooms

and chambers continue to increase. The U.S. Probation and Federal Public Defender offices also are in

need of more office space as their workloads grow.

Courthouses Under Construction

Seattle – Western District of Washington

The largest of the courthouses under construction in 2003 was in downtown Seattle, in the Western

District of Washington. Court units will begin moving into the new building in late summer 2004. The

23-story, 615,000 square foot building will accommodate the U.S. District Court, U.S. Bankruptcy Court,

Probation, Pretrial Services, U.S. Attorneys Office, U.S. Marshals Service and GSA. The courthouse will

contain 18 courtrooms and a detention cell block for prisoners awaiting trials. The district court will

vacate the existing Nakamura Courthouse, which will then be renovated for use by circuit judges, who

are currently split between the Nakamura courthouse and leased space.

Fresno – Eastern District of California

Construction continues on the new Fresno courthouse for the Eastern District of California. In 2003,

workers completed the 11-story steel structure and began adding the exterior cladding on the 430,000

square foot building. The new courthouse will house district and bankruptcy court operations as well

as the U.S. Trustees, U.S. Marshals Service and U.S. Attorney. This courthouse will have 14 courtrooms

and is targeted for completion in 2005.

El Centro – Southern District of California

A 42,000 square foot “build-to-suit” project is under way for a full-time magistrate judge, clerk’s office,

U.S. Probation, U.S. Pretrial Services, U.S. Marshals Service and GSA. The estimated completion date is

fall 2004.

Major Courthouse Renovation

Seattle – Court of Appeals

The Nakamura courthouse will be the future home for the Court of Appeals in Seattle. The project

scope includes major renovation, seismic, security and systems upgrades. An architect has been

selected and the programming and planning stage is underway. The construction is expected to start in

fall of 2005 with completion anticipated in late 2007.

Continued on page 16

Space and Security Committee Manages

Circuit’s Space Needs
14 Annual Report 2003

NI NT H CI R C U I T ANNUAL REPORT

Courthouses

Under

Construction

The most advanced of the courthouse construction

projects under way in the Ninth Circuit are in

Seattle, upper left, and Fresno, upper right. The El

Centro project, above, is shown at the structural

steel stage. Work also has begun the seismic retrofit

and renovation of the historic Pioneer Courthouse

in Portland, left.
Annual Report 2003 15

NI NT H CI R C U I T ANNUAL REPORT

Courthouses in Design

Design work was nearly complete for the new courthouse in Eugene, above, with groundbreaking slated for spring 2004. The new courthouse planned for

downtown Los Angeles, left, has been designed

and is awaiting funding. In San Diego, below, Chief

Judge Marilyn Huff meets with lead architect

Michael Palladino and staff.
16 Annual Report 2003

NI NT H CI R C U I T ANNUAL REPORT

Portland – Court of Appeals

The Pioneer Courthouse will undergo a major seismic upgrade and historic restoration. Construction has

begun and will be completed in late 2006. Circuit judges are temporarily housed in the Hatfield Courthouse.

Las Vegas – District of Nevada

The Foley Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse is under renovation for the bankruptcy court. The

scope includes structural reinforcement, hazardous material abatement, fire and life safety additions

The bankruptcy court is expected to move back in the fall of 2004. 

Phoenix / Tucson – District of Arizona

The former district courthouse and federal building in Phoenix was completely rebuilt for the bankruptcy

court. The project is anticipated to be completed by October 2004. The Walsh courthouse in Tucson is

being improved and renovated in a two-phase project. Phase I now under way provides needed tenant

improvements so the bankruptcy court can occupy the building at the end of 2004. Phase II will be a

major prospectus project addressing additional security criteria and historic renovation. 

Courthouses in Design

Eugene – District of Oregon

Design was under way on a new district courthouse in Eugene. A groundbreaking ceremony is scheduled for April 2004. The 272,274 square foot building will house six courtrooms and chambers for the

district court and bankruptcy court, Probation and Pretrial Services, U.S. Marshals Service and GSA. 

Los Angeles – Central District of California

Design was completed for a much-needed courthouse in the circuit’s largest and busiest district. Plans call for

a 20-story, 1,133,025 square foot building to consolidate the court’s downtown operations. It will have 54

courtrooms, 60 chambers, a library and underground parking. Funding is pending from Congress.

San Diego – Southern District of California

This district received five new judgeships in 2003 and requires several more to meet a burgeoning

caseload. Design is under way for a new 583,746 square foot courthouse in San Diego that will house

all district judges. Magistrate judges will remain in the current courthouse.

Courthouses in the Planning

San Jose – Northern District of California

GSA continues to search for an appropriate and economically feasible building site is continuing.

Yuma, California – Southern District of California

A lease build-to-suit project is being planned for one magistrate courtroom and one shared hearing

room for visiting bankruptcy and district judges.

Bakersfield, California – Eastern District of California

GSA is seeking a site for a new magistrate judge appointed in a location where there are no court

facilities other than a visiting bankruptcy video-hearing room.

Reno – District of Nevada

GSA intends to sell the C. Clifton Young building, where the bankruptcy court currently resides. A new

build-to-suit project is being planned to accommodate their long-term needs for three courtrooms. 

Saipan – Northern Mariana Islands

Inadequate security and extreme weather have prompted plans to relocate the district court. GSA has

submitted a prospectus lease for approval, and a build-to-suit project is planned.
Annual Report 2003 17

NI NT H CI R C U I T ANNUAL REPORT

The theme of the conference originated from the Hawaiian word ho'okupono, meaning to behave

uprightly or proceed correctly. The general sessions addressed the pressing issues of corporate

responsibility and professional ethics, environmental stewardship, and personal health and well being.

With 2003 being the 200th anniversary of Marbury v. Madison, the conference concluded with an

entertaining re-enactment of this historic case. 

“Corporate Responsibility: What Went Wrong and How Do We Fix It?” was the first of three sessions

on corporate malfeasance, examining how the breakdown of ethical and professional standards contributed to the scandals that rocked major American corporations in recent years. David J. Luban, Esq.,

Ph.D., a law professor at the Georgetown University Law Center, opened the session with an insightful

presentation of how social forces contribute to unethical behavior. A panel discussion followed

moderated by Joseph A. Grundfest, a Stanford University law professor and former member of the

United States Securities and Exchange Commission and the President’s Council of Economic Advisors.

Panelists included Michael Chertoff, then an assistant U.S. attorney general, who was subsequently

confirmed as a judge of the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

In “Professional Ethics: Rethinking Roles and Rules for Professionals,” Stephen Gillers, Esq., vice dean

of the New York University School of Law, moderated a discussion of the roles and responsibilities of

professionals (lawyers, accountants, executives) in preventing corporate misconduct. Panelists included

Dennis W. Archer, Esq., the former mayor of Detroit and associate justice of the Michigan Supreme

Court, and then incoming president of the American Bar Association.

The Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference, held in

Hawai’i for the first time since 1995, featured

a beautiful setting and richly relevant educational

program involving distinguished speakers and

panelists from academia, business and the law.

The annual conference is organized pursuant to

Title 28 of the U.S. Code, which authorizes the

chief judge to summon the judges of the circuit

“for the purpose of considering the business of

the courts and advising means of improving the

administration of justice within the circuit.” In

the Ninth Circuit, invitations also are extended

to lawyer representatives, United States attorneys, federal public defenders, clerks of court

and probation and pre-trial officers.

The 2003 Judicial Conference was organized by a

Conference Executive Committee chaired by

attorney Paul T. Friedman of San Francisco.

Circuit Judge Raymond C. Fisher of Pasadena

served as the conference program chair. Chief

Circuit Judge Mary M. Schroeder of Phoenix

presided over the opening session and participated in other parts of the conference.

Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference

Celebrates Marbury v. Madison

Acting as the Supreme

Court justices in the

Marbury re-enactment

were Circuit Judges

Ann Claire Williams

Michael McConnell

and Senior Circuit

Judge John Noonan.

The lawyers, at left,

were portrayed by

Circuit Judge Michael

Hawkins and Seth

Waxman, Esq., right.
18 Annual Report 2003

NI NT H CI R C U I T ANNUAL REPORT

The focus on corporate responsibility carried over

to the second day of the conference with judges

and attorneys gathering at a breakfast to exchange

views about issues raised during the previous general session. They also heard remarks from thenDeputy Attorney General Larry D. Thompson of

the U.S. Department of Justice.

Shifting focus to environmental stewardship, the

conference heard from two renowned marine scientists from Scripps Institution of Oceanography at

the University of California, San Diego. Drs.

Jeremy Jackson, Ph.D., a professor of oceanography,

and Nancy Knowlton, Ph.D., a professor of marine

biology, discussed how over-fishing, biological

introductions and climate change pose increasing

threats to the ecological stability of the oceans.

The third and final general session opened with

“Toxic Success – Causes and Cures,” featuring Dr.

Paul Pearsall, Ph.D., a clinical psycho-neuro immunologist at the University of Hawai'i. Based on a

22-year study of some of the most successful people

in the world, Dr. Pearsall discussed differences

between healthy and toxic success and what this

means to overall health.

The Marbury re-enactment featured a stellar cast

that included the Ninth Circuit’s own Senior Circuit

Judge John T. Noonan, Jr., an eminent scholar and

writer in the area of judicial review, and Circuit

Judge Michael Daly Hawkins, a student of that

early era of judicial history. Other participants

were Circuit Judge Ann Claire Williams of the

Seventh Circuit, Circuit Judge Michael W.

McConnell of the Tenth Circuit, and Seth Waxman,

Esq., the former U.S. solicitor general. Dr. Maeva

Marcus, Ph.D., director and editor of a documentary history of the Supreme Court from 1789-1800,

introduced the program.

Judge Hawkins portrayed Levi Lincoln, the U.S.

Attorney General at the time under President

Thomas Jefferson; and Mr. Waxman portrayed

Charles Lee, the former attorney general under

President John Adams. They dressed for their

parts, donning costumes borrowed from the

American Conservatory Theater in San Francisco,

while the judges wore their black robes, accented

by colorful leis.

Professor David Luban of the Georgetown Law

Center talks on the breakdown of ethical standards.

Circuit Recognizes Award Winners

The 2003 Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference saw the unveiling of the John P. Frank

Award recognizing an outstanding lawyer practicing in the federal courts of the

western United States. The new award is named for the renowned attorney, author,

law professor, civil liberties advocate and legal historian from Arizona. Presented

posthumously to Mr. Frank, who died in 2002, it was accepted on behalf of his family

by Chief Judge Mary M. Schroeder, who was mentored by Mr. Frank as a young

attorney and later became his law partner. 

Also announced at the conference was the selection of Senior District Judge Thelton

E. Henderson of the United States District Court for the Northern District of

California as the 2003 recipient of the American Inns of Court Circuit

Professionalism Award for the Ninth Circuit. The award recognizes “a senior

practicing lawyer or judge whose life and practice display sterling character and

unquestioned integrity, coupled with ongoing dedication to the highest standards

of the legal profession and the rule of law.”
NI NT H CI R C U I T ANNUAL REPORT

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth

Circuit continues to be the busiest in the nation,

reporting a record 12,872 cases filed in FY2003, up

12.7 percent from FY2002. Much of the increase is

attributable to a continuing surge in immigration

appeals that followed the implementation in early

2002 of expedited reviews by the Board of

Immigration Appeals (BIA). Attorney General John

Ashcroft ordered the changes to clear a backlog of

approximatly 56,000 immigration cases.

The number of immigration cases appealed to the

Court of Appeals has increased by 341 percent since

the BIA changes went into effect. In FY2001, 954

immigration cases were filed with the court. The

number increased almost 180 percent in FY2002 to

2,670 cases. The trend continued in FY2003, reaching

4,206 cases, up 57.5 percent over the prior fiscal year. 

While the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had 21.2

percent of the national appellate filings in FY2003, it

had 47.6 percent of all immigration appeals and 43.7

percent of all administrative agency appeals filed.

Within the Ninth Circuit, administrative appeals

accounted for 33.8 percent of all filings for the fiscal

year. All but 155 of the administrative appeals filings

were immigration appeals. 

Among the 15 districts in the circuit, the Central

District of California generated the largest number of

Court of Appeals Reports Another

Record Year for Case Filings

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Judges - First row, from left: J. Clifford Wallace, James R. Browning, Mary M.

Schroeder, Alfred T. Goodwin, Procter Hug, Jr. Second row: Stephen Reinhardt, William C. Canby, Jr., Jerome Farris,

Betty Binns Fletcher, Harry Pregerson, Dorothy W. Nelson, Robert Boochever, Robert R. Beezer. Third row: A.

Wallace Tashima, Thomas G. Nelson, Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain, Alex Kozinski, Cynthia Holcomb Hall, David R.

Thompson, Pamela Ann Rymer, Andrew J. Kleinfeld, Sidney R. Thomas. Fourth row: Richard C. Tallman, Richard A.

Paez, William A. Fletcher, M. Margaret McKeown, Barry G. Silverman, Susan P. Graber, Kim McLane Wardlaw,

Raymond C. Fisher, Marsha S. Berzon, Johnnie B. Rawlinson. Not pictured: Herbert Y.C. Choy, Joseph T. Sneed, Otto

R. Skopil, Arthur L. Alarcon, Warren J. Ferguson, Melvin Brunetti, John T. Noonan, Jr., Edward Leavy, Stephen Trott,

Ferdinand F. Fernandez, Michael Daly Hawkins, Ronald M. Gould.

Annual Report 2003 19
20 Annual Report 2003

NI NT H CI R C U I T ANNUAL REPORT

appeals with 2,345 cases, or 30.5 percent of the total.

Centered in Los Angeles, the Central District of

California is the busiest district court in the nation.

Pro se cases accounted for 39 percent of all cases filed

in the Court of Appeals in FY2003. For the fiscal year,

4,999 cases were filed pro se. 

Appellate Panels and Hearings

In FY2003, the Court of Appeals heard oral arguments

in about 2,500 cases, while approximately 2,000 cases

were decided without argument. Cases terminated

in FY2003 totaled 11,220, up 11.7 percent from the

prior fiscal year. As of September 30, 2003, 11,277

cases were pending before the court, up 17.2 percent,

and amounting to 25.3 percent of the national

appellate total.

This caseload was handled by an active appellate

bench totaling at year’s end 26 circuit judges and 22

senior circuit judges and, sitting by special designation,

district judges from within the circuit and circuit

judges from other circuits. All told, the court reported

432 panel days during the year with sittings in San

Francisco, Pasadena and Seattle, Portland, Honolulu,

Anchorage, and the Northern Mariana Islands.

En Banc Hearings

The Court of Appeals relies on limited en banc panels

to ensure the consistency of law within the Ninth

Circuit. En banc hearings consist of a panel of 11

judges (the chief circuit judge and 10 circuit judges

chosen at random) who rehear a case previously

ruled upon by a three-judge panel. Matters will be

reheard en banc usually to maintain uniformity of the

court’s laws or for case of exceptional importance. 

In calendar year 2003, 972 petitions for rehearing en

banc were filed, and the court voted to grant rehearing en banc in 12 of those cases. After oral hearings,

the en banc panels issued 19 written opinions in 2003

(that total includes some cases in which rehearing en

banc was granted in 2002). These en banc opinions

covered a wide range of issues including civil rights,

constitutional law, criminal law, capital habeas corpus, and environmental and immigration laws. 

U.S. Supreme Court Review

In its 2002-2003 term ending June 30, 2003, the

Supreme Court issued written opinions in 25 cases

decided by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

These cases covered a wide variety of issues. The

reversal rate of the Ninth Circuit for the 2002-2003

term was 75 percent, as compared to a 78 percent

reversal rate in the 2001. The overall reversal rate for

all cases decided by the Supreme Court for the 2002-

2003 term was 73 percent. 

Of the 25 circuit cases in which the Supreme Court

issued written opinions, six were affirmed and 19

were reversed or vacated. Additionally, seven Ninth

Circuit cases were vacated and remanded for further

consideration in light of the Supreme Court’s own

recent decisions, and one case in which the high

court dismissed certiorari.

Appellate Caseload, 2002-2003

 Fiscal Year Change

Caseload Measure 2002 2003 2002-2003

Filings 11,421 12,872 12.7%

Terminations 10,042 11,220 11.7%

*Pending Cases 9,625 11,277 17.2%

*Total pending cases for fiscal year 2002 revised.

Source of Appeals and 

Original Proceedings, Fiscal Year 2003

# of % of 

District Appeals Total

Alaska 110 0.9%

Arizona 870 6.8%

C. Calif. 2,345 18.2%

E. Calif. 813 6.3%

N. Calif. 770 6.0%

S. Calif. 540 4.2%

Hawaii 146 1.1%

Idaho 159 1.2%

Montana 242 1.9%

Nevada 542 4.2%

Oregon 479 3.7%

E. Wash. 202 1.6%

W. Wash. 430 3.3%

Guam 20 0.2%

Northern Mariana Islands 23 0.2%

Bankruptcy 221 1.7%

United States Tax Court 49 0.4%

National Labor 21 0.2%

 Relations Board

Administrative Agencies 4,291 33.3%

Original Proceedings 599 4.7%

Circuit Total 12,872
District Court Filings FY2002-FY2003

Total Criminal and Civil Cases Filed, Terminated, Pending

Change

Caseload Measure 2002 2003 2002-2003

Civil Filings 42,425 41,828 -1.4%

Criminal Filings 15,328 16,040 4.6%

Total Filings 57,753 57,868 0.2%

Civil Terminations 42,855 41,441 -3.3%

Criminal Terminations 14,184 15,599 10.0%

Total Terminations 57,039 57,040 0.0%

 Pending Civil Cases *40,014 40,401 1.0%

 Pending Criminal Cases *11,774 12,215 3.7%

 Total Pending Cases *51,788 52,616 1.6%

Civil Case Termination

 Index (in months) 11.2 11.69 4.4%

Criminal Case Termination

 Index (in months) 9.96 9.39 -5.7%

Overall Case Termination

 Index 10.89 11.06 1.6%

Median Months (filing to 8.9 8.8 -1.1%

 disposition) Civil Cases

Median Months (filing to 5.5 5.4 -1.8%

 disposition) Criminal Cases

Median Months National Total 8.7 9.3 6.9%

 filing to disposition) Civil Cases

Median Months National Total 6.2 6.2 0.0%

 disposition) Criminal Cases

*Revised from original report

Fiscal Year

Annual Report 2003 21

NI NT H CI R C U I T ANNUAL REPORT

District of California, down 14 percent. Caseloads also were down for district courts for the Northern Mariana

Islands, the Central District of California, and the District of Idaho.

Criminal Filings

Criminal filings in district courts climbed to 16,040. The 4.6 percent increase was slightly lower than the national

increase of 5.4 percent. The greatest number of criminal cases in the district courts involved immigration, 38

percent; drug-related offenses, 21 percent; and fraud, 11 percent.

Immigration filings grew by 17 percent over the year before, while drug and fraud cases fell 9 percent and 7 percent, respectively. The increase in immigration cases is attributed primarily to heightened security at United States

ports of entry.

Coincident with the increase in criminal filings was a 4 percent increase in the number of new criminal defendants,

which numbered 19,950 in FY2003. Proceedings were concluded against 18,564 defendants, an increase of 9

percent. Of these, 16,522 were convicted (a conviction rate of 89 percent), and 14,198 imprisoned (76 percent).

The greatest number of new criminal cases was reported by the District of Arizona, which opened 4,307. The

Southern District of California had 3,562 new criminal cases, followed by the Central District of California with

1,369. In both of the border districts of Arizona and Southern California, immigration comprised the majority of

new cases, with 54 percent and 58 percent respectively. Fraud was the largest category of new cases in the Central

District of California, at 26 percent.

District Courts

See Slight Rise

in Case Filings

District courts of the Ninth

Circuit reported a slight 0.2

percent increase in total case filings

for FY2003. The circuit’s 15 district

courts reported 57,868 new cases,

which amounted to 18 percent of

the total new case filings nationwide. 

Ten district courts reported caseload

increases. The U.S. District Court

for the Western District of

Washington, with divisions in

Seattle and Tacoma, has the largest

increase at 16 percent. The U.S.

District Court for the District of

Alaska, which holds court in

Anchorage, Fairbanks and several

smaller venues, reported a 14 percent

increase.

Caseloads declined in five districts.

The largest decreases were reported

by the U.S. District Court for the

District of Guam, where caseloads

were down 27 percent, and the U.S.

District Court for the Northern
Civil Filings

Civil case filings in Ninth Circuit district courts

declined by 1.4 percent to 41,828. This was a less dramatic drop than the 8 percent decline reported nationwide. Private civil cases accounted for 77 percent of

the total, while cases in which the United States acted

as plaintiff or defendant comprised 23 percent.

Prisoner petitions made up 26 percent of private civil

cases and 23 percent of U.S. civil cases.

Social security filings climbed 25 percent over FY2002.

These cases now constitute the largest category of U.S.

civil filings in the circuit and 35 percent of the total

civil caseload. Among private civil cases, civil rights

was the largest category with 21 percent, followed by

habeas corpus prisoner petitions, 13 percent, and contract disputes, 13 percent.

The Central District of California reported the largest

number of civil cases, with 12,633, followed by the

Northern District of California, 5,931, and the Eastern

District of California, 4,508.

The Central District of California also led the way in

the number of private civil cases filed in the circuit

with 9,243. Many of the private civil filings in this

district were for civil rights with 1,653, followed by

habeas corpus, 1,595, and contracts cases, 1,438. The

Northern District of California reported the second

highest number of private civil filings, with 5,146,

followed by the Western District of Washington,

with 3,545.

Eight of the 15 districts in the circuit reported a drop

in civil filings: Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, Guam,

Northern Mariana Islands, and the Northern, Central

and Southern Districts of California. The remaining

districts all reported increases in civil filings, with the

Western District of Washington experiencing the

greatest rise, by 24 percent.

Ninth Circuit District Court - Types of Criminal Cases Commenced, 2003 (excludes Transfer Cases)

General Offenses Alaska Ariz. CAC CAE CAN CAS Haw aii Idaho Mont. Nev. Ore. E. WashW. Wash Guam NMI Total

Homicide 0 73 4 2 1 3 1 6 10 4 3 1 3 0 1 112

Robbery 3 9 40 15 15 16 20 7 1 19 48 9 19 0 0 221

Assault 5 78 10 12 12 16 21 7 15 14 3 2 29 2 0 226

Burglary 0 3 0 0 0 0 5 0 7 0 1 0 0 0 0 16

Larceny 27 128 112 43 49 15 40 9 9 15 46 11 184 12 1 701

Embezzlement 7 4 25 8 33 7 3 4 7 22 16 7 26 4 0 173

Fraud 33 104 361 161 124 493 31 16 35 112 63 23 102 16 4 1,678

Weapons & Firearms 30 191 97 68 101 18 71 56 75 174 139 80 61 5 4 1,170

Forgery And Counterfeiting 2 12 74 9 24 8 4 5 5 11 9 12 8 5 0 188

Drug Law s 61 1128 161 141 111 834 160 36 97 71 114 199 235 38 12 3,398

Traf f ic 17 9 0 6 40 0 203 0 62 0 0 3 310 0 0 650

Escape 0 22 7 3 9 19 4 0 2 9 13 6 4 0 0 98

Other 5 93 87 53 40 31 24 19 76 62 47 12 148 2 3 702

General Offenses Total 190 1,854 978 521 559 1,460 587 165 401 513 502 365 1,129 84 25 9,333

Special Offenses

Immigration Law s 10 2,336 313 401 179 2,067 2 80 36 188 252 134 39 19 0 6,056

Agricultural Acts 4 20 3 4 2 0 2 3 12 2 0 5 1 0 0 58

Postal Law s 1 2 8 1 7 0 0 0 1 9 1 0 7 0 0 37

Other 23 95 67 19 52 35 20 6 16 14 19 11 39 5 1 422

Special Offenses Total 38 2,453 391 425 240 2,102 24 89 65 213 272 150 86 24 1 6,573

All Offenses Total 228 4,307 1,369 946 799 3,562 611 254 466 726 774 515 1,215 108 26 15,906

22 Annual Report 2003

NI NT H CI R C U I T ANNUAL REPORT
Bankruptcy Cases Commenced, by Chapter of the

Bankruptcy Code for the 12-Month Period

Ended September 30, 2003.

 Fiscal Year Change

Caseload Measure 2002 2003 2002-2003

Filings

 Business Chapter 7 5,502 5,217 -5.2%

 Business Chapter 11 1,891 1,434 -24.2%

 Business Chapter 12 58 124 113.8%

 Business Chapter 13 1,854 1,968 6.1%

 Non-Business Chapter 7 220,932 228,373 3.4%

 Non-Business Chapter 11 272 194 -28.7%

 Non-Business Chapter 13 49,036 47,900 -2.3%

 *Total 279,561 285,230 2.0%

Terminations 266,771 284,395 6.6%

Pending Cases 224,839 225,674 0.4%

*This figure includes cases not reflected elsewhere.

Annual Report 2003 23

NI NT H CI R C U I T ANNUAL REPORT

Courts Report Fewer Bankruptcy Filings

Bankruptcy courts in the Ninth Circuit continue

to be among the busiest in the nation,

reporting 285,230 total filings in FY2003, a 2

percent increase over the prior fiscal year. The

U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of

California once again led the nation in filings,

even though its total caseload declined from the

prior fiscal year. Nationally, bankruptcy filings

rose by 7.4 percent, reaching 1,661,996 cases in

FY2003, a record for a 12-month period.

Non-Business Filings

Non-business bankruptcy filings in the Ninth

Circuit totaled 276,467 and comprised about 97

percent of the circuit’s total bankruptcy caseload.

Non-business Chapter 7 filings were the largest

single category of filings with 228,373, up 3.4 percent

from the prior fiscal year. Non-business Chapter

7 cases accounted for 80 percent of all filings. 

The second largest category of filings in the Ninth

Circuit was non-business Chapter 13 cases, with

47,900 filings, or 17 percent of the total. Nonbusiness Chapter 13 filings fell 2.3 percent in 2003. 

Non-business Chapter 11 bankruptcies, which

represent only a small fraction of the total of nonbusiness bankruptcies in the circuit, decreased in

2003 to 194 cases from 272 in the prior fiscal year. 

Business Filings

Bankruptcy filings by businesses totaled 8,743 and

accounted for 3 percent of all bankruptcy cases in

the Ninth Circuit in 2003. A majority of these,

5,217 cases, were filed under Chapter 7, down 5.2

percent from FY2002. 

Chapter 13 business filings in 2003 totaled 1,968,

up 6.1 percent over the 2002 total of 1,854.

Business bankruptcies filed under Chapter 11 fell

sharply, from 1,891 in FY2002 to 1,434 last year, a

decrease of 24.2 percent. Business filings under

Chapter 12, which constitute a small fraction of

the overall bankruptcy filings, increased to 124

cases from 58 in FY2002.

Districts with Large Numbers of Filings

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District

of California, the nation’s largest bankruptcy

court, once again posted the largest number of

filings in the nation, 79,250 cases. However, the

Central District’s caseload actually declined by 6.7

percent from FY2002, when 84,936 filings were reported.

Chapter 7 cases, both business and non-business, made up

the majority of filings in the Central District.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona had

the next largest number of filings in the Ninth Circuit with

31,994, an 11.3 percent increase over its FY2002 total.

Trailing only slightly was the Eastern District of California

with 31,791 bankruptcy filings, up about 1.1 percent, and

the Western District of Washington, which had 30,305 filings,

up 6.9 percent from the previous year. 

Other districts with the large percentage increases in

bankruptcy filings were the District of Idaho (up 10.9

percent with 9,630 filings compared to 8,686 in 2002),

the Northern District of California (up 9.9 percent with

22,760 filings versus 20,719 in the prior year), and the

District of Nevada (up 8.3 percent with filings 20,689

compared to 19,095 in 2002).

Terminations and Pending Cases

The circuit experienced an increase in bankruptcy case

terminations in FY2003. All told, 284,395 were closed, up

6.6 percent from the 266,771 cases closed in FY2002. The

number of pending cases was 225,674, up a scant 0.4 percent

from the 224,839 cases pending at the end of FY2002.
U.S. District Courts

Weighted and Unweighted Filings Per Authorized Judgeship, Criminal Felony Defendants Only, 2003

 Unw eighted Filings Per Judgeship Weighted Filings Per Judgeship

Authorized Supervised Supervised 2003 2002 Change

District Judgeships Civil Criminal Release Hearings Total Civil Criminal Release Hearings Weighted Total Weighted Total 2002-2003

Alaska 3 125 84 12 221 112 148 3 263 211 24.6%

Arizona 13 249 360 97 706 223 448 24.25 695 710 -2.1%

C. Calif. 28 430 69 25.89 525 395 106 6.47 507 513 -1.1%

E. Calif. 7 617 175 49.14 841 469 252 12.29 733 692 6.0%

N. Calif. 14 410 70 23.36 503 432 106 5.84 544 513 6.0%

S. Calif. 13 194 306 140.38 640 202 374 35.1 611 1,021 -40.1%

Haw aii 4 185 117 28.75 331 216 204 7.19 427 427 0.0%

Idaho 2 275 152 21.5 449 262 232 5.38 499 554 -9.9%

Montana 3 231 173 22.33 426 205 303 5.58 514 469 9.5%

Nevada 7 342 119 20.57 482 342 170 5.14 517 489 5.8%

Oregon 6 373 150 48.17 571 345 213 12.04 570 550 3.6%

E. Wash. 4 192 127 45.25 364 153 192 11.31 356 329 8.3%

W. Wash. 7 439 109 36.14 584 459 183 9.04 651 682 -4.5%

Circuit Total 111 4,062 2,011 570 6,643 3,815 2,931 143 6,889 7,160 -3.8%

Circuit Mean *** 312 155 44 511 293 225 11 530 551 -3.8%

Circuit Median *** 275 127 28.75 503 262 204 7.19 517 513 0.8%

National Mean 676 345 119 23.76 487 331 186 5.94 523 521 0.4%

Note: Case weights are based on the 1987-1993 district court time 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. Transfers and reopens of felony

defendants are included. This table excludes data for the territorial courts. 

Beginning October 1, 2001, data are reported for supervised release revocation hearings previously not presented in this table.

24 Annual Report 2003

NI NT H CI R C U I T ANNUAL REPORT

Weighted Filings Per Judgeship

Since 1972, a system of weighting cases has been used

by the federal judiciary to accurately compare judicial

time required to handle cases. The statistical benchmark for determining the need for additional

judgeships is a weighted caseload in excess of 430

cases per judgeship. In the Ninth Circuit, in 2003 the

circuit mean was 530 weighted cases per judgeship,

with 10 districts reporting a weighted caseload in

excess of 430. The national mean was 523. 

The highest number of filings per judgeship in the circuit occurred in the Eastern District of California, with

733, followed by the District of Arizona, with 695, and

the Western District of Washington, with 651.

Case Processing Times

The federal judiciary measures case processing times

with the Case Termination Index. The index computes

how long it would take to clear the pending caseload

if the current termination rate remained constant. In

2003, overall case processing times rose slightly—by 2

percent. This reflects a 6 percent decline in case processing times for criminal cases and an increase of 4

percent for civil cases. 

The Ninth Circuit fared well for the median processing time from the filing of a case to disposition, with

the median time dropping 1 percent to 8.8 months for

civil cases and dropping 2 percent to 5.4 months for

criminal cases. This compares favorably to the

nationwide median time of 9.3 months for civil and

6.2 months for criminal cases.
Annual Report 2003 25

NI NT H CI R C U I T ANNUAL REPORT

All district courts within the Ninth

Circuit have issued general orders

providing for the automatic referral of

bankruptcy appeals to the Bankruptcy

Appellate Panel (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. Seven

bankruptcy judges are authorized by the

Ninth Circuit Judicial Council to serve

on the BAP. During the past year, one

position has intentionally been held

vacant due to a reduced workload based

on new filings. 

New Filings

For the FY2003, which ended September

30, 2003, 828 new appeals were filed;

BAP handled 52 percent of all bankruptcy

appeals, while 48 percent were heard in

district courts (see table). Of the new filings in

FY2003, BAP handled 428, compared with 531 in

the prior fiscal year. Historically, the BAP has

handled closer to 60% of the appeals. During the

reporting period, a case from the Central District

of California resulted in 41 appeals and each went

to the district court. This skewed the historic

average and is considered a one-time occurrence.

Dispositions

The BAP disposed of 450 appeals in FY2003. Of

those, 150 appeals were terminated on the merits.

Oral argument was heard in 129 appeals, while 21

appeals were decided on briefs. Of the 150 decisions, 40 were published opinions. The reversal

rate was 22.7 percent. The median time for an

appeal decided on the merits was 9.2 months.

The remaining 300 appeals were terminated on

procedural grounds, such as for lack of prosecution, lack of jurisdiction, consolidation, or based

on voluntary dismissal. The BAP ended the

period with 218 appeals pending (down 9.2%

from the prior year.)

Appeals to the Ninth Circuit

Appeals from a decision of either the BAP or district court may be filed with the Court of Appeals

for second-level appellate review. For the 12-

New Bankruptcy Appeal Filings

12-Month Period Ending September 30, 2003

Bankruptcy

 Appellate District 

District Panel Court Total

Alaska 1 6 7

Arizona 38 48 86

C. Cal. 181 117 298

E. Cal. 43 36 79

N. Cal. 63 53 116

S. Cal. 26 25 51

Hawaii 1 10 11

Idaho 15 7 22

Montana 8 6 14

Nevada 9 40 49

Oregon 10 9 19

E. Wash. 7 4 11

W. Wash. 26 39 65

Totals 428 400 828

52% 48% 100%

Judges of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel. Seated, from left:

Judge Elizabeth L. Perris, Chief Judge John E. Ryan, Judge

Philip H. Brandt. Standing, from left: Judge James M. Marlar,

Judge Christopher M. Klein, Judge Dennis Montali

month period, 221 appeals were filed. Of these, 91

were appeals from decisions by the BAP and 130

were from decisions by the district courts. Thus,

for the 450 appeals disposed of by the BAP during

the fiscal year, 80 percent were fully resolved with

only about 20 percent seeking second-level review. 

BAP Hears Majority of Bankruptcy Appeals
26 Annual Report 2003

NI NT H CI R C U I T ANNUAL REPORT
Annual Report 2003 27

NI NT H CI R C U I T ANNUAL REPORT

Magistrate Judges See Duties Expand

Magistrate judges provide judicial assistance to district judges, helping the courts contend with growing

caseloads. They have a wide range of duties, including overseeing civil and criminal motions, arraignments, pretrial and settlement conferences, Social Security cases, evidentiary hearings, and prisoner

litigation. Increasingly, magistrate judges preside over an entire civil trial after consent has been given by

both parties.

Ninth Circuit magistrate judges were busier than ever in FY2003. They performed 181,009 judicial duties, an

increase of nearly 8 percent over the year before, according to figures released by the Administrative Office

of the Courts (AO). The upturn was most apparent in civil consent cases, up 20 percent, and evidentiary

hearings, which jumped almost 68 percent. The AO reports a 16 percent increase in preliminary hearings

for FY2003, while detention hearings rose 9 percent and search warrants climbed 17 percent.

On the civil side, magistrate judges were assigned to 3,237 consent cases. Civil cases without a trial (such as

Social Security) made up the largest number of consent cases. However, the number of consent cases in which

a jury trial was requested rose 20 percent, while consent cases without a jury trial request fell by 65 percent. 

Criminal Duties

The number of criminal motions handled by magistrate judges increased significantly in FY2003. The number

of 636(b)(1)(A) motions rose nearly 38 percent to 11,642; 636(b)(1)(B) motions climbed 6 percent to 725; guilty

pleas rose 10 percent to 5,297, and pretrial conferences rose 31 percent to 1,936. Significant increases also

occurred in the number of probation/supervised release hearings, up 15 percent to 1,304 hearings. Of all

magistrate judge duties, the largest percentage increase occurred in criminal evidentiary hearings, one of the

more time-consuming duties. Criminal evidentiary hearings rose by 68 percent in 2003, up from 112 to 188.

Preliminary proceedings made up the largest category of magistrate judge duties (46 percent) with a total of

83,230, a 9 percent increase over 2002. Of these, initial appearances comprised the largest category, with

24,501, accounting for 29 percent. Arraignments, the second largest category of preliminary proceedings,

rose 4 percent to 16,162. Detention hearings, also among the lengthiest of felony preliminary proceedings,

climbed 9 percent.

Civil Duties 

The number of civil duties handled by magistrate judges in the Ninth Circuit rose 2 percent in 2003 to

31,277 cases. Civil motions, which numbered 21,126 for the year, accounted for 68 percent of all civil duties.

Settlement conferences and pretrial conferences comprised 28 percent of civil duties in 2003.

The largest percentage increases in civil duties occurred in the number of civil consent cases and special

masterships. Civil consent cases rose by 20 percent, from 2,705 to 3,237. The Central District of California,

with 911 consent cases, terminated the largest number of civil consent cases, while the Northern District of

California terminated 659. Civil consent cases without trials increased by 24 percent, from 2,538 to 3,144,

while non-jury trials declined by 65 percent, from 127 to 45. The District of Hawaii experienced the largest

rise in civil consent cases due primarily to 230 cases related to a class action lawsuit brought against the state.

The number of special mastership cases climbed 39 percent, up from 28 in FY02 to 39 in FY03. At the same

time, civil evidentiary hearings dropped 25 percent.

Magistrate judges oversaw 1 percent fewer habeas matters, although reports and recommendations in state

habeas petitions rose 2 percent, and prisoner evidentiary proceedings climbed 25 percent. Total federal

habeas cases dropped by 15 percent.
The Office of the Federal Public Defender was

created by Congress to fulfill a constitutional

requirement that indigents charged with federal

crimes be provided with professional legal

representation at no cost. The U.S. Criminal Justice

Act requires a federal public defender (FPD) or

community defender organization in districts in

which at least 200 persons annually need appointed

counsel. Ten of the 15 judicial districts within the

Ninth Circuit are served by an FPD, who is

appointed by the Court of Appeals and oversees a

staff of judiciary employees. Four other districts

are served by non-profit community defender

organizations staffed by non-government employees.*

New Cases Decline in Ninth Circuit

New defender cases declined in the Ninth Circuit

in FY2003, the first downturn in nine years. New

cases dropped by 5 percent to 23,539 from 24,780 in

FY2002. The most significant decrease occurred in

the District of Arizona, which reported 3,910 new

cases, 33.5 percent less than the prior fiscal year.

The decrease in Arizona in 2003

reflected changing priorities for the

U.S. Attorney, who shifted the

prosecutorial emphasis from the

more numerous, but less demanding

petty offenses to more serious and

more time-consuming felonies and

misdemeanors arising out of illegal

immigration. Petty offenses dropped

from 66 percent of the district’s total

caseload in FY2002 to 29 percent in

FY2003. Immigration-related felonies

and misdemeanors, meanwhile, rose

from 9.2 percent of the total caseload

to 17.5 percent.

Nine judicial districts in the circuit

reported increases in new defender

cases in FY03. The District of Idaho

led that group with 44.1 percent more

new cases, followed by the District of

Alaska, which reported a 43.4 percent

increase in new cases. Nationally, new

defender cases rose 12.6 percent, with

the Ninth Circuit accounting for 26.5

percent of the total.

California, Arizona Report Highest Caseloads

The Southern District of California had the most

new defender cases in FY2003. The community

defender organization there reported 5,688 new

cases, down 1.1 percent from 2002. Immigration

and drug cases comprised 58 and 23.4 percent,

respectively, of all criminal filings in the district.

While Arizona reported fewer new defender cases

in FY03, it still had the second highest number of

cases within the circuit, with 3,910. Immigration

and drug cases comprised 54.2 and 26.2 percent,

respectively, of all criminal filings in the district.

Pending and Closed Cases

Overall, the circuit experienced a rise of 3.6 percent

in FY03 in its pending defender caseload, reaching

7,944. At the same time, the number of cases closed

fell 5.6 percent to 23,247.

* The District of the Northern Mariana Islands is not

served by a defender organization.

Federal Defender Organizations

Summary of Representations FY2003

Opened Opened Closed Pending

District 9/30/02 9/30/03 9/30/03 9/30/03

Alaska 249 357 327 96

Arizona 5,878 3,910 3,730 1,019

C. Calif. 3,278 3,521 3,535 1,289

E. Calif. 1,896 2,188 2,103 777

N. Calif. 867 930 985 468

*S. Calif. 5,756 5,688 5,788 1,143

Guam 125 109 125 48

Hawaii 697 701 638 546

*Idaho 188 271 249 127

*Montana 403 554 537 216

Nevada 1,320 1,260 1,185 676

Oregon 1,365 1,582 1,611 827

*E. Wash. 687 750 696 273

W. Wash. 2,071 1,718 1,738 439

Circuit Total 24,780 23,539 23,247 7,944

National Total 79,001 88,925 87,252 31,375

Circuit Total % of

National Total 31.4% 26.5% 26.6% 25.3%

Northern Mariana Islands is not served by a defender organization.

*Community Defender Organizations (E. Wash. - Idaho combined)

28 Annual Report 2003

NI NT H CI R C U I T ANNUAL REPORT

Federal Defenders Report Caseload Decline
Annual Report 2003 29

NI NT H CI R C U I T ANNUAL REPORT

Pretrial Services officers provide bail reports to judges who decide whether to detain or release defendants

prior to court proceedings. They also closely monitor those defendants who are released to their

supervision. The mission of each Pretrial Services office is to assist the court in reducing the rate of

unnecessary detentions, while at the same time reasonably ensuring the safety of the community and

future appearances of defendants. 

Case Activations, Bail Investigations, Supervisions

The Ninth Circuit ranked first nationally in the number of new pretrial cases in FY2003 with 23,798, up 2.5

percent from the previous year; this figure amounted to 26 percent of all new cases nationwide. The highest

levels of case activations were in the Districts of Arizona (7,337), Southern California (5,432), Central

California (2,703) and Western Washington (1,560). 

The number of pretrial bail reports submitted increased by 1.7 percent over FY2002. Officers recommended

detention in 61.5 percent of all cases, the same percentage reported the year prior. At the same time, offices of

the U.S. Attorney in the circuit recommended detention in 63.0 percent of all cases in FY2003, down slightly

from the 63.8 reported in FY2002.

In FY2003, 6,293 defendants were released for pretrial services supervision in the Ninth Circuit, down slightly

from FY2002. Of the total, 4,862 were released on standard pretrial services supervision, 1,238 were supervised on a courtesy basis from another district/circuit, and 193 were on pretrial diversion caseloads. All

categories experienced slight decreases from those supervised in 2002.

Non-appearance and Re-arrest Rates 

The rates of defendant non-appearance and re-arrest in the Ninth Circuit were significantly low in FY2003.

There were a total of 2,347 violations of bond conditions, a slight decrease from FY2002. Of these, 1,469

occurred pre-adjudication, 755 pre-sentence, and 123 while pending self-surrender to custody. 

Those defendants found to be in violation totaled 1,229, a 3 percent decrease from FY2002. Of these, 201 had

committed new offenses, while the remaining defendants were involved in technical violations.

Pretrial Services Interviews and Types of Bail, Ending September 30, 2003

 Defendant Contact Written Reports FY2002 FY2003

 Not Refused Postbail Total Cases Total Cases Change

District Interviewed Interviewed Interview Prebail & Other Activated Activated 2002-2003

Alaska 190 42 67 295 0 209 299 43.1%

Arizona 1,877 5,391 69 7,046 194 6,805 7,337 7.8%

C. Calif. 2,035 123 545 2,645 19 2,913 2,703 -7.2%

E. Calif. 374 132 677 1,164 15 1,078 1,183 9.7%

N. Calif. 405 833 19 642 416 1,223 1,257 2.8%

S. Calif. 505 38 4,889 4,292 1,121 5,466 5,432 -0.6%

Hawaii 375 142 5 508 5 476 522 9.7%

Idaho 353 7 1 356 4 354 361 2.0%

Montana 306 172 9 461 8 441 487 10.4%

Nevada 514 51 457 985 28 1,022 1,022 0.0%

Oregon 394 40 539 946 4 920 973 5.8%

E. Wash 204 113 183 231 208 511 500 -2.2%

W. Wash. 483 925 152 1,554 2 1,656 1,560 -5.8%

Guam 78 48 5 76 13 111 131 18.0%

N. Mariana Is. 26 5 0 18 2 39 31 -20.5%

Circuit Total 8,119 8,062 7,617 21,219 2,039 23,224 23,798 2.5%

National Total 66,824 16,191 12,477 83,798 8,288 89,421 95,492 6.8%

% of National 12.1% 49.8% 61.0% 25.3% 24.6% 26.0% 24.9% -4.0%

Circuit Ranks First in New Pretrial Cases
30 Annual Report 2003

NI NT H CI R C U I T ANNUAL REPORT

The United States Probation Office is responsible

for pre-sentence investigations and reports that

assist judges in determining punishment for

convicted offenders. Probation officers also

supervise convicted offenders who have been

placed on probation, supervised release and

parole, and persons allowed conditional release

pending mental competency proceedings.

Persons Under Supervision 

At the end of FY03, there were 19,660 persons under

supervision in the Ninth Circuit. This represents a

0.6 percent decrease from FY02, which is attributed

to the Early Termination Program initiated by the

Judicial Conference of the United States.

The Ninth Circuit accounted for 17.8 percent of the

national total of 110,621 persons under supervision.

This was an increase of 1.7 percent from FY02.

Among judicial districts of the Ninth Circuit, the

Central District of California had the largest number

of persons under supervision with 5,847, up 5.6

percent from the prior fiscal year. The District of

Arizona has 2,746 persons under supervision,

although its caseload actually declined by nearly 7

percent from FY2002. The Southern District of

California ranked third with 1,882 persons under

supervision, down 7.8 percent from FY02.

Drug offenses continue to account for the majority

of cases under supervision in the Ninth Circuit and

nationally. In FY03, drug law violations accounted

for 7,665 persons, or 39 percent of the total number

of persons under supervision in the Ninth Circuit.

Revocation Rates

The national average rate of revocations – the

return of a parolee to prison for failure to abide by

the conditions of parole – held steady at 22.9 percent

in FY03. Technical violations (19.4 percent), major

crimes (9.3 percent) and minor crimes (1.4 percent)

were most common causes of revocation. The

Ninth Circuit revocation rate was 28.8 percent, up

0.9 percent from the prior fiscal year. Border districts

had the highest revocation rates. The District of

Arizona had a revocation rate of 40 percent among

its active cases and 21 percent among its large inactive caseload of supervised releasees who have

been deported, then return and face revocation. 

The three districts with the lowest revocation rates

were the Northern District of California, Guam,

and Alaska with 16, 17 and 19 percent, respectively.

Ninth Circuit Probation System

Persons Under Supervision by District as of September 30, 2003

District Judge Magistrate Judge Supervised FY2002 FY2003 Change

District Probation Probation Release Other Cases Cases FY02-FY03

Alaska 72 34 170 2 276 278 0.7%

Arizona 843 253 1,596 54 2,943 2,746 -6.7%

C. Calif. 1,283 151 4,164 249 5,539 5,847 5.6%

E. Calif. 257 196 1,027 48 1,598 1,528 -4.4%

N. Calif. 383 213 962 67 1,754 1,625 -7.4%

S. Calif. 200 26 1,619 37 2,042 1,882 -7.8%

Hawaii 115 57 473 5 633 650 2.7%

Idaho 104 24 214 11 342 353 3.2%

Montana 171 30 367 9 580 577 -0.5%

Nevada 254 44 654 71 1,033 1,023 -1.0%

Oregon 257 27 746 47 1,021 1,077 5.5%

E. Wash 78 8 331 7 413 424 2.7%

W. Wash. 219 183 967 74 1,395 1,443 3.4%

Guam 45 0 106 2 147 153 4.1%

N. Mariana Is. 15 0 39 0 53 54 1.9%

Circuit Total 4,296 1,246 13,435 683 19,769 19,660 -0.6%

 Referred by U.S. Courts Referred by Institutions

Probation Caseload

Held Steady in FY03
Annual Report 2003 31

NI NT H CI R C U I T ANNUAL REPORT

Caseload Summaries for the

U.S. District Courts of the

Ninth Circuit

Caseload Summaries for the

U.S. District Courts of the

Ninth Circuit
32 Annual Report 2003

NI NT H CI R C U I T ANNUAL REPORT

District of Alaska

 Fiscal Year Change Per Judgeship Unweighted

Caseload Measure 2002 2003 2002-2003 2003

District Court

 Filings 545 623 14.3% 208

 Terminations 671 725 8.0% 242

 *Pending 615 513 -16.6% 171

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 1,432 1,541 7.6% 771

 Terminations 1,398 1,535 9.8% 768

 Pending 1,403 1,409 0.4% 705

Authorized places of holding court:

Authorized Judgeships Anchorage, Fairbanks, Juneau, Ketchikan,

 District 3 Kodiak, Nome

 Senior 3

 Bankruptcy 2

 Magistrate

 Full time 2

 Part-time 4

*Total pending cases revised for 2002 fiscal year.

District of Arizona

 Fiscal Year Change Per Judgeship Unweighted

Caseload Measure 2002 2003 2002-2003 2003

District Court

 Filings 7,128 7,653 7.4% 589

 Terminations 6,665 7,721 15.8% 594

 *Pending 5,787 5,719 -1.2% 440

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 28,738 31,994 11.3% 4,571

 Terminations 24,967 26,538 6.3% 3,791

 Pending 31,052 36,508 17.6% 5,215

Authorized places of holding court:

Authorized Judgeships Flagstaff, Phoenix, Prescott, Tucson, Yuma

 **District 13

 Bankruptcy 7

 Magistrate

 Full time 12

 Part-time 0

*Total pending cases revised for 2002 fiscal year.

**Includes temporary judgeship effective July 15, 2003.
Central District of California 

 Fiscal Year Change Per Judgeship Unweighted

Caseload Measure 2002 2003 2002-2003 2003

District Court

 Filings 14,851 14,036 -5.5% 501

 Terminations 16,364 15,197 -7.1% 543

 *Pending 14,366 13,205 -8.1% 472

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 84,936 79,250 -6.7% 3,774

 Terminations 86,942 82,781 -4.8% 3,942

 Pending 45,549 42,018 -7.8% 2,001

Authorized places of holding court:

Authorized Judgeships Los Angeles, Riverside, Santa Ana

 **District 28

 Bankruptcy 21

 Magistrate

 Full time 20

 Part-time 2

*Total pending cases revised for 2002 fiscal year.

**Includes temporary judgeship effective July 15, 2003.

Annual Report 2003 33

NI NT H CI R C U I T ANNUAL REPORT

Eastern District of California

 Fiscal Year Change Per Judgeship Unweighted

Caseload Measure 2002 2003 2002-2003 2003

District Court

 Filings 5,140 5,466 6.3% 781

 Terminations 5,082 4,961 -2.4% 709

 *Pending 5,770 6,275 8.8% 896

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 31,455 31,791 1.1% 5,299

 Terminations 31,026 32,015 3.2% 5,336

 Pending 21,924 21,700 -1.0% 3,617

Authorized places of holding court:

Authorized Judgeships Fresno, Redding, Sacramento

 District 7

 Senior 3

 Bankruptcy 6

 Magistrate

 Full time 8

 Part-time 3

*Total pending cases revised for 2002 fiscal year.
34 Annual Report 2003

NI NT H CI R C U I T ANNUAL REPORT

Northern District of California

 Fiscal Year Change Per Judgeship Unweighted

Caseload Measure 2002 2003 2002-2003 2003

District Court

 Filings 7,873 6,739 -14.4% 481

 Terminations 6,681 6,912 3.5% 494

 *Pending 8,033 7,860 -2.2% 561

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 20,719 22,760 9.9% 2,529

 Terminations 21,050 22,615 7.4% 2,513

 Pending 23,325 23,470 0.6% 2,608

Authorized places of holding court:

Authorized Judgeships Eureka, Monterey, Oakland, San Francisco,

 District 14 San Jose, Santa Rosa

 Senior 4

 Bankruptcy 9

 Magistrate

 Full time 10

 Part-time 1

*Total pending cases revised for 2002 fiscal year.

Southern District of California

 Fiscal Year Change Per Judgeship Unweighted

Caseload Measure 2002 2003 2002-2003 2003

District Court

 Filings 6,392 6,399 0.1% 492

 Terminations 6,244 6,308 1.0% 485

 *Pending 3,542 3,633 2.6% 279

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 12,844 12,329 -4.0% 3,082

 Terminations 14,465 13,740 -5.0% 3,435

 Pending 10,419 9,008 -13.5% 2,252

Authorized places of holding court:

Authorized Judgeships El Centro, San Diego

 **District 13

 Senior 5

 Bankruptcy 4

 Magistrate

 Full time 10

 Part-time 0

*Total pending cases revised for 2002 fiscal year.
Annual Report 2003 35

NI NT H CI R C U I T ANNUAL REPORT

District of Guam

 Fiscal Year Change Per Judgeship Unweighted

Caseload Measure 2002 2003 2002-2003 2003

District Court

 Filings 214 156 -27.1% 156

 Terminations 188 130 -30.9% 130

 *Pending 179 205 14.5% 205

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 400 343 -14.3% 343

 Terminations 369 319 -13.6% 319

 Pending 224 248 10.7% 248

Authorized place of holding court:

Authorized Judgeships Hagatna

 District 1

 Senior 0

 Bankruptcy 0

 Magistrate

 Full time 0

 Part-time 0

The Guam district judge also handles all bankruptcy cases.

District of Hawaii

 Fiscal Year Change Per Judgeship Unweighted

Caseload Measure 2002 2003 2002-2003 2003

District Court

 Filings 1,288 1,385 7.5% 346

 Terminations 1,343 1,894 41.0% 474

 *Pending 1,885 1,376 -27.0% 344

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 4,684 3,908 -16.6% 3,908

 Terminations 4,819 4,110 -14.7% 4,110

 Pending 2,768 2,566 -7.3% 2,566

Authorized place of holding court:

Authorized Judgeships Honolulu

 District 4

 Senior 2

 Bankruptcy 1

 Magistrate

 Full time 3

 Part-time 2

*Total pending cases revised for 2002 fiscal year.
District of Idaho

 Fiscal Year Change Per Judgeship Unweighted

Caseload Measure 2002 2003 2002-2003 2003

District Court

 Filings 853 831 -2.6% 416

 Terminations 867 818 -5.7% 409

 Pending 898 911 1.4% 456

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 8,686 9,630 10.9% 4,815

 Terminations 8,251 9,469 14.8% 4,735

 Pending 7,697 7,858 2.1% 3,929

Authorized places of holding court:

Authorized Judgeships Boise, Coer d'Alene, Moscow, Pocatello

 District 2

 Senior 0

 Bankruptcy 2

 Magistrate

 Full time 2

 Part-time 0

36 Annual Report 2003

NI NT H CI R C U I T ANNUAL REPORT

District of Montana

 Fiscal Year Change Per Judgeship Unweighted

Caseload Measure 2002 2003 2002-2003 2003

District Court

 Filings 1,163 1,187 2.1% 396

 Terminations 1,155 1,096 -5.1% 365

 *Pending 1,144 1,235 8.0% 412

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 4,102 4,345 5.9% 4,345

 Terminations 3,335 5,039 51.1% 5,039

 Pending 4,079 3,385 -17.0% 3,385

Authorized places of holding court:

Authorized Judgeships Billings, Butte, Great Falls, Helena,

 District 3 Kalispell, Missoula

 Senior 2

 Bankruptcy 1

 Magistrate

 Full time 3

 Part-time 1

*Total pending cases revised for 2002 fiscal year.
Annual Report 2003 37

NI NT H CI R C U I T ANNUAL REPORT

District of Nevada

 Fiscal Year Change Per Judgeship Unweighted

Caseload Measure 2002 2003 2002-2003 2003

District Court

 Filings 3,133 3,218 2.7% 460

 Terminations 2,983 3,125 4.8% 446

 *Pending 3,001 3,094 3.1% 442

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 19,095 20,689 8.3% 6,896

 Terminations 9,534 21,234 122.7% 7,078

 Pending 32,412 31,867 -1.7% 10,622

Authorized places of holding court:

Authorized Judgeships Carson City, Elko, Ely, Las Vegas, 

 District 7 Lovelock, Reno

 Senior 2

 Bankruptcy 3

 Magistrate

 Full time 5

 Part-time 0

*Total pending cases revised for 2002 fiscal year.

District of Northern Mariana Islands

 Fiscal Year Change Per Judgeship Unweighted

Caseload Measure 2002 2003 2002-2003 2003

District Court

 Filings 76 74 -2.6% 74

 Terminations 67 69 3.0% 69

 *Pending 68 73 7.4% 73

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 28 20 -28.6% 20

 Terminations 31 9 -71.0% 9

 Pending 30 41 36.7% 41

Authorized place of holding court:

Authorized Judgeships Saipan

 District 1

 Senior 0

 Bankruptcy 0

 Magistrate

 Full time 0

 Part-time 0

The Northern Mariana Islands district judge also handles all bankruptcy cases.
38 Annual Report 2003

NI NT H CI R C U I T ANNUAL REPORT

District of Oregon

 Fiscal Year Change Per Judgeship Unweighted

Caseload Measure 2002 2003 2002-2003 2003

District Court

 Filings 3,027 3,190 5.4% 532

 Terminations 2,897 2,977 2.8% 496

 *Pending 2,692 2,905 7.9% 484

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 24,034 25,723 7.0% 5,145

 Terminations 23,181 24,895 7.4% 4,979

 Pending 15,727 16,555 5.3% 3,311

Authorized places of holding court:

Authorized Judgeships Coquille, Eugene, Klamath Falls,

 District 6 Medford, Pendleton, Portland

 Senior 5

 Bankruptcy 5

 Magistrate

 Full time 6

 Part-time 1

*Total pending cases revised for 2002 fiscal year.

Eastern District of Washington

 Fiscal Year Change Per Judgeship Unweighted

Caseload Measure 2002 2003 2002-2003 2003

District Court

 Filings 1,276 1,369 7.3% 342

 Terminations 1,123 1,205 7.3% 301

 *Pending 957 1,121 17.1% 280

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 10,059 10,602 5.4% 5,301

 Terminations 9,517 10,063 5.7% 5,032

 Pending 8,216 8,755 6.6% 4,378

Authorized places of holding court:

Authorized Judgeships Richland, Spokane, Walla Walla, Yakima

 District 4

 Senior 2

 Bankruptcy 2

 Magistrate

 Full time 2

 Part-time 0

*Total pending cases revised for 2002 fiscal year.
Annual Report 2003 39

NI NT H CI R C U I T ANNUAL REPORT

Western District of Washington

 Fiscal Year Change Per Judgeship Unweighted

Caseload Measure 2002 2003 2002-2003 2003

District Court

 Filings 4,794 5,542 15.6% 792

 Terminations 4,709 3,902 -17.1% 557

 *Pending 2,851 4,491 57.5% 642

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 28,349 30,305 6.9% 6,061

 Terminations 27,886 30,033 7.7% 6,007

 Pending 20,014 20,286 1.4% 4,057

Authorized places of holding court:

Authorized Judgeships Bellingham, Seattle, Tacoma

 District 7

 Senior 4

 Bankruptcy 5

 Magistrate

 Full time 4

 Part-time 2

*Total pending cases revised for 2002 fiscal year.
40 Annual Report 2003