2006 Annual Report

NINTH CIRCUIT United States Courts
The Offi ce of the Circuit Executive would like to acknowledge the following for their 

contributions to the 2006 Annual Report:

Chief Judge Mary M. Schroeder

Clerk of Court Cathy Catterson

Chief Pretrial Services Offi cer George Walker

Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Clerk Harold Marenus

Above: Text mural of Article III of the United States Constitution located at the Wayne Lyman Morse Courthouse in Eugene, Oregon.

Cover Image: San Francisco courtroom mosaic depicting Justice with Science, Literature and the Arts
Table of Contents

2 Judicial Council Mission Statement

3 Foreword by Chief Judge Mary M. Schroeder

5 Ninth Circuit Overview

6 Judicial Council and Administration

8 Organization of Judicial Council Committees

Ninth Circuit Overview

10 New Judges

13 New Senior Judges

14 In Memoriam

Judicial Transitions

16 Judicial Council Committees

19 2006 Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference 

21 Conference Award Presentations 

23 Devitt Award Presentation 

25 Documentary Film Inspires Law Day Program

26 Ideas Set Forth for Managing Immigration Caseload 

28 2006 National Gang Symposium

Ninth Circuit Highlights

30 Eugene Courthouse Dedicated

30 Space and Security Committee

33 Courthouses in Design Phase

Space and Facilities

36 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 

39 District Courts

43 Bankruptcy Courts 

45 Bankruptcy Appellate Panel

47 Magistrate Judge Matters

49 Federal Public Defenders

51 Probation Offi ces

53 Pretrial Services Offi ces

55 District by District Caseloads

 (All statistics provided by the Administrative

 Offi ce of the United States Courts)

The Work of the Courts
Annual Report 2006

2

The Mission of the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit is to 

support the effective and expeditious administration of 

justice and the safeguarding of fairness in the administration 

of the courts within the circuit. To do so, it will promote 

the fair and prompt resolution of disputes, ensure the 

effective discharge of court business, prevent any form of 

invidious discrimination, and enhance public understanding 

of, and confidence in the judiciary.

MISSION STATEMENT

The Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit

Seated, from left: Chief District Judge Donald W. Molloy, Chief Circuit Judge Mary M. Schroeder, and Senior 

Circuit Judge David R. Thompson. Standing, middle row, from left: Circuit Judge Marsha S. Berzon, Senior 

District Judge Roger G. Strand, Chief District Judge B. Lynn Winmill, and Circuit Judge Susan P. Graber. Standing, 

top row, from left: Magistrate Judge Anthony J. Battaglia, and Chief Bankruptcy Judge Ralph B. Kirscher.

Not in photo: Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski, Circuit Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw, District Judge Charles R. Breyer, and 

Senior District Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr.
Foreword

3

FOREWORD

Federal courts of the Ninth Circuit are not only among the busiest in the 

nation, but also the most innovative. Our judges and court staff, often assisted 

by lawyers and law professors, are continually seeking ways to improve the 

administration of justice. The 2006 Ninth Circuit Annual Report makes note of some of these 

efforts, while recapping the important trends and events in the courts serving nine western 

states and two Pacifi c Island jurisdictions. We hope you fi nd the information useful and 

welcome your comments.

The lack of new judgeships and the slow pace of appointments to fi ll existing judgeships has been an 

ongoing challenge for the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and for many district courts in 

the circuit. Although no new judgeships were authorized for any of our courts in 2006, two new circuit judges 

were nominated by the president and confi rmed by the Senate in relatively rapid fashion. The addition of 

Judges Milan D. Smith, Jr., and Sandra Segal Ikuta brought the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to nearly full 

strength with 26 of 28 authorized judgeships fi lled.

District courts did not fare as well, ending the year with nine vacancies. Four new district judges were 

confi rmed, including Frances Marie Tydingco-Gatewood, the new chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the 

District of Guam, one of three territorial courts in the federal system. The appointment of Judge TydingcoGatewood, who was raised on Guam and is of Chamoru and Pohnpeian descent, stirred indigenous pride 

among island residents. In addition, four new bankruptcy judges were appointed, one new judge named to 

the circuit’s Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, and fi ve new magistrate judges selected by the district courts.

For the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, 2006 brought a welcome respite from relentless growth in caseload 

driven by immigration appeals. The number of new appeals fi led with the court decreased by 14.1 percent, 

the fi rst decline in fi ve years. Immigration appeals, which had increased 626 percent from 2001 to 2005, were 

down 22 percent from the year before. The Ninth Circuit continued to have the largest share of new fi lings, 

21.7 percent of the national total.

Immigration matters, which accounted for 37.4 percent of new appeals in 2006, will likely remain a big part 

of our caseload for years to come. With help from the bar, the court continues to look for ways to expedite 

the processing of immigration appeals while respecting the rights of would-be residents and asylum seekers. 

In 2006, the court sponsored “brainstorming” sessions with some of the most knowledgeable attorneys in 

the immigration fi eld. One of the more promising ideas to come out of these sessions involves expanded 

mentoring and training opportunities for attorneys who represent immigrant appellants pro bono. We are 

hopeful this proposal, which involves using private funding from law fi rms and others to retain experienced 

attorneys as mentors/trainers, will be implemented in 2007.

Criminal and civil case fi lings held steady in the district courts of the Ninth Circuit, which accounted for 16.2 

percent of the total federal court caseload. Our bankruptcy courts, however, saw new fi lings plummet, part of 

a national trend linked closely to the enactment of a bankruptcy reform law in late 2005.

While a few in Congress may persist in trying to split the Ninth Circuit, widespread opposition from the 

bench, bar and academia appears to have convinced most of our elected leaders that it is a bad idea. The 

solidarity shown by the legal community in opposing the split was truly remarkable in 2006. Early in the 

year, judges of the court of appeals published a statement, signed by 33 of 47 total active and senior circuit 

judges, opposing circuit division. Later in the year, letters of opposition were sent to the Senate Judiciary 

Committee signed by more than 80 judges of district and bankruptcy courts in the circuit, and by more than 

Chief Judge Mary M. Schroeder
Annual Report 2006

4

385 professors from law schools around the country. And when the committee actually met in September 

to consider yet another circuit-splitting bill, it was the president-elect of the American Bar Association who 

joined with me and others in testifying against the measure. 

Also in the legislative realm, the courts were fortunate to receive adequate funding, despite some 

uncertainty late in the year. Bills aimed at reducing the judiciary’s rent costs, another important fi scal issue, 

also were introduced in the House and Senate. Although neither bill moved forward, they helped generate 

congressional interest in this important matter and spurred new discussions of cost issues between the 

judicial branch and General Services Administration, which serves as our landlord. This is a problem long in 

coming and thus likely to take some time to solve. 

Speaking of space and facilities, we celebrated the opening of the Wayne Lyman Morse U.S. Courthouse in 

Eugene, Ore., which is not only a marvelous example of modern public architecture, but the cornerstone 

of the city’s plans to revitalize the area with a new “Courthouse District.” In Seattle, work was begun on the 

modernization and seismic retrofi tting of the William Kenzo Nakamura U.S. Courthouse for future use by 

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Plans also were approved for a new courthouse in Great Falls, Mont., and 

discussions continued on new court facilities in Billings, Mont., Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, and Vancouver, Wash. 

But the circuit’s most critical projects, new courthouses in San Diego and Los Angeles, remained on hold in 

the face of infl ationary cost escalation, and plans for a new courthouse in Bakersfi eld bogged down over 

selection of a site. The San Diego courthouse site has been acquired and was cleared in 2006 with a dramatic 

implosion of the structure that had occupied the land.

Certainly among the year’s highlights was the presence of Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and Associate 

Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Stephen G. Breyer, along with the new director of the Administrative 

Offi ce of the U.S. Courts, James C. Duff , at the 2006 Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference, held last July in 

Huntington Beach. Justice Kennedy, our newly designated circuit justice, also visited the Ninth Circuit Court 

of Appeals in October, as did the not-so-retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who sat on two appellate 

panels hearing oral arguments that month at the James R. Browning U.S. Courthouse in San Francisco.

Among the milestones marked in 2006 was the 40th anniversary of the establishment of federal courts 

for the Central and Eastern districts of California. They were created in 1966, when Congress redrew the 

boundaries of the Northern and Southern districts of California, and reallocated judgeships to the new 

districts. Among the anniversary observances was a special symposium in the Central District sponsored by 

Southwestern University Law School. 

Noteworthy among the accolades and honors received by our judges during the year was the presentation 

in October of the American Judicature Society’s 2005 Edward J. Devitt Distinguished Service to Justice 

Award to Senior Circuit Judge J. Cliff ord Wallace. The award, regarded as the highest honor that can be 

bestowed on a federal judge, was presented by Justice Kennedy at a community event held in Judge 

Wallace’s hometown of San Diego.

You are invited to peruse this report further for more information about the work of our courts in 2006, 

including caseload statistics and descriptions of various initiatives undertaken by our judges and staff . All in 

all, I think you will fi nd 2006 was another productive year for the Ninth Circuit.
NINTH CIRCUIT OVERVIEW

The United States Courts for the Ninth Circuit consists of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth 

Circuit along with district and bankruptcy courts in the 15 federal judicial districts that comprise 

the circuit, plus associated administrative units that provide various services to the court.

Within the Ninth Circuit are 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 U.S. 

Constitution establishing the federal judiciary. Article III judges are nominated by the President, confi rmed by the 

Senate and serve for life. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has been authorized 28 judgeships and ended 2006 with 

two vacant positions. For most of the year, the district courts were authorized 112 judgeships, nine 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. Senior circuit 

judges sit on appellate panels, serve on circuit and national judicial committees and handle a variety of administrative 

matters. In the district courts, 53 senior judges heard cases, presided over procedural matters, served on committees 

and conducted other business of their courts during 2006.

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 to terms of 14 years, while magistrate judges are appointed by the individual district courts and hold their 

positions for eight years. In 2006, bankruptcy courts in the Ninth Circuit were authorized 68 permanent and fi ve 

temporary judgeships. The district courts were authorized 95 full-time and 11 part-time magistrate judges; several 

courts also relied on the services of recalled magistrate judges. 

Ninth Circuit Overview

5
Annual Report 2006

6

JUDICIAL COUNCIL AND ADMINISTRATION

The council’s statutory mission is to support the eff ective 

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 eff ective and expeditious 

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

332(d)(1)]. It also has been delegated responsibilities by 

the Judicial Conference of the United States, the national 

governing body for the federal courts. These responsibilities 

include authorizing senior judge staffi ng levels and pay. The 

council accomplishes most of its work through committees. 

The Ninth Circuit is represented on the Executive Committee of 

the Judicial Conference U.S. by its chief judge and by a district 

judge chosen by a vote of all district judges in the circuit, 

currently Judge Charles R. Breyer of the Northern District 

of California. In addition, circuit, district, bankruptcy and 

magistrate judges also serve on various Judicial Conference 

U.S. committees at the request of the chief justice.

Conference of Chief District Judges

The Conference of Chief District Judges advises 

the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit about the 

administration of justice in 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 Stephen M. McNamee of the District of 

Arizona served as chair of the conference from December 

2005 through April 2006. He was succeeded by Chief 

District Judge B. Lynn Winmill of the District of Idaho, 

whose term will expire in March 2007.

The Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit is the governing body of the United States Courts for the 

Ninth Circuit. Its 11 voting members are looked upon as a “judicial board of directors.” Chaired by 

the chief judge of the circuit, the council provides policy guidance and leadership to courts of the 

circuit. It meets three times a year to review issues and resolve problems, conducting additional 

business by conference call or mail ballot when necessary.

District Court Clerk W. Samuel Hamrick, Jr., of the Southern District of California served as the district clerks’ liaison 

to the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit in 2006.
Ninth Circuit Overview

7

Conference of Chief Bankruptcy Judges

The Conference of Chief Bankruptcy Judges advises the 

Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit on the administration 

of the bankruptcy courts within the circuit. The chair of 

the conference is a non-voting member of the council. 

The conference, which consists of chief bankruptcy judges 

from each district, the presiding judge of the Ninth Circuit 

Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) and one recalled (retired) 

bankruptcy judge, meets twice a year. Chief Bankruptcy 

Judge Gregg W. Zive of the District of Nevada chaired the 

conference from September 2005 to October 2006. He was 

succeeded by Chief Bankruptcy Judge Ralph B. Kirscher of 

the District of Montana, who will chair the conference until 

late September 2007.

Magistrate Judges Executive Board

The Magistrate Judges Executive Board provides a channel 

of communication between the Judicial Council of the 

Ninth Circuit and the more than 100 full-time, part-time 

and recalled magistrate judges serving in the district courts. 

The 14-member board meets twice a year and meets with 

all magistrate judges at the annual circuit conference. The 

chair of the board serves on the council as an observer.

Chief Magistrate Judge J. Kelley Arnold of the Western 

District of Washington served as chair of the board from 

September 2004 to September 2006. He was succeeded 

by Magistrate Judge Anthony J. Battaglia of the Southern 

District of California, beginning in October 2006. Judge 

Battaglia will chair the board until September 2008.

Clerks of Court

Day-to-day management of the courts rests with the 

chief judge and clerk of court for the court of appeals 

and each of the district and bankruptcy courts. Clerks 

of court are the administrative backbone of the federal 

court system, responsible for processing new cases 

and appeals, handling docketing functions, responding 

to procedural questions from the public and bar, and 

ensuring adequate judicial staff resources. They also 

oversee the courts’ migration to electronic case fi ling 

and management. Cathy Catterson, the clerk of court 

for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals also supervises the 

work of the Circuit Mediation Offi ce and the Offi ce of the 

Staff Attorneys, which includes research, motions, case 

management and pro se units. Peter Shaw, the appellate 

commissioner, reviews Criminal Justice Act vouchers for 

cases that come before the court of appeals. Clerks of the 

district and bankruptcy courts also are active members of 

Ninth Circuit and Judicial Conference U.S. committees.

Associated Court Units

Ninth Circuit courts also rely on several important courtrelated agencies to ensure the fair administration of justice. 

The district courts maintain oversight of U.S. Probation 

and Pretrial Services offi ces, which are responsible for 

supervision of criminal defendants and background 

investigations and reports. The circuit’s federal public 

defender and community defenders represent indigent 

defendants unable to aff ord private counsel. They have 

offi ces in each of the Ninth Circuit districts with the 

exception of the Northern Mariana Islands, which relies on a 

Criminal Justice Act panel of attorneys.

Ninth Circuit Library System

The Ninth Circuit Library System assists judges, attorneys, 

court staff and the public through a network of 24 law 

libraries housed in courthouses throughout the western 

states. The primary mission of court librarians is to provide 

research services to judges and their staff . Research 

librarians assist law clerks on case-related research by 

providing guidance and recommendations, off ering 

training opportunities, and performing direct research on 

more complex topics. Librarians also conduct research to 

assist court executives and judges in the administration 

of local courts and on matters involving committees of 

the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit and the Judicial 

Conference U.S. Library resources also are made available 

to the bar and public with the level of access determined 

by local judges.

Office of the Circuit Executive

The Offi ce of the Circuit Executive provides staff support 

to the 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. Circuit 

executive staff also coordinates building and automation 

projects, and advises the council on procedural and 

ethical matters. The Offi ce of the Circuit Executive provides 

management and technical expertise to courts within 

the circuit, administers the annual Ninth Circuit Judicial 

Conference and facilitates educational programs for 

judges and court staff in the courts of the Pacifi c islands 

through a grant from the U.S. Department of the Interior.
Annual Report 2006

8

Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit

Chief Judge Mary M. Schroeder

Executive Committee

Gregory B. Walters, Circuit Executive

Office of the Circuit 

Executive

Judicial

Conference

Executive

Committee

Budget & Finance

Program

Resolutions

Activities

Lawyer 

Representatives 

Coordinating 

Committee

Associates of

Judicial Officers

Conference of Chief 

District Judges

Conference of Chief 

Bankruptcy Judges

Magistrate Judges 

Executive Board

Liaison 

Committees

District Clerks

Bankruptcy Clerks

Chief Probation 

& Chief Pretrial 

Services Offi cers

ORGANIZATION OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT COMMITTEES

Advisory &

Standing 

Committees

Advisory Board

Alternative Dispute 

Resolution

Capital Case

Court-Council 

Committee on 

Bankruptcy Judge 

Appointments

Federal Public 

Defenders

Information 

Technology

Inns of Court

Jury Instructions

Jury Trial 

Improvement

Ninth Circuit

Judges Education

Pacifi c Islands

Public Information & 

Community Outreach

Self Represented 

Litigants (Pro Se)

Space & Security

Wellness III
Judicial Transitions

Sandra Segal Ikuta is sworn into offi ce as a new judge of the United States Court of 

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by Circuit Judge Alex Kozinksi.
Annual Report 2006

10

Circuit Judges

Judge Sandra Segal Ikuta was appointed 

a circuit judge to the Ninth Circuit Court 

of Appeals on June 23, 2006. Prior to her 

appointment, Judge Ikuta was a deputy 

secretary and general counsel at the 

California Resources Agency from 2004 

to 2006. She was an associate from 1990 

to 1997 and then partner from 1997 to 

2004 at O’Melveny & Myers LLP. Judge Ikuta received her 

A.B. from the University of California at Berkeley in 1976, 

her M.S. from Columbia University in 1978 and her J.D. from 

the University of California at Los Angeles School of Law 

in 1988. Following law school, she clerked for Judge Alex 

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

from 1988 to 1989 and for Associate Justice Sandra Day 

O’Connor (now retired) of the U.S. Supreme Court from 

1989 to 1990. She maintains chambers in Pasadena.

Judge Milan Dale Smith, Jr., was 

appointed a circuit judge to the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals on May 18, 

2006. Prior to his appointment, Judge 

Smith was a managing partner at Smith 

Crane Robinson & Parker LLP in Torrance, 

California, from 1972 to 2006. He was an 

associate at O’Melveny & Myers from 

1969 to 1972. Judge Smith received his B.A. from Brigham 

Young University in 1966 and his J.D. from the University of 

Chicago Law School in 1969. He maintains chambers in 

Pasadena.

District Judges

Judge Timothy Burgess was appointed a 

district judge for the District of Alaska on 

January 23, 2006. Prior to his appointment, 

Judge Burgess served as an assistant 

United States attorney then U.S. attorney 

for the District of Alaska from 1987 to 

1989 and from 1989 to 2006 respectively. 

He was an associate at the law fi rm of 

Gilmore & Feldman from 1987 to 1989. Judge Burgess 

received his B.A. in 1978 and his M.B.A. in 1982 from the 

University of Alaska and his J.D. from the Northeastern 

University Law School in 1987. He maintains chambers in 

Anchorage.

Judge Frances Marie TydingcoGatewood was appointed a district judge 

for the District of Guam on October 27, 

2006. Prior to her appointment, Judge 

Tydingco-Gatewood was a superior 

court judge for the Superior Court of 

Guam from 1994 to 2002 and was an 

associate justice for the Supreme Court 

of Guam from 2002 to 2006. She was the chief prosecutor 

for the Guam Offi ce of the Attorney General from 1990 to 

1994. Judge Tydingco-Gatewood received her B.A. from 

Marquette University in 1980 and her J.D. from the 

University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law in 1983. 

Following law school, she clerked for Judge Forest W. Hanna 

of the Circuit Court for Jackson County, Missouri, from 1983 

to 1984. She maintains chambers in Hagatna.

Judge Andrew J. Guilford was appointed 

a district judge for the Central District of 

California on July 7, 2006. Prior to his 

appointment, Judge Guilford was an 

associate from 1975 to 1983 and then 

partner from 1983 to 2006 at Sheppard, 

Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP. Judge 

Guilford received his A.B. from the 

University of California at Los Angeles in 1972 and his J.D. 

from the University of California at Los Angeles School of 

Law in 1975. He maintains chambers in Santa Ana.

Judge Stephen G. Larson was appointed 

a district judge for the Central District of 

California on March 21, 2006. Prior to his 

appointment, Judge Larson served as a 

magistrate judge for the U.S. District 

Court for the Central District of California 

from 2000 to 2006. Judge Larson is an 

adjunct professor at the University of 

LaVerne College of Law since 2002. He was an instructor at 

California Southern Law School from 2001 to 2005 and was 

an adjunct assistant professor for Glendale College of Law 

from 1997 to 2001. Judge Larson was an assistant U.S. 

attorney in the Los Angeles Criminal Division of the U.S. 

Attorney’s Offi ce for the Central District of California from 

1991 to 2000, working as chief of the Organized Crime 

Strike Force Section, from 1999 to 2000, and as Russian 

Organized Crime coordinator from 1994 to 1998. He was an 

associate at O’Melveny & Myers from 1989 to 1991. Judge 

Larson received his B.S. from Georgetown University in 1986 

and his J.D. from the University of Southern California 

School of Law in 1989. He maintains chambers in Riverside.

NEW JUDGES IN 2006
Judicial Transitions

11

Bankruptcy Judges

Judge Roger L. Efremsky was appointed 

a bankruptcy judge for the Northern 

District of California on August 1, 2006. 

Prior to his appointment, Judge 

Efremsky was a partner with the law fi rm 

of Efremsky & Nagel representing 

corporate clients throughout California 

and served as advisory counsel to the 

Chapter 13 Standing Trustees for the Oakland, San 

Francisco, San Jose and Santa Rosa divisions of the United 

States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of 

California. He is a former chairman of the National 

Association of Chapter Thirteen Trustees (NACTT) Creditor 

Auxiliary and has served on a number of professional 

committees at the state and local levels. Judge Efremsky 

has also testifi ed on behalf of representative national 

creditors before the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on 

Administrative Oversight and the Courts regarding the role 

of the U.S. Trustee system. Judge Efremsky received his B.S. 

from Menlo College in 1978 and his J.D. from Santa Clara 

University School of Law in 1983. He was the recipient of a 

Rotary International Fellowship for the study of 

international law and politics at the University of Cape 

Town, Republic of South Africa. He maintains chambers in 

San Jose.

Judge Victoria S. Kaufman was 

appointed a bankruptcy judge for the 

Central District of California on May 2, 

2006. Prior to her appointment, Judge 

Kaufman was of counsel in the law fi rm of 

Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP in 

Los Angeles. Judge Kaufman received 

her B.A. from Bryn Mawr College in 1986 

and her J.D. from Harvard Law School in 1989, where she 

was the Recent Developments editor of the Harvard 

International Law Journal. In 1988, Judge Kaufman was an 

instructor in the Foreign Student Orientation Program at 

Harvard Law School, and from 1988 to 1989, she was a 

teaching assistant for an undergraduate course at Harvard 

University regarding the Russian revolution. From 1998 to 

1999, she clerked for Judge Marilyn Shea-Stonum of the 

U.S. Bankruptcy Court of the Northern District of Ohio, 

Akron Division. She maintains chambers in Los Angeles.

Judge Mike K. Nakagawa was appointed 

a bankruptcy judge for the District of 

Nevada on September 1, 2006. Prior to 

his appointment, Judge Nakagawa was 

a principal at Nakagawa & Rico P.A. from 

1994 to 2006. He was a partner at 

Namba & Nakagawa from 1993 to 1994 

and a partner at Cespedes, Namba & 

Nakagawa from 1992 to 1993. Judge Nakagawa received 

his B.A. from the University of the Pacifi c in 1977 and his J.D. 

from the University of California at Davis in 1980. He 

maintains chambers in Las Vegas.

Judge Richard M. Neiter was appointed 

a bankruptcy judge for the Central 

District of California on February 18, 

2006. Prior to his appointment, he was 

an associate then shareholder at the Los 

Angeles law fi rm of Stutman, Tresiter & 

Glatt from 1962 to 2006. He served on 

the panel of trained mediators for the 

Central District of California Bankruptcy Court. Judge Neiter 

received his B.S. from the University of California at Los 

Angeles in 1959 and his J.D. from the University of Southern 

California Law School in 1962, where he was a member of 

the Board of Editors for the Southern California Law Review. 

Judge Neiter served as chairman of the Debtor/Creditor 

Relations and Bankruptcy Committee for the State Bar of 

California and was a member of the Executive Committee 

for the Commercial Law and Bankruptcy Section of the Los 

Angeles County Bar Association. He maintains chambers in 

Los Angeles.
Annual Report 2006

12

Magistrate Judges

Judge Edmund F. Brennan was 

appointed a magistrate judge for the 

Eastern District of California on August 

21, 2006. Prior to his appointment, he had 

served in the U.S. Attorney’s Offi ce for the 

Eastern District of California from 1988 to 

2006, holding various supervisory 

positions, including, most recently, chief 

in the Civil Division. He received his B.A. from Doane 

College, Crete, Nebraska, in 1973 and his J.D. from 

Southwestern University School of Law in 1979. After law 

school, Judge Brennan served as a law clerk to Judge 

Edward J. Garcia of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern 

District of California from 1984 to 1988. Judge Brennan 

worked in the Offi ce of Hearings and Appeals from 1980 to 

1984; and for the Social Security Administration as a claims 

representative from 1977 to 1980. He maintains chambers in 

Sacramento.

Judge Jacqueline Chooljian was 

appointed a magistrate judge for the 

Central District of California on January 

9, 2006. Prior to her appointment, she 

served in the U.S. Attorney’s Offi ce for 

the Central District of California since 

1989, the last four years as criminal chief 

and special counsel. Judge Chooljian 

was a litigation associate at the law fi rm of Gibson, Dunn & 

Crutcher in Los Angeles from 1987 and 1989. She served as 

a judicial clerk to Chief Judge Alicemarie H. Stotler of the 

Central District of California in 1986 and 1987. Judge 

Chooljian received her B.A. from the University of California 

at Los Angeles in 1982 and her J.D. from the University of 

Southern California, Gould School of Law in 1986. She 

maintains chambers in Los Angeles.

Judge Jeremiah C. Lynch was appointed 

a magistrate judge for the District of 

Montana on June 10, 2006. Prior to his 

appointment, Judge Lynch had a private 

litigation practice in Great Falls, Mont., 

from 1996 to 2006. He received his B.A. 

from Carroll College, Helena, Mont., in 

1973 and his J.D. from the University of 

Montana School of Law in 1981. Following law school, 

Judge Lynch served as a law clerk to Judge Paul G. Hatfield of 

the United States District Court for the District of Montana 

from 1981 to 1995. He maintains chambers in Missoula.

Judge Frederick F. Mumm was 

appointed a magistrate judge for the 

Central District of California on April 3, 

2006. Prior to his appointment, Judge 

Mumm was a partner at Davis Wright 

Tremaine in Los Angeles from 2000 to 

2006, where he specialized in 

intellectual property, media and 

entertainment litigation. Judge Mumm was associate 

general counsel of CBS Broadcasting Inc. from 1993 to 1999 

and was a partner at Walter Finestone & Richter in Los 

Angeles prior to going to CBS. Judge Mumm received his 

B.S. from the University of Virginia in 1976 and his J.D. from 

the College of William and Mary in 1979. He maintains 

chambers in Los Angeles.

Judge Oswald Parada was appointed a 

magistrate judge for the Central District 

of California on January 20, 2006. Prior 

to his appointment, Judge Parada was 

the directing attorney from 1995 to 2006 

and was a deputy federal public defender 

at the Federal Public Defender’s Offi ce for 

the Central District of California from 

1991 to 2006. Prior to joining the Federal Public Defender’s 

Offi ce, he was a staff attorney at El Rescate Legal Services, 

Inc., in Los Angeles in 1991 and was a legal extern from 

1989 to 1990. Judge Parada received his B.A. from California 

State University at Fullerton in 1987 and his J.D. from Loyola 

Law School in 1990. He maintains chambers in Riverside.

Judge John C. Rayburn, Jr., was 

appointed as a magistrate judge for the 

Central District of California on October 

13, 2006. Prior to his appointment, 

Judge Rayburn spent 15 years as a 

federal prosecutor in the United States 

Attorney’s Offi ce for the Central District 

of California. During that time, Judge 

Rayburn served for approximately fi ve years as the deputy 

chief of the Santa Ana Branch and three years as the chief of 

the Riverside Branch of the U.S. Attorney’s Offi ce. Judge 

Rayburn received his B.S. from California Polytechnic 

University at San Luis Obispo, in 1982, his M.B.A. from San 

Diego State University in 1987, and his J.D. from the 

University of California at Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law, 

in 1990. He maintains chambers in Riverside. 

NEW JUDGES CONTINUED
Judicial Transitions

13

New Senior Judges

Judge John C. Coughenour, of the U.S. 

District Court for the Western District of 

Washington, was appointed a district 

judge on September 28, 1981. He 

served as chief judge from 1997 to 2004 

and assumed senior status on July 27, 

2006. Prior to his appointment, Judge 

Coughenour engaged in private 

practice in Seattle, Washington, from 1966 to 1981 and was 

an assistant professor of law at the University of 

Washington from 1970 to 1973. Judge Cougheour received 

his B.S. from Kansas State College of Pittsburgh in 1963 and 

his J.D. from the University of Iowa College of Law in 1966. 

He maintains chambers in Seattle.

Judge Ronald S.W. Lew, of the U.S. District 

Court for the Central District of 

California, was appointed a district judge 

on May 7, 1987 and assumed senior 

status on September 19, 2006. Prior to 

his appointment to the federal bench, 

Judge Lew was a California Superior 

Court judge, Los Angeles County, from 

1984 to 1987 and was a California Municipal Court judge, 

Los Angeles County, from 1982 to 1984. He was the Los 

Angeles fi re and police pension commissioner from 1976 to 

1982. Judge Lew engaged in private practice in Los Angeles 

from 1974 to 1981. He was the deputy city attorney of the 

Criminal and Civil Liability Divisions in the Los Angeles City 

Attorney’s Offi ce from 1972 to 1974. Judge Lew received his 

B.A. from Loyola University in 1964 and his J.D. from 

Southwestern University School of Law in 1971. He 

maintains chambers in Los Angeles. 
Annual Report 2006

14

Senior District Judge Wm. Matthew 

Byrne, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the 

Central District of California, was 

appointed a district judge on May 20, 

1971. He served as chief judge from 

1994 to 1998 and assumed senior status 

on February 28, 1998. Prior to his 

appointment to the bench, Judge Byrne 

was the executive director for President Nixon’s Commission 

on Campus Unrest in 1970. He served as United States 

attorney for the Central District of California from 1967 to 

1970. Judge Byrne engaged in private practice in Los 

Angeles from 1960 to 1967. He was the assistant U.S. 

attorney for the Southern District of California from 1958 to 

1960. He served in the United States Air Force from 1956 to 

1958. Judge Byrne received his B.S. from the University of 

Southern California in 1953 and his LL.B. from the University 

of Southern California Law School in 1956. Following law 

school, he clerked for the Hon. Pierson M. Hall of the U.S. 

District Court for the Southern District of California. Judge 

Byrne passed away on January 12, 2006. He is survived by 

his nephews, Mark and Matthew, and nieces, Julie and 

Victoria.

Bankruptcy Judge Bert M. Goldwater, of 

the United States Bankruptcy Court for 

the District of Nevada, was appointed a 

bankruptcy judge in 1979. Prior to his 

appointment, Judge Goldwater served 

as bankruptcy trustee in Nevada from 

1964 until his appointment to the 

bench. He served on the court until 

1982, when he returned to private practice in Las Vegas 

with the law fi rm of Lionel, Sawyer & Collins. In 1994, he 

accepted recall to the bankruptcy bench and has served on 

a year-to-year basis since then. Judge Goldwater received 

his undergraduate degree from the University of Nevada in 

1936 and his J.D. from the University of Colorado School of 

Law in 1939. Judge Goldwater passed away on May 3, 2006. 

He is survived by his daughters, Deena and Rosie, and his 

grandchildren.

Bankruptcy Judge Frank D. Howard, of 

the United States Bankruptcy Court for 

the Western District of Washington, was 

appointed on February 1, 1988 and 

retired in 1996. Prior to his appointment 

to the federal bench, Judge Howard 

served as a Washington Superior Court 

judge, King County, from 1968 to 1988. 

He practiced law with the law fi rm of Guttormsen, 

Scholfi eld, Willits and Ager for 11 years, where he 

specialized in civil litigation. He served in the United States 

Coast Guard from 1956 to 1957. Judge Howard received his 

B.A. from the University of Washington in 1953 and his LL.B. 

from the University of Washington School of Law in 1956. 

Judge Howard passed away on January 29, 2006. He is 

survived by his wife Gala, his children and his 

grandchildren.

Senior District Judge Jack E. Tanner, of 

the United States District Court for the 

Western District of Washington, was 

appointed a district judge on May 19, 

1978 and assumed senior status on 

January 28, 1991. Prior to his appointment 

to the bench, Judge Tanner was in 

private practice in Tacoma from 1955 to 

1978. He was active with the National Association for the 

Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) from 1956 

through the 1960s. Judge Tanner served as a Tacoma 

chapter president, a regional vice president and as a 

member of the national board of directors during Thurgood 

Marshall’s tenure as the NAACP’s general counsel. He served 

in the U.S. Army from 1943 to 1945. Judge Tanner received 

his B.A. from College of Puget Sound in 1953 and his LL.B. 

from the University of Washington School of Law in 1955. 

Judge Tanner passed away on January 10, 2006. He is 

survived by his daughters, Donnetta and Maryetta, and 

several grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

IN MEMORIAM
Ninth Circuit Highlights

Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., addresses the 2006 

Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference.
Annual Report 2006

16

Judicial Health and Wellness

The Ninth Circuit has been a national leader in 

promoting health and wellness among federal 

judges. The circuit off ers the nation’s only 

confi dential telephone counseling service for federal 

judges, along with quarterly newsletters, periodic 

educational seminars and, soon, a wellness-focused 

web site.

In 2006, the Ninth Circuit eff ort was highlighted in 

articles appearing in the Federal Judges Association 

newsletter and “Judicature” magazine, published by 

the prestigious American Judicature Society.

The wellness initiative spans three committees: 

the Task Force on Judicial Disability, established in 

1999 to consider formal and informal methods of 

addressing judicial disabilities; the Judicial Wellness 

Committee, appointed in late 2000 to carry out key 

recommendations of the task force; and the current 

Wellness III Committee, named in late 2005 to continue 

current programs and develop new ones. Chief District 

Judge Philip M. Pro of the District of Nevada was chosen 

to chair the new committee.

In 2006, Judge Pro renewed the dialogue on judicial 

wellness at meetings of the Ninth Circuit’s key governance 

committees: the conferences of Chief District Judges 

and Chief Bankruptcy Judges and the Magistrate Judges 

Executive Board. Members of these groups often are 

called upon to deal with wellness and disability issues. The 

committee is exploring ways to provide resources so that 

they can handle these situations in the best way possible 

for all concerned. Ideas include a handbook to assist chief 

district judges and recruitment of a cadre of judges and 

other experts who had have prior experience and could 

provide valuable counsel.

Jury Trial Improvement

In October, the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit 

accepted the recommendations of the Jury Trial 

Improvement Committee on how to improve the 

experience of citizens called for federal jury service. The 

recommendations included better management of jury 

pools; more eff ective use of jurors’ time; improved voir 

dire, the process used to select jurors for trial; improving 

juror comprehension; and addressing personal concerns 

jurors may have during jury service.

Notable among the recommendations pertaining to juror 

comprehension were ones allowing jurors to take notes 

NINTH CIRCUIT COMMITTEES

 The Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit relies on numerous advisory and standing committees 

to study and make recommendations on matters involving the administration of justice. While all 

are involved in important work, 2006 was particularly noteworthy for several committees.

PALS

Private

Assistance

Line

Service

• Stress • Bereavement • Emotional distress •

• Mental or Physical challenges •

• Life Transitions • Aging •

PALS is available to judges, 

their families and chambers 

staff . Flyers explaining the 

PALS concept have been 

distributed to every judge in 

the Ninth Circuit.

“Courting Good Health,” a Ninth Circuit publication, off ers helpful advice 

on a variety of topics related to health and wellness for judges.
Ninth Circuit Highlights

17

and receive preliminary and fi nal jury instructions in 

written form. In civil trials, jurors also could submit written 

questions to the bench and discuss evidence as the trial 

progresses. The committee recommended providing 

more and better information about the trial and judicial 

process to jurors at the beginning of voir dire, and to allow 

attorneys to conduct supplemental voir dire after the 

court’s questioning is completed.

To more eff ectively use jurors’ time, the committee 

recommended setting time limits in civil cases, 

communicating to jurors about the estimated length of a 

trial, and considering jurors’ needs in setting jury schedules. 

Also suggested was greater use of pretrial conferences to 

better use jurors’ time and streamline the trial.

The Jury Trial Improvement Committee was established 

in 2002 and is chaired by District Judge Susan R. Bolton 

of the District of Arizona. Council endorsement of its 

recommendations is expected to encourage district 

courts within the circuit to undertake the changes. 

The committee will conduct workshops to explain the 

recommendations to district courts beginning in 2007.

Public Information and Community Outreach

The federal court is a bit less daunting for journalists in 

San Diego thanks to a highly successful media workshop 

sponsored by the U.S. District Court for the Southern 

District of California and the Ninth Circuit Public 

Information and Community Outreach (PICO) Committee. 

The San Diego Federal Courts Media Workshop, held 

March 30 at the Edward J. Schwartz U.S. Courthouse, 

drew nearly 100 media representatives, federal judges, 

attorneys, court staff and other guests. It was the largest 

media workshop to be held in the Ninth Circuit since the 

PICO Committee began organizing the events in 2002.

Participants included Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Mary M. 

Schroeder, Chief District Judge Irma E. Gonzalez of the 

Southern District, and Chief District Judge Robert S. Lasnik of the 

Western District of Washington, chair of the PICO Committee. 

The media turnout was estimated at about 40 journalists 

representing both print and electronic media outlets, 

including the San Diego Union-Tribune, North County 

Times, Riverside Press-Enterprise, Los Angeles Daily 

Journal, The Associated Press, City News Service, 

Univision, and local affi liates of the ABC, CBS and NBC 

television networks.

A media workshop held in San Diego drew more than 100 people, 

including 20 federal judges and dozens of Southern California journalists. 
Annual Report 2006

18

Capital Habeas Management

The Ninth Circuit has become the leader in controlling 

costs for complex capital habeas cases through better 

management and budgeting. The circuit off ers case 

management training for judges and attorneys and 

provides electronic tools to plan for and track expenses 

and monitor case status. The result has been a savings to 

taxpayers of some $3 million annually. 

This success has prompted plans for a new national 

initiative that will apply Ninth Circuit methods to 

management of the growing number of federal direct 

death cases and to “mega” criminal cases involving 

multiple defendants and/or other challenges. The 

Defender Services Committee of the Judicial Conference 

U.S. is overseeing the eff ort and is expected to provide 

funding for a three-year pilot program involving the Ninth, 

Second and Sixth circuits. The money will be used to hire 

special case budgeting attorneys in each circuit to assist 

judges presiding over or reviewing these diffi cult cases. 

The Ninth Circuit’s Capital Case Committee, chaired by 

District Judge David O. Carter of the Central District of 

California, will oversee the Ninth Circuit program.

Alternative Dispute Resolution

The Ninth Circuit Committee on Alternative Dispute 

Resolution released in May a publication designed 

to assist federal judges and attorneys in developing 

educational programs focusing on arbitration, mediation 

and other means of resolving legal confl icts. 

The “Education Programs on Court-Sponsored ADR: Model 

Programs and Guide to Resources,” off ers numerous ideas 

on how to organize and implement ADR educational 

programs. It is intended for use by those planning benchbar events, such as the annual conferences held by many 

of the federal district courts within the circuit. 

The guide was developed by the committee and two nonprofi t groups, the Western Justice Center Foundation, and 

the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services (JAMS) 

Foundation. The collaboration was led by Senior Circuit 

Judge Dorothy W. Nelson, who chairs the committee 

and the governing board of the Western Justice Center 

Foundation. 

Jury Instructions

The Ninth Circuit Jury Instructions Committee completed 

a major revision of the Manual of Model Civil Jury 

Instructions. This eff ort was led by the committee’s 

chair District Judge George King of the Central District 

of California who completed fi ve years of service on the 

committee in September 2006. The main focus of the 

committee for 2007 will be to undertake a revision of 

the Manual of Model Criminal Jury Instructions. On an 

ongoing basis the committee also reviews new decisions 

of the Ninth Circuit and United States Supreme Court 

that may aff ect the model jury instructions, and revises 

the instructions if needed. The committee considers 

suggestions from judges, staff , and practitioners. The 

Ninth Circuit model civil and criminal jury instructions can 

be accessed on the web site of the Offi ce of the Circuit 

Executive at http://www.ce9.uscourts.gov.

Pro Se Litigants

The Pro Se Committee was established in 2006 to carry on 

the work begun by the Ninth Circuit’s Task Force on SelfRepresented Litigants. The new committee, chaired by 

Magistrate Judge Edward Chen of the Northern District of 

California, will assist courts in the circuit in implementing 

the task force recommendations. The goals of the 

committee are to respond to requests from district and 

bankruptcy courts for assistance with management of pro 

se cases, and to suggest and develop innovations with 

respect to case management and access to the courts. In 

addition to presenting an annual Pro Se Conference for 

designated judges and pro se law clerks, the committee 

will assist with training and educational programs 

and materials, strategies for appointment of pro bono 

counsel in meritorious pro se civil cases, development of 

appropriate software and case management systems, and 

collaboration with correctional systems and prosecutorial 

agencies.

The “Education Programs on Court-Sponsored ADR: Model Programs 

and Guide to Resources, ” developed by the ADR Committee, the 

Western Justice Center Foundation and the Judicial Arbitration and 

Mediation Services Foundation, was released in May.

NINTH CIRCUIT COMMITTEES CONTINUED
The annual event is held pursuant to Section 333 of 

Title 28 of the United States Code for “the purpose of 

considering the business of the courts and advising 

means of improving the administration of justice 

within such circuit.” Most of the judges who preside 

and lawyers who practice in the federal courts of the 

western United States participate.

Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Mary M. Schroeder offi cially 

opened the conference with a state of the circuit 

speech, touching on a variety of topics, including 

sporadic attempts by some in Congress to split the 

circuit.

“The view of the overwhelming majority of our circuit 

judges, district and bankruptcy judges is that the 

circuit should not be divided,” Judge Schroeder said, 

citing as example, a published letter signed by 33 of 47 

active and senior circuit judges opposed to the split.

Three Justices Participate

The 2006 conference was particularly noteworthy 

for the participation of three justices of the 

Supreme Court of the United States. Making his fi rst 

appearance at a Ninth Circuit conference was Chief 

Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., who off ered remarks on 

his fi rst year on the bench of the nation’s highest 

court. He also participated in the “Conversation 

with the Chief Justice” segment fi elding questions 

from Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder of Fresno 

and Chief District Judge Robert S. Lasnik of Seattle, 

conference chair and program chair, respectively, of 

the Conference Executive Committee, and attorney 

Peg Toledo of Sacramento, chair of the circuit’s Lawyer 

Representatives Coordinating Committee.

Associate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy was present as 

the new designated justice for the Ninth Circuit,

replacing retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. Justice 

Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., making his fi rst visit to a Ninth Circuit 

conference, shared anecdotes and impressions from his fi rst year on the 

nation’s highest court. Associate Justice Stephen G. Breyer, shown below, 

participated in a discussion of sentencing alternatives.

2006 NINTH CIRCUIT JUDICIAL CONFERENCE

The 2006 Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference, 

held July 10-13 at the Hyatt Regency Hotel 

in Huntington Beach, Calif., focused on 

“Seismic Shifts in the Law and in Our Lives.” 

The educational program included panel 

presentations on sentencing, juries, natural 

disasters, court security, disaster planning, 

and judicial wellness.

Ninth Circuit Highlights

19
Associate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy 

addressed the conference and 

participated in his own “Conversation 

with the Justice” segment. Now the 

designated justice for the Ninth Circuit, 

Justice Kennedy is shown here with, 

from left, Circuit Judge Consuelo 

M. Callahan, Chief Judge Mary M. 

Schroeder, and Seattle attorney Merrilee 

MacLean. 

Kennedy was welcomed at a special reception and later 

participated in a “Conversation with the Justice” segment 

featuring Circuit Judge Consuelo Callahan of Sacramento, 

and attorney Merrilee MacLean of Seattle, a member of 

the circuit’s Advisory Board.

Associate Justice Stephen Breyer also attended the event 

and received an impromptu invitation to join a panel 

discussing the diffi culties in deciding sentences. Also 

participating were U.S. Sentencing Commission Chairman 

District Judge Ricardo Hinojosa of the Southern District 

of Texas, attorney Cristina C. Arguedas, and U.S. Attorney 

Carol Lam of San Diego. 

Varied Educational Program

Two conference segments sessions focused on enhancing 

the performance of juries. “Jury Reform: Making a Great 

System Better, or Fixing What Isn’t Broken?” examined 

state and federal eff orts to improve jury utilization. 

Panelists for the session included Chief District Judge 

Vaughn R. Walker of the Northern District of California and 

District Judge Susan R. Bolton of the District of Arizona, 

chair of the circuit’s Jury Trial Improvement Committee. 

A second session on “Jury Reform: Are Seismic Changes 

Warranted?” continued the discussion, with attorney 

Patricia Lee Refo as keynote speaker.

Other panels centered on preparation for and recovery 

after catastrophes. The session “Giants in the Earth: 

Current Thinking on Earthquakes, Tsunamis and 

Volcanoes,” featured scientists from the U.S. Geological 

Survey and Southern California Earthquake Center 

discussing advances in our understanding of seismic 

events and risk analysis with respect to earthquakes, 

volcanic activity, and tsunamis. “Disaster Planning: Dealing 

with the Daze After” featured remarks from Circuit Judge 

Carolyn Dineen King of the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

the Fifth Circuit and several attorneys involved in the 

struggle to rebuild the legal systems in New Orleans after 

Hurricane Katrina in 2005. 

Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder of Fresno was the fi rst 

magistrate judge to chair a Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference.

Annual Report 2006

20

2006 NINTH CIRCUIT JUDICIAL CONFERENCE CONTINUED
Ninth Circuit Highlights

21

Chief Judge Mary M. Schroeder joined Arizona Supreme Court Chief Justice Ruth V. 

McGregor, a trustee of the American Inns of Court, and Washington Supreme Court 

Chief Justice Gerry L. Alexander, recipient of the American Inns of Court Ninth Circuit 

Professionalism Award. has served as chief justice, elected by his 

colleagues, since 2001, making him the 

state’s longest serving chief justice. 

Justice Alexander currently chairs the Advisory 

Commission on Washington Law Reports, the BenchBar-Press Committee of the State of Washington, and 

the Board for Judicial Administration. He is a cofounder 

and board member of the Washington Courts Historical 

Society and an emeritus member of the Board of Visitors 

of the Seattle University School of Law. 

The American Inns of Court, a national organization 

with 340 inns and 75,000 active and alumni members, 

is dedicated to excellence, civility, professionalism, and 

ethics in the practice of law. An American Inn of Court is 

an amalgam of judges, lawyers, and in some cases, law 

professors and law students. Inns are intended to improve 

the skills, professionalism and ethics of the bench and bar.

Ninth Circuit Professionalism Award

Chief Justice Gerry L. Alexander of the 

Washington Supreme Court received the 

2006 American Inns of Court Ninth Circuit 

Professionalism Award, which 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.” 

The award was presented by Chief Justice 

Ruth V. McGregor of the Arizona Supreme 

Court, a trustee of the American Inns of Court. 

Justice Alexander has more than 30 years of 

service to the state courts of Washington. 

He was county superior court judge 

from 1973 to 1984 and a judge of the 

Washington Court of Appeals from 1985 to 

1994. Elected to the Washington Supreme 

Court in 1994 and re-elected in 2000, he 

CONFERENCE AWARD PRESENTATIONS

The Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference provides an opportunity to recognize outstanding service 

to the legal profession and judicial system. Awards given by the Judicial Council of the Ninth 

Circuit, the Administrative Offi ce of the United States Courts and the prestigious American Inns 

of Court are presented during the conference’s opening session. The following winners were 

announced for 2006:

John P. Frank Award

Esteemed attorney Shirley Mount Hufstedler received 

the John P. Frank Award, recognizing an outstanding 

lawyer practicing in the federal courts of the western 

United States. The award is named for the late John P. 

Frank of Arizona, a distinguished attorney, author, law 

professor, civil liberties advocate and legal historian. It was 

presented by Terry W. Bird, Esq., chair of the Ninth Circuit 

Advisory Board, and accepted on Ms. Hufstedler’s behalf 

by the Hon. Dennis M. Perluss, presiding justice of Division 

Seven of the California State Court of Appeal.

Ms. Hufstedler began her legal career in 1950 as a private 

practitioner in Los Angeles. She was appointed a judge 

of the Los Angeles County Superior Court in 1961, and 
Annual Report 2006

22

an associate justice of the California Court of Appeal in 

1966. Nominated by President Johnson and confi rmed by 

the Senate in 1968, she served on the Ninth Circuit Court 

of Appeals for 11 years before accepting an appointment 

by President Carter as the fi rst U.S. Secretary of Education. 

In 1981, Ms. Hufstedler returned to private life, teaching 

and practicing law. She was a partner in the fi rm 

Hufstedler & Kaus, now merged into Morrison & Foerster, 

where she is currently senior of counsel.

Alternative Dispute Resolution

David E. Lombardi, Jr., chief circuit mediator of the 

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, was selected the 2006 

recipient of the Robert F. Peckham Award for Excellence 

in Alternative Dispute Resolution, recognizing judicial 

employees who have signifi cantly advanced the delivery 

of eff ective court-based ADR programs in the circuit. 

Mr. Lombardi has headed the Ninth Circuit mediation 

program since 1992. He leads a staff of experienced 

attorneys who help resolve cases emerging from the 

district courts, reducing the appellate court’s workload.

The Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution at the 

Pepperdine University School of Law received the Ninth 

Circuit ADR Education Award recognizing law schools that 

have signifi cantly advanced ADR scholarship and research. 

The Straus Institute provides basic and advanced curricula 

for students each year and professional education programs 

in negotiation, mediation and arbitration for lawyers, judges 

and other mid-career professionals .

Senior Circuit Judge Dorothy W. Nelson, chair of the 

Ninth Circuit’s Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee, 

presented the awards to Mr. Lombardi and Professor 

Thomas Stipanowich of the Straus Institute.

Director’s Award

W. Samuel Hamrick, Jr., district court clerk for the 

Southern District of California since 2002, received the 

2005 Director’s Award for Outstanding Leadership from 

the Administrative Offi ce of the United States Courts. 

Mr. Hamrick was recognized for improving services and 

support to the courts while consolidating functions and 

saving money, especially in the area of court facilities. He 

was also instrumental in the development and planning 

his court’s continuity of operations plan, the introduction 

of a redundant data storage area network for two 

courthouse locations, and in the start-up of a recruitment 

program directed at local universities. The award was 

presented by James C. Duff , director of the Administrative 

Offi ce of the U.S. Courts.

Senior Circuit Judge Dorothy W. Nelson, chair of the circuit Committee on 

Alternative Dispute Resolution, presented Chief Circuit Mediator David E. 

Lombardi, Jr., with the Robert F. Peckham Award for Excellence in ADR. 

District Clerk W. Samuel Hamrick, Jr., of the Southern District of California, 

left, receives the 2005 Director’s Award for Outstanding Leadership from 

James C. Duff , director of the Administrative Offi ce of the United States 

Courts. 

CONFERENCE AWARD PRESENTATIONS CONTINUED
Ninth Circuit Highlights

23

Associate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy of the Supreme 

Court of the United States presented the award to Judge 

Wallace before a crowd of several hundred colleagues, 

friends and other well-wishers who fi lled the Spreckels 

Theater in downtown San Diego.

“No one could be a better teacher and a better symbol 

for what the award means,” Justice Kennedy said of Judge 

Wallace, later adding that the honor was presented 

“on behalf of admiring colleagues, by your friends, by a 

grateful public and by judges around the world.”

The Devitt Award, which is generally regarded as the most 

prestigious honor conferred on a member of the federal 

judiciary, recognizes “signifi cant contributions to the 

administration of justice, the advancement of the rule of 

law, and the improvement of society as a whole.”

Judge Wallace has had a remarkable 50-year career in 

the law, mostly as a federal judge. He was appointed 

a U.S. district judge in San Diego in 1970 by President 

Nixon. Elevated to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 

in 1972, Judge Wallace served for 24 years as an active 

judge on the nation’s largest federal appellate court, the 

last fi ve in an executive role as chief circuit judge. He took 

semi-retired “senior status” in 1996, but continues to hear 

appeals and fulfi ll other court duties.

In addition to signifi cant contributions as a jurist, 

Judge Wallace has served with distinction in various 

administrative roles at the highest levels of the federal 

judiciary. He received appointments from two chief 

justices of the Supreme Court to serve on important 

committees of the Judicial Conference of the United 

States, the national governing body for the federal courts. 

His original idea and subsequent work with the late Chief 

Justice Warren E. Burger led to the establishment of the 

American Inns of Court, a national organization that now 

claims 75,000 members dedicated to excellence, civility, 

DEVITT AWARD PRESENTATION

Senior Judge J. Cliff ord Wallace, chief judge 

emeritus of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, 

a respected jurist, judicial administrator and 

international ambassador for the rule of law, 

received the American Judicature Society’s 

2005 Edward J. Devitt Distinguished Service 

to Justice Award in October in San Diego.

professionalism, and ethics in the practice of law. And 

as chief judge of the Ninth Circuit from 1991 to 1996, 

he organized the fi rst federal task force to study racial, 

religious, ethnic and gender fairness within the court 

workforce and in the delivery of court services to the public.

Since 1972, Judge Wallace has been involved in the rule 

of law movement, which seeks to promote the concepts 

Associate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy passes the crystal obelisk Devitt 

Award to Judge Wallace. Looking on are Elder Dallin Oaks, a retired 

justice of the Utah Supreme Court, left, American Judicature Society 

President Neal Sonnett.
Annual Report 2006

24

In October, retired Associate Justice Sandra Day 

O’Connor of the U.S. Supreme Court sat with the 

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, serving on two 

panels hearing oral arguments at the James R. 

Browning U.S. Courthouse in San Francisco. Serving 

with her on the panels were Judges Pamela Ann 

Rymer and Sidney R. Thomas, pictured, and Susan P. 

Graber and Richard C. Tallman.

RETIRED JUSTICE SANDRA DAY

O’CONNOR SITS WITH NINTH

CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

and ideals of an independent judiciary and 

impartial judicial system in developing 

countries around the world. He has worked 

directly with judiciaries in more than 50 

countries on every continent. The Devitt 

selection panel said Judge Wallace has 

“found new dimensions for the role of 

senior judge. ... He continues to perform 

this pioneering work not only as a student 

of the law and of judicial systems, but as a 

compassionate, concerned human being.”

A San Diego native, Judge Wallace grew 

up in a low income neighborhood on the 

city’s southeast side. Family circumstances 

required him to work from an early age and 

he held a variety of jobs before entering the 

Navy in 1946. After an honorable discharge 

from military service, he enrolled at San Diego State 

University, graduating in 1952 with honors and distinction. 

He received his LL.B. in 1955 from the University of 

California Boalt Hall School of Law, where he served on the 

California Law Review. He joined a San Diego law fi rm, 

where he specialized in civil trial matters and later became 

a partner, remaining in private practice until his nomination 

to the federal court by President Nixon in 1970.

In the local community, Judge Wallace has a long 

affi liation with the Boy Scouts of America, serving on 

the local chapter’s board of directors and executive 

committee. A Mormon, he has been active in the Church 

of Jesus Christ of the Latter-day Saints, serving in local and 

regional governing posts. He also was vice president of 

the San Diego County Bar Association.

AJS, founded in 1913, is an independent, national, 

nonpartisan organization of judges, lawyers, and other 

members of the public who seek to improve the justice 

system. The Devitt Distinguished Service to Justice Award, 

named for the late Edward J. Devitt, longtime chief judge 

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

honors Article III judges whose careers have been 

exemplary, measured by their signifi cant contributions 

to the administration of justice, advancement of the rule 

of law, and the improvement of society as a whole. It is 

administered by AJS with funding provided by the Dwight 

D. Opperman Foundation, Minneapolis.

DEVITT AWARD PRESENTATION CONTINUED
Ninth Circuit Highlights

25

DOCUMENTARY FILM INSPIRES LAW DAY PROGRAM

More than 400 students from schools in San Francisco 

and Oakland attended the program, which included a 

showing of a documentary fi lm, “Soul of Justice: Thelton 

Henderson’s American Journey,” which chronicles the life 

of the San Francisco judge from his youth in the Watts 

section of Los Angeles, to his days as an African-American 

government lawyer in the 1960s, to his decisions on the 

federal bench.

“Particularly with the minority students, I hope I emerge 

as a kind of role model,” Judge Henderson said. “When I 

graduated from law school, if I had said I wanted to be a 

federal judge, they’d have put me in a straight jacket. It 

was not conceivable at that time. It is conceivable today.”

Following the screening of “Soul of Justice,” students were 

able to ask questions of Judge Henderson and the fi lm’s 

producer/director Abby Ginzberg. Students then divided 

into groups to discuss issues of law raised in the fi lm, such 

as civil rights, prison reform, and environmental protection.

Nearly 190 eighth-grade students attended Law Day at 

the Philip Burton Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse in 

San Francisco. In addition, approximately 250 high school 

students were at the event held at the Ronald V. Dellums 

Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse in Oakland.

The fi lm recounts on how a knee injury sidelined Judge 

Henderson’s college football career and caused him to 

focus on academics. That in turn led him to his acceptance 

at Boalt Hall School of Law at the University of California 

in Berkeley. While at Boalt, he was recruited for a job at 

the Department of Justice as the Kennedy administration 

investigated the eff ects of racial segregation in the South. 

The fi lm depicted the forms of racial discrimination Judge 

Henderson observed while working in the South. It also 

discussed some of the judge’s controversial decisions on 

issues such as prisoner abuse at Pelican Bay State Prison, the 

protection of dolphins during tuna fi shing, and Proposition 

209, the California voter initiative against affi rmative action.

Especially struck by the 1960s era black-and-white fi lm 

footage of police blasting fi re hoses at and letting dogs 

loose on civil rights protestors, many students wanted to 

know specifi c details about Judge Henderson’s personal 

encounters with prejudice in the South. They also inquired 

about accusations of judicial activism, and his thoughts 

on the controversy surrounding California Proposition 

209, seen by many as anti-affi rmative action. After voters 

approved the measure in 1996, Judge Henderson issued a 

ruling blocking enactment, but was reversed by the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals.

Several other federal judges also participated in the Law 

Day program, leading the courtroom discussions with the 

help of local attorneys, representatives of government 

agencies, and other volunteers. In Oakland, they included 

Senior District Judge D. Lowell Jensen, Bankruptcy Judge 

Leslie J. Tchaikovsky and District Judge Claudia A. Wilken. 

In San Francisco, the sessions were led by Senior District 

Judge Marilyn Hall Patel and Magistrate Judges Maria-Elena 

James and Elizabeth D. Laporte. 

Participating schools this year were Oakland Technical and 

McClymonds high schools of Oakland; Piedmont High 

School of Piedmont; Richmond High School of Richmond; 

Acalanes High School of Walnut Creek. Students from the 

K-8 campuses of Park Day School in Oakland and Windrush 

School in El Cerrito also attended.

Students attending the program in San Francisco were from 

Claire Lilienthal Elementary School and Visitacion Valley 

Middle School, both of San Francisco.

Senior District Judge Thelton E. Henderson joined by fi lmmaker Abby 

Ginzberg, left, and District Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong.

Many federal courts in the Ninth Circuit set aside time each May to observe Law Day with 

educational programs for young students. The Northern District of California’s program this 

year was particularly noteworthy for its subject matter, the life and times of Senior District Judge 

Thelton E. Henderson.
Annual Report 2006

26

IDEAS SET FORTH FOR MANAGING IMMIGRATION CASELOAD

Dozens of lawyers from fi ve western states participated 

in meetings held in May and October at the James R. 

Browning U.S. Courthouse in San Francisco. The group 

included staff attorneys from the court of appeals, federal 

immigration judges, and representatives of law schools, 

legal aid societies, bar association groups, law fi rms 

specializing in immigration, and major corporate law fi rms 

with pro bono programs.

The wide-ranging discussions produced a variety of ideas. 

The most promising of them involves mentoring and 

training of pro bono attorneys to represent immigrant 

appellants. 

Eff orts are currently under way to obtain funding to 

provide an independent staff person outside of the court 

to focus on mentoring. Suggestions also were received 

to supplement the Ninth Circuit program by adding 

mediation, amicus briefs, remands to the agency, and more 

extensive use of law school clinics and pro bono agencies.

Helping organize the sessions were Ninth Circuit 

Supervising Attorney Susan Gelmis and Sacramento 

attorney Peg Carew Toledo of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliff e 

LLP, chair of the Lawyer Representatives Coordinating 

Committee, which represents the federal bar in the Ninth 

Circuit’s 15 judicial districts in nine western states and two 

Pacifi c Island jurisdictions. 

The Ninth Circuit’s immigration caseload had been rising 

at a phenomenal rate, increasing 626 percent from 2001 

to 2005. And while appeals of actions taken by the Board 

of Immigration Appeals, or BIA, were down in 2006, they 

continue to amount to 37.4 percent of the total appeals 

fi led with the court. The problem is compounded by the 

fact that 35 to 40 percent of all appeals are fi led pro se, 

meaning without benefi t of legal counsel.

The court has implemented various innovations to 

manage the infl ux of immigration cases. It initially 

adopted a general order establishing a streamlined 

notifi cation system for stays of removal and providing 

for oral extensions of time limits to respond to motions. 

Extensive screening of immigration cases was begun so 

that the court could identify and simultaneously process 

multiple cases having common issues. The court also 

has sponsored a number of immigration workshops 

for attorneys new to immigration law and/or appellate 

practice.

When available, pro bono attorneys are assigned 

to immigration cases recognized to have merit and 

guaranteed the opportunity to make oral arguments before 

an appellate panel. The guarantee of oral argument does 

not apply to cases in which lawyers are needed to facilitate 

mediation at the court. And when cases with merit or 

potentially meritorious claims are remanded to the agency 

As the federal circuit court with the most immigration appeals, the Ninth Circuit Court of 

Appeals has been working hard to fi nd innovative new ways to expedite the legal process 

while continuing to respect the rights of would-be residents and asylum seekers. In 2006, that 

eff ort included “brainstorming” sessions with some of the most knowledgeable attorneys in the 

immigration fi eld.
Ninth Circuit Highlights

27

for further proceedings, the court does not appoint lawyers 

for proceedings in other courts or agency proceedings. 

Among the panelists participating in the brainstorming 

sessions was U.S. Immigration Judge Dana Leigh Marks 

of San Francisco, a former president and current vice 

president of the National Association of Immigration 

Judges, who off ered insight into the demanding work 

of immigration judges. In her prepared remarks, she 

described immigration court proceedings a “strange 

hybrid of administrative, civil, and criminal law.” The 

court is technically an administrative tribunal, but is not 

governed by the APA, lacks formal discovery and provides 

for most decisions to be delivered orally, immediately after 

a proceeding.

Another panelist was San Francisco attorney Marc Van Der 

Hout, who specializes in immigration law and sits on the 

board of governors of the American Immigration Lawyers 

Association. He encouraged continuing eff orts to identify 

key cases that, once decided, can set precedent guiding 

the resolution of hundreds of others. Other cases should 

be held in abeyance until the precedent-setting ones are 

decided, he added.

Public and non-profi t agencies represented at the sessions 

included the University of California at Davis School of 

Law and its Immigration Clinic; the University of Arizona’s 

Immigration Law Clinic; the University of Idaho College of 

Law’s Legal Aid Clinic; the Legal Access Program operated 

by the U.S. Department of Justice’s Executive Offi ce for 

Immigration Review; the Legal Aid Society of San Diego; 

the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project in Seattle; the 

Public Law Center in Santa Ana; the Florence Immigrant 

and Refugee Rights Project in Arizona; the Los Angeles 

County Bar Association; the Public Counsel Law Center; 

and, from San Francisco, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil 

Rights, the Immigration Legal Resource Center and the 

Asian Law Caucus.

The immigration 

brainstorming session, 

held in May at the 

James R. Browning 

U.S. Courthouse in 

San Francisco, drew 

dozens of attorneys 

knowledgeable in 

immigration law.
Annual Report 2006

28

2006 marked the 40th anniversary of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. To celebrate the milestone, Southwestern 

Law School in Los Angeles hosted a one-day symposium for the bench, bar and law students. Federal judges from the district court and 

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals participated on panels that discussed historical change in the court and community, desegregation and 

the emergence of entertainment and technology law. Pictured above are Chief District Judge Alicemarie H. Stotler and Southwestern Dean 

Bryant Garth.

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CELEBRATES 40TH ANNIVERSARY

Guest speakers included Central District Chief District Judge 

Alicemarie H. Stotler, Los Angeles County Sheriff Leroy D. Baca, 

Los Angeles Police Department Assistant Chief Jim McDonnell, 

and Probation Administrator Michelle Diblasi.

Gang specialists from local, state, and federal agencies served as 

presenters, speakers, and facilitators throughout the event. They 

included Los Angeles city and county police detectives, special 

agents from the California Department of Corrections and the 

Federal Bureau of Prisons, agents from the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation and members of the U.S. Marshals Service.

Discussions focused on racially- and ethnic-based gangs on the 

West and East coasts, including those operating in prisons, and 

criminal enterprises involving motorcycle gangs, and successful 

prosecutions under the federal Racketeer Infl uenced and 

Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statute.

The conference closed with presentations on gang-off ender 

monitoring using global-positioning satellite tracking device, 

creation of gang affi liation databases and offi cer safety.

Federal and local law enforcement offi cers enhanced 

their knowledge of gangs at a National Gang Symposium 

sponsored by the U.S. Pretrial Services and Probation offi ces for 

the Central District of California. 

2006 NATIONAL GANG SYMPOSIUM

Pretrial services and probation offi cers for the Central District of California hosted the federal 

judiciary’s fi rst ever National Gang Symposium, focusing on sharing knowledge of gang 

behavior, trends, and technology, and resources for identifi cation and supervision. More than 

300 pretrial and probation offi cers from districts across the country attended the May 31-June 2 

event in Los Angeles.
Space and Facilities

Courtrooms in the new Eugene courthouse feature natural lighting. 
Annual Report 2006

30

EUGENE COURTHOUSE DEDICATED

A new federal courthouse in Eugene, Oregon, and a courthouse 

renovation and seismic retrofi t in Seattle topped the list of 

space and facilities projects completed or undertaken in the 

Ninth Circuit in 2006.

In the eyes of many, the Wayne Lyman Morse U.S. Courthouse in Eugene has 

set a new standard for modern public buildings. The new courthouse features 

a strikingly unique design with curving walls, an emphasis on natural lighting 

and the latest in energy conserving technology. The building has been 

nominated for a number of architectural awards and been recognized by the 

U.S. Green Building Council.

Renowned architect Thom Mayne supervised the design with considerable 

input from the senior federal judge in Eugene, District Judge Michael R. Hogan, 

who also helped recruit well-known artists to create several original works for 

the building. The General Services Administration managed the $92-million 

project overall.

Built on 4.5 acres of land along the Willamette River in downtown Eugene, the 

new courthouse rises to a height of 69 feet and has 270,000 square feet of gross 

space on fi ve fl oors, plus one level of secure parking. It provides six courtrooms, 

two apiece for district, bankruptcy and magistrate judges, and seven judicial 

chambers, plus offi ce space for the district and bankruptcy clerks, the U.S. 

attorney and U.S. Marshals Service, and other federal tenants.

Students cut the ceremonial ribbon opening 

the new courthouse, top. District Judge 

Michael R. Hogan, closely involved in all 

aspects of the courthouse design and 

construction, was among the speakers.

The Space and Security Committee acts on behalf of 

the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit with oversight 

responsibilities of judiciary policies and guidelines in all 

matters related to space and security. This committee 

is responsible for reviewing and approving 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 also is the liaison with the General 

Services Administration (GSA) assisting court units 

to resolve issues related to space and security and to 

ensure that court’s requirements are met in all building 

projects. This committee also works closely with the 

Administrative Offi ce of the United States Courts 

ensuring that Ninth Circuit projects receive priority and 

funding as required.

In 2006, the committee, chaired by District Judge 

Stephen M. McNamee of the District of Arizona, was 

focused on the challenges facing new courthouses in 

San Diego and Los Angeles. Costs for both projects 

have risen dramatically as a result of increased demand 

for building materials and services. The committee 

also has been involved in discussions with the 

GSA, members of Congress and congressional staff 

about controlling the rent paid by the judiciary for 

courthouses and other facilities. 

During the year, the committee also monitored other 

projects, including renovation and seismic retrofi tting 

of the Nakamura U.S. Courthouse in Seattle; bidding for 

a new courthouse in leased space in Great Falls, Mont.; 

and site selection for another leased space courthouse 

in Bakersfi eld. 

NINTH CIRCUIT SPACE AND SECURITY COMMITTEE
Space and Facilities

31

More than 500 people attended the Dec. 1 dedication 

ceremony. Remarks were made by U.S. Senator Gordon 

Smith and Rep. Peter DeFazio of Eugene, District Judge 

Stephen M. McNamee of Arizona, chair of the Ninth 

Circuit Space and Security Committee, Eugene Mayor 

Kitty Piercy, Mr. Mayne and Judge Hogan. GSA Regional 

Administrator Jon Kvistad managed the program.

The building’s namesake, the late Wayne Lyman Morse, 

is a former University of Oregon Law School dean who 

represented the state in the U.S. Senate from 1945 

until 1969. He served as a Republican, an independent 

and a Democrat during his 24 years in offi ce and is 

remembered as an outspoken lawmaker who would take 

unpopular positions based on his principles. 

Eugene offi cials are hoping the courthouse will help 

trigger new economic development in the city’s oldest 

industrial area. They have gone so far as to designate the 

area as the “Courthouse District,” which will eventually 

The courthouse’s striking design has already won several architectural 

prizes. The project included more than $1 million in public art, 

including two long light boxes with lenticular glass showing diff erent 

images, depending on where the viewer stands, and a geometrically 

challenging metal sculpture at the building entrance.
Annual Report 2006

32

connect the downtown to the riverfront 

areas.

In Seattle, the GSA began work late in 

the year on the renovation and seismic 

retrofi t of the 66-year-old William 

Kenzo Nakamura U.S. Courthouse. The 

building, which formerly housed the U.S. 

District Court for the Western District of 

Washington, will be used in the future 

by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 

Ninth Circuit judges with resident 

chambers in Seattle have participated 

in planning the project, which has a 

budget of $51 million and is scheduled 

for completion in fall 2008.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has 

been hearing cases in Seattle since 

the early 1970s. The court now meets 

regularly in Seattle, hearing argument in 

about 350 cases per year, most of them 

from Washington, Idaho and Montana 

with additional fi lings from Alaska and 

Oregon. Its judges and courtroom along 

with offi ces for the clerk of court and 

circuit mediator are currently located in 

leased space in the downtown area.

The project will include restoring 

the courtrooms and other interior 

spaces. Historic items such as furniture, 

paneling, fi xtures and doors have been 

removed and will be carefully stored 

during construction. Some historic 

Built in 1940, the Nakamura U.S. Courthouse in Seattle was the fi rst building designed to 

serve as a standalone federal courthouse in the country.

pieces will need to be repaired and restored before being returned to the 

courthouse.

The Nakamura U.S. Courthouse was completed in 1940. Its design 

exemplifi es the federal government’s austere interpretation of the art 

deco style. It was the fi rst building in the West designed specifi cally 

as a federal courthouse and, at the time, only the second single-use 

courthouse in the nation. The courthouse was listed in the National 

Register of Historic Places in 1980, for its national and local signifi cance.

The courthouse was rededicated in 2001 in the name of Private First 

Class William Kenzo Nakamura of Seattle, who was awarded the Medal of 

Honor for his heroism in World War II.
Space and Facilities

33

Great Falls

U.S. Courthouse

Gross Square Footage: 48,411

Project Completion Date: 2009

Architects: BC Development with 

 Hoefer Wysocki Architects, LLC 

COURTHOUSES IN DESIGN PHASE

Great Falls
Annual Report 2006

34

San Diego

COURTHOUSES IN DESIGN PHASE CONTINUED

Los Angeles

LOS ANGELES

U.S. Courthouse

Gross Square Footage: 1,016,300

Architects:Perkins & Will Architecture

SAN DIEGO

U.S. Courthouse

Gross Square Footage: 619,644

Architects: Richard Meier & 

Partners
The Work of the Courts

Judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Annual Report 2006

36

The downturn in new Ninth Circuit 

fi lings is attributable to a drop off 

in immigration appeals, which had 

increased by 626 percent from 2001 

to 2005. Appeals of actions taken by 

the Board of Immigration Appeals, or 

BIA, numbered 5,166 in 2006, down 22 

percent from the year before. BIA 

appeals continued to constitute 

the largest category of new appeals, 

amounting to 37.4 percent of the total 

fi lings. 

Immigration appeals had grown 

phenomenally for both the Ninth Circuit 

and Second Circuit since 2002, when the 

2005 2006 Change 2005-2006

Filings 16,101 13,828 -14.1%

Terminations 13,363 13,470 0.8%

*Pending Cases 16,793 17,151 2.1%

TABLE 1: Appellate Caseload Profile, 2005-2006

*Total pending cases for calendar year 2005 revised.

TABLE 2: Filings, Terminations and Pending Cases by Appeal Type, 2006

*This table includes appeals reopened, remanded, and reinstated (after being terminated due to procedural defaults) as well as 

original appeals.

Type of Appeal

2005

Filings

2006

Filings

Change

2005-06

% of Circuit

Total

2005

Terminated

2006

Terminated

Change

2005-06

2005

Pending

2006

Pending

Change

2005-06

Civil

 U.S. Prisoner

 Petitions 605 390 -35.5% 2.8% 592 413 -30.2% 375 357 -4.8%

 Private Prisoner 

 Petitions 2,192 2,277 3.9% 16.5% 2,008 2,004 -0.2% 1,644 1,918 16.7%

 Other U.S. Civil 682 633 -7.2% 4.6% 661 528 -20.1% 746 852 14.2%

 Other Private Civil 2,149 2,067 -3.8% 14.9% 2,106 1,867 -11.3% 2,588 2,786 7.7%

Criminal 2,553 2,155 -15.6% 15.6% 1,987 2,407 21.1% 2,556 2,306 -9.8%

Other

 Bankruptcy 180 143 -20.6% 1.0% 205 155 -24.4% 236 224 -5.1%

 Administrative 

 Appeals 6,870 5,340 -22.3% 38.6% 4,965 5,276 6.3% 8,419 8,486 0.8%

 *Original

 Proceedings 870 823 -5.4% 6.0% 839 820 -2.3% 218 222 1.8%

Circuit Total 16,101 13,828 -14.1% 13,363 13,470 0.8% 16,782 17,151 2.2%

National 

Appellate Total 70,003 63,676 -9.0% 63,024 67,699 7.4% 59,569 55,253 -7.2%

Ninth Circuit as % of 

National Total 23.0% 21.7% 1.3% 21.0% 19.9% 1.1% 28.2% 31.0% 2.9%

COURT OF APPEALS STATISTICS

Immigration and Naturalization Service (now the U.S. Citizenship and 

Immigration Service, a part of the Department of Homeland Security) 

was ordered to clear a backlog of cases involving foreign nationals 

denied residency in the U.S. by a federal immigration judge. Would-be 

immigrants can appeal such decisions, fi rst to BIA, then to a federal circuit 

court. The BIA instituted an expedited review system, often rendering 

decisions with minimal explanation, virtually assuring subsequent appeal 

The number of appeals fi led with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit declined for the 

fi rst time in fi ve years. The court reported 13,828 new fi lings in 2006, down 14.1 percent from 

2005. Appellate fi lings were down 9 percent nationally with every appellate court in the country 

reporting a decrease. The Ninth Circuit continued to have the largest share of new fi lings, 21.7 

percent of the national total.
The Work of the Courts

37

TABLE 3: Median Time Intervals, Calendar Years 2005 and 2006

By Stage of Appeal

Number of Months

 Ninth Circuit National

2005 2006 2005 2006

From Notice of Appeal to Filing Last Brief 6.0 6.1 5.6 5.8

From Filing Last Brief to Hearing or Submission 6.0 6.6 4.3 4.2

From Hearing to Final Disposition 1.3 1.2 2.2 2.1

From Submission to Final Disposition 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.5

From Filing of Notice of Appeal to Final Disposition 16.6 15.5 12.1 12.1

From Filing in Lower Court to Final Disposition in 

Appellate Court 33.0 34.2 27.2 27.4

to the circuit court. What had been a small but steady stream 

of cases turned into a torrent of litigation over fi ve years.

Breakdown of New Appeals

Among the various categories of appeals fi led, the largest 

was administrative appeals, which includes BIA appeals. 

They numbered 5,340 or 38.6 percent of all new fi lings in 

2006. 

Criminal appeals, which took a big jump in 2005, were 

down 15.6 percent in 2006. Total criminal fi lings for the year 

were 2,155. The most numerous criminal appeals involved 

drug off enses with 678 fi lings, criminal immigration 

off enses with 499 fi lings, property off enses with 306 fi lings, 

and fi rearms and explosives off enses with 220 fi lings. 

Total civil appeals for the year were 5,367. The federal 

government was either a plaintiff or defendant in 1,023 of 

those cases, or 19 percent. Private cases numbered 4,344, 

or 81 percent. Among private cases, prisoner petitions 

constituted the largest single category with 2,277 fi lings, up 

3.9 percent from the prior year. Civil rights appeals ranked 

second with 836 fi lings.

Original proceedings fi led in 2006 numbered 823 cases 

and amounted to 6 percent of the circuit total, down from 

2005.

District Courts as Sources of Appeals

Appeals of cases originating in the federal district courts 

in the circuit numbered 7,522 in 2006, down 8 percent 

from the prior year. The Central District of California, one 

of the busiest federal trial courts in the nation, once again 

generated the largest number of appeals for the circuit, 

2,020, or 14.6 percent of the total. The Central District’s 2006 

total was down 12.7 percent from the prior year. The court 

serves some 18 million people living in seven Southern 

California counties. 

Three districts generated more appeals in 2006. The 

number of appeals from the District of Montana increased 

to 37.6 percent to 384 fi lings, followed by the District of 

Idaho with 25.8 percent to 151 fi lings, and the District of 

Northern Mariana Islands to 7.7 percent to 13 fi lings.

Terminations and Pending Cases

The number of appeals terminated by the court numbered 

13,470 in 2006, up 0.8 percent, while the number of 

pending cases rose 2.1 percent to 17,151.

Among appeals terminated, administrative appeals ranked 

fi rst with 5,276 or 39 percent; criminal appeals second with 

2,407 or 17.9 percent; private prisoner appeals third with 

2,004 or 14.9 percent; and other private civil fourth with 

1,867 or 13.9 percent. Of the appeals terminated, 6,639 cases 

involved procedural terminations by judges and court staff . 

Another 6,421 cases were terminated on the merits, 1,774 

cases after oral argument and 4,647 cases after submission of 

briefs. Cases disposed of by consolidation numbered 410.

Median Time Intervals

Median time intervals, which measure how long it 

takes for a case to proceed through the judicial system, 

improved at the appellate level. The median time interval 

from fi ling of a notice of appeal to fi nal disposition of 

a case by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals was 15.5 

months in 2006, compared to 16.6 the year before. 

However, the median time interval from the fi ling of a 

case in a lower court to fi nal disposition by the Ninth 

Circuit grew longer, 34.2 months in 2006 compared to 33 

months in 2005. The additional time was accrued by the 

lower courts.
Annual Report 2006

38

Median time intervals for the Ninth Circuit were longer than the national 

median times of 12.1 months from notice of appeal to fi nal disposition 

of the case by a circuit court of appeals, and 27.4 months from fi ling of 

a case in a lower court to fi nal disposition by a circuit court. The Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals had longer median time intervals for briefi ng 

and preparing the case for hearing or submission. Once heard in court or 

submitted on the briefs, however, the Ninth Circuit resolved cases more 

quickly than the national average.

Pro Se Filings and Terminations

Pro se appeals, in which at least one 

party is not represented by legal 

counsel, continue to represent a large 

portion of the Ninth Circuit’s appellate 

caseload. Pro se fi lings numbered 

5,639 in 2006, down 8.4 percent from 

the prior year, but accounted for 40.8 

percent of the appellate caseload. In 

2005, pro se fi lings numbered 6,158 

and accounted for 38.2 percent of the 

caseload. Private prisoner petitions 

and administrative appeals ranked fi rst 

and second among categories of pro 

se fi lings with 1,907 and 1,883 cases, 

respectively.

The Ninth Circuit disposed of 5,171 

pro se cases in 2006. While most of the 

cases were terminated on procedural 

grounds, 1,973 cases were decided on 

the merits, including 45 in which oral 

argument was heard.

Contributions by Senior Judges and 

Visiting Judges

Senior circuit judges continued to 

make a major contribution to the 

work of the Ninth Circuit Court of 

Appeals in 2006. In addition to serving 

on screening and motions panels 

and various administrative court 

committees, they participated in 32.3 

percent of all cases terminated on the 

merits and were listed as authors in 

nearly 38 percent of those cases.

During the year, visiting judges were 

designated to sit on Ninth Circuit 

appellate panels, including 47 judges 

from district courts of the Ninth 

Circuit. 

District Appeals % of Total

Alaska 105 0.8%

Arizona 784 5.7%

C. Calif. 2,020 14.6%

E. Calif. 756 5.5%

N. Calif. 857 6.2%

S. Calif. 567 4.1%

Hawaii 181 1.3%

Idaho 151 1.1%

Montana 384 2.8%

Nevada 553 4.0%

Oregon 459 3.3%

E. Wash. 223 1.6%

W. Wash. 442 3.2%

Guam 26 0.2%

Northern Mariana Islands 14 0.1%

Bankruptcy 143 1.0%

Administrative Agencies, Total 5,340 38.6%

 IRS 65 0.5%

 National Labor Relations Board 23 0.2%

 BIA 5,166 37.4%

 Other Administrative Agencies 86 0.6%

*Original Proceedings 823 37.4%

Circuit Total 13,828

TABLE 4: Source of Appeals and Original Proceedings, 2006

*This table includes appeals reopened, remanded, and reinstated (after being 

terminated due to procedural defaults) appeals as well as original appeals. 

Administrative agency cases previously reported as immigration service (INS) 

are shown under Board of Immigration Appeals and U.S. Tax Court is shown 

under IRS.

COURT OF APPEALS STATISTICS CONTINUED
The Work of the Courts

39

TABLE 5: Ninth Circuit District Courts - Total Criminal and Civil Cases Filed, Terminated and Pending 

During the 12-Month Period Ending December 31, 2006

2005 2006

Change

2005-2006

Civil Filings 40,875 41,759 2.2%

Criminal Filings 13,808 12,672 -8.2%

Total Filings 54,683 54,431 -0.5%

Civil Terminations 41,796 40,800 -2.4%

Criminal Terminations 13,647 13,334 -2.3%

Total Terminations 55,443 54,134 -2.4%

 *Pending Civil Cases 41,254 42,213 2.3%

 *Pending Criminal Cases 13,061 12,399 -5.1%

 *Total Pending Cases 54,315 54,612 0.5%

Civil Case Termination Index (in months) 11.84 12.42 4.9%

*Criminal Case Termination Index (in months) 11.48 11.16 -2.8%

*Overall Case Termination Index 11.76 12.11 3.0%

Median Months (from fi ling to disposition)

Civil Cases 8.4 8.3 -1.2%

Median Months (from fi ling to disposition) 

Criminal Defendants 7.0 7.1 1.4%

Median Months National Total from fi ling to disposition) 

Civil Cases 9.6 7.9 -17.7%

Median Months National Total from fi ling to disposition) 

Criminal Defendants 7.0 7.1 1.4%

Note: Median time intervals computed only for 10 or more cases and only for 10 or more defendants. Median time intervals 

from fi ling to disposition of civil cases terminated, by district and method of disposition, excludes land condemnation, prisoner 

petitions, deportation reviews, recovery of overpayments and enforcement of judgments. Median time intervals from fi ling to 

disposition of criminal defendants disposed of, by district, excludes transfers.

*2005 Revised

DISTRICT COURT FILINGS

Criminal Filings, Terminations and Pending Cases

Criminal fi lings in district courts of the circuit numbered 

12,672 in 2006, down 8.2 percent from the prior year. 

Criminal fi lings constituted 23.3 percent of the total 

district court fi lings in the circuit. The largest categories of 

criminal appeals were immigration off enses, which totaled 

4,608 fi lings, or 36.4 percent, and drug off enses, which 

totaled 2,955 fi lings, or 23.3 percent.

Declines were reported in 12 of 19 categories of criminal 

fi lings and were most notable in the numbers of drug 

off enses and fi rearms and explosives cases, down 12 and 

12.5 percent, respectively, from the prior year. The largest 

increase numerically was seen in one type of immigration 

off ense, illegal reentry by an alien, which numbered 2,813, 

up 27 cases, or 0.01 percent from 2005. These fi gures 

exclude transfer cases. They also refl ect changes in the 

categorization of off enses by the Administrative Offi ce of 

the U.S. Courts.

Nationwide, criminal fi lings (excluding transfers) were 

66,094, down 3.5 percent from 68,488 in 2005. District 

Criminal and civil case fi lings in the district courts of the Ninth Circuit held steady in 2006, 

totaling 54,431, down 0.5 percent from the prior year. The 15 judicial districts of the circuit 

accounted for 16.2 percent of the total federal court caseload of 336,775 criminal and civil fi lings. 

Overall, national fi lings increased by 7 percent in 2006.
Annual Report 2006

40

District

Authorized

 Judgeships 

Unweighted Filings Per Judgeship Weighted Filings Per Judgeship

Civil Criminal

Supervised 

Release 

Hearings Total Civil Criminal

Supervised

Release 

Hearings

2006

Weighted 

Total

2005

Weighted 

Total

Change

2005-2006

Alaska 3 117 67 20.33 204 142 53 3.06 198 191 3.7%

Arizona 13 291 330 104.15 725 283 238 14.61 535 656 -18.4%

C. Calif. 28 387 53 31.29 472 469 46 4.43 519 546 -4.9%

E. Calif. 6 779 209 58.67 1,046 766 177 8.25 952 848 12.3%

N. Calif. 14 505 58 32.14 595 599 47 4.51 650 528 23.1%

S. Calif. 13 215 246 99.23 560 269 159 13.96 442 369 19.8%

Hawaii 4 170 113 36.50 319 229 90 5.17 324 371 -12.7%

Idaho 2 260 140 36.00 436 301 132 5.32 438 443 -1.1%

Montana 3 208 158 49.00 415 215 154 7.58 377 417 -9.6%

Nevada 7 318 89 31.29 438 406 79 4.48 490 485 1.0%

Oregon 6 390 132 48.50 570 443 109 6.96 559 579 -3.5%

E. Wash. 4 137 113 49.50 299 140 93 7.35 239 287 -16.7%

W. Wash. 7 363 201 37.14 601 412 139 5.74 557 611 -8.8%

Circuit 

Total 110 4,140 1,909 634 6,680 4,674 1,516 91.42 6,280 6,331 -0.8%

Circuit 

Mean *** 318 147 48.75 514 360 117 7.03 483 487 -0.8%

Circuit 

Median *** 291 132 37.14 472 301 109 5.74 490 485 1.0%

National

Mean *** 334 129 31.70 495 369 105 4.60 478 480 -0.4%

TABLE 6: Ninth Circuit District Courts - Weighted and Unweighted Filings Per Authorized Judgeship 

During the 12-Month Period Ending December 31, 2006

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

This table excludes civil cases arising by reopening, remand, or transfer to the district by the order of the Judicial Panel on

Multi-district Litigation. This table includes defendants in all felony and Class A misdemeanor cases, but includes only those 

petty off ense defendants whose cases have been assigned to district judges. Remands and reopens for criminal defendants are 

excluded. This table excludes data for the territorial courts. Data are reported for supervised release and probation hearings 

(both evidentiary and non-evidentiary) previously not presented in this table. Data are obtained from the monthly reports 

of trials and other court activities conducted by resident and visiting judges. Due to rounding, subtotals for weighted and 

unweighted civil, criminal, and revocation fi lings may not equal totals for weighted and unweighted fi lings.

courts of the Ninth Circuit accounted for 19 percent of the 

national criminal caseload, down 1 percent from last year. 

They reported 28.8 percent of the criminal immigration 

cases and 17.1 percent of the drug off ense cases fi led 

nationally in 2006.

Signifi cant decreases in criminal case fi lings were reported 

by 13 of 15 district courts in the circuit. The District of 

Arizona had the largest numerical decrease, reporting 

3,500 fi lings in 2006, down 11.6 percent from the 

3,959 cases fi led the year before. Filings also decreased 

signifi cantly from the prior year in the Central District of 

California, which had 1,087 new cases, down 19 percent; 

the Western District of Washington, which had 1,072 

new cases, down 11.3 percent; and the Eastern District of 

California, which had 879 new cases, down 9.9 percent.

The only increases in criminal case fi lings were reported 

by the Southern District of California, which saw fi lings rise 

14.7 percent to 2,763 cases, and the District of Guam, up 

6.8 percent to 126 cases.

New filings for immigration and drug offenses 

continued to be most numerous in the circuit’s 

two “border courts” on the U.S.-Mexican border. 

Immigration and drug offenses made up 56 and 19 

percent, respectively, of the caseload in Arizona, and 

52.2 and 39.7 percent, respectively, of the caseload in 

the Southern District of California.

DISTRICT COURT FILINGS CONTINUED
The Work of the Courts

41

AK AZ

Cent. 

Calif.

East. 

Calif.

No. 

Calif.

So. 

Calif. HI ID MT NV OR

East. 

Wash.

West. 

Wash. GU NMI Total

Violent Off enses

Homicide 0 31 1 1 0 2 2 5 9 0 1 2 2 0 0 56

Robbery 6 9 31 14 10 13 13 2 0 37 51 3 12 0 0 201

Assault 3 104 9 12 2 21 11 9 25 6 4 5 6 2 0 219

Other 0 20 9 3 3 2 2 2 5 2 3 5 3 0 0 59

Property Off enses

Burglary, Larceny 

& Theft 8 97 53 46 25 3 45 7 10 12 30 9 182 11 1 539

Embezzlement 5 12 13 1 11 7 11 5 5 3 5 3 11 0 0 92

Fraud 11 238 330 133 135 93 35 18 60 56 63 14 66 54 3 1,309

Forgery & 

Counterfeiting 2 6 35 16 3 0 2 2 3 6 4 4 3 0 0 86

Other 0 5 6 3 3 2 2 2 4 0 1 1 17 0 0 46

Drug Off enses

Marijuana 1 360 2 47 23 698 37 2 7 1 16 9 33 1 0 1,237

All Other Drugs 38 300 112 159 71 400 103 33 70 95 113 45 161 15 3 1,718

Firearms and

Explosives Off enses 25 196 86 79 57 16 29 31 77 100 91 91 86 16 0 980

Sex Off enses 10 56 61 78 31 11 11 15 41 19 37 15 23 1 0 409

Justice System 

Off enses 3 30 19 18 13 20 1 3 4 8 11 13 18 1 1 163

Immigration Off enses

Improper Alien 

Reentry 7 1,635 163 192 97 334 4 63 26 80 43 148 21 0 0 2,813

Other 2 326 47 4 30 1,108 5 2 8 13 162 7 69 12 0 1,795

General Off enses 5 12 34 24 24 14 10 3 15 12 7 7 68 2 0 237

Regulatory Off enses 18 52 53 17 45 11 9 8 13 9 15 2 17 0 9 278

Traffi c Off enses 9 2 2 25 18 0 14 0 0 0 0 1 259 9 0 339

All Off enses Total 153 3,491 1,066 872 601 2,755 346 212 382 459 657 384 1,057 124 17 12,576

TABLE 7: Ninth Circuit District Courts - Types of Criminal Cases Commenced, by Major Offense and District 

(Excluding Transfers), 2006

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

assigned to district judges.

Criminal case terminations numbered 13,334 in 2006, 

down 2.3 percent from the prior year. The number of 

pending criminal cases decreased to 12,399, down 5.1 

percent from 2005.

Civil Filings, Terminations and Pending Cases

Civil case fi lings in district courts of the Ninth Circuit 

in 2006 numbered 41,759, up 2.2 percent from 2005. It 

was the fi rst upturn after fi ve consecutive years in which 

civil fi lings had declined. The circuit accounted for 15.5 

percent of the 270,171 civil fi lings in district courts 

nationally in 2006, which were up 10 percent over the 

prior year.

Private civil cases accounted for 78.7 percent of all 

new civil fi lings in district courts of the circuit. The U.S. 

government acted as a plaintiff or defendant in the 

remaining 21.3 percent of the new fi lings. Prisoner 

petitions made up 31.4 percent of all new private civil 

cases, down slightly from the prior year. Other major 

categories of new civil fi lings were civil rights, 15.7 

percent; personal injury of all types, 13.2 percent; 
Annual Report 2006

42

contracts, 11.2 percent; and copyright, patent and 

trademark cases, 9.1 percent. 

The largest category of civil fi lings in which the 

government was a party involved Social Security, 31.4 

percent of the total. Motions to vacate sentence and 

prisoner petitions accounted for 10.2 and 8.6 percent, 

respectively, of the U.S. civil fi lings.

The Central District of California reported the largest 

number of new civil cases at 11,383, down 4.7 percent 

from 11,940 in 2005. The biggest increase in new civil 

fi lings was reported by the Northern District of California, 

which opened 8,171 new cases, up 46.2 percent from 

5,589 cases in 2005.

Elsewhere in the circuit, increases in new civil fi lings 

were reported in the districts of Alaska, Arizona, Eastern, 

Northern and Southern California, Montana, Nevada, 

Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands. Decreases were 

reported by the districts of Hawaii, Idaho, Oregon and 

Eastern and Western Washington.

Civil case terminations numbered 40,800, down 2.4 percent 

from 41,796 in 2005. The number of pending civil cases was 

42,213, up 2.3 percent from 41,254 the prior year.

Case Processing Times

Case processing times in the district courts of the 

Ninth Circuit’s remained relatively stable in 2006. The 

Case Termination Index, which computes how long it 

would take to clear the pending caseload if the current 

termination rate remained constant, was 12.11 months in 

2006, up from 11.76 months in 2005.

The median time from fi ling to disposition for civil cases 

was 8.3 months, a slight improvement over the 8.4 months 

reported in 2005. The national median time for civil cases 

was 7.9 months in 2006 compared with 9.6 months in 

2005. For criminal cases, the median time from fi ling to 

disposition for the circuit and nationally was 7.1 months, 

up slightly from 7 months in 2005.

Visiting Judges

In 2006, district courts of the Ninth Circuit benefi ted from 

the work of 86 visiting judges. Of those, 80 were judges from 

courts within the circuit, and six were from courts outside the 

circuit. Sharing of judicial resources is a common practice 

among courts in the Ninth Circuit, helping to address 

workload imbalances and other situations.

DISTRICT COURT FILINGS CONTINUED
The Work of the Courts

43

BANKRUPTCY COURT FILINGS

The fi ling rush of 2005 was prompted by enactment of the 

Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection 

Act of 2005, which went into eff ect in October of that 

year. The act was widely perceived to be more restrictive 

on debtors, prompting many people to fi le even though 

their fi nancial situations may not have warranted seeking 

bankruptcy protection. That perception is believed to 

have persisted through much of 2006, contributing to the 

downturn in fi lings.

Non-business fi lings continued to make 

up the majority of new bankruptcy 

fi lings nationally and in the circuit. 

Non-business fi lings nationally totaled 

597,965, or nearly 97 percent of the 

total fi lings in 2006. In the circuit, nonbusiness fi lings numbered 75,090, or 

95.6 percent of the total.

Filings under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy 

Code were the most common type 

of fi ling among both business and 

non-business fi lers. Chapter 7 fi lings 

nationally totaled 360,890, or 58.4 

percent of the total. In the circuit, 

Chapter 7 fi lings numbered 58,215, or 

74.2 percent.

Bankruptcy Filings by Chapter

As noted, the largest number of fi lings 

came under Chapter 7, which allows 

non-business fi lers to keep certain 

exempt property, including primary 

residences, while the remaining 

property is sold to pay creditors. 

Businesses fi ling under Chapter 7 are 

liquidated and terminated. In the Ninth 

Circuit in 2006, Chapter 7 was used by 

75 percent of non-business fi lers and 

63.8 percent of business fi lers.

Chapter 13 was the second largest 

category of bankruptcy fi lings among 

non-business fi lers. Under Chapter 13 bankruptcy, 

creditors may be repaid in installments, in full or in part, 

over three to fi ve years and debts may not exceed the 

statutory amount. Chapter 13 is available for individuals 

operating businesses as sole proprietorships, but not 

for partnerships or corporations. In 2006, non-business 

Chapter 13 fi lings totaled 248,430 nationally, 40.2 percent 

of the total, and 18,934 in the circuit, 24.1 percent of 

Caseload Measure 2005 2006

Change

2005-2006

Filings

 Business Chapter 7 5,508 2,180 -60.4%

 Business Chapter 11 889 725 -18.4%

 Business Chapter 12 57 45 -21.1%

 Business Chapter 13 1,023 454 -55.6%

 Non-Business Chapter 7 292,802 56,035 -80.9%

 Non-Business Chapter 11 152 120 -21.1%

 Non-Business Chapter 13 35,015 18,934 -45.9%

 *Total 335,454 78,505 -76.6%

Terminations

243,164 223,414 -8.1%

**Pending Cases

285,840 140,931 -50.7%

TABLE 8: Business and Non-Business Bankruptcy Cases Commenced, 

by Chapter of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, During the 12-Month Period 

Ending December 31, 2006

Note: Chapter 15 was added and section 304 was terminated by changes in 

the bankruptcy laws eff ective October 17, 2005. (1) Section 101 of the U.S. 

Bankruptcy Code defi nes consumer (non-business) debt as that incurred by an 

individual primarily for a personal, family, or household purpose. If the debtor 

is a corporation or a partnership, or if debt related to operation of a business 

predominates, the nature of the debt is business.

*These fi gures include the following cases not refl ected elsewhere: Calendar Year 

2005: Arizona (Section 304 = 1); Central Calif. (Chapter 9 = 1 and Section 304 = 3); 

Northern Calif. (Chapter 9 = 1); Hawaii (Section 304 = 1); Western Wash. (Chapter 

15 = 1) Calendar Year 2006: Arizona (Chapter 15 = 1); Central Calif. (Chapter 9 = 

1 and Chapter 15 = 1); Eastern Calif. (Chapter 15 = 3); Northern Calif. (Chapter 9 = 

1 and Chapter 15 = 2); Hawaii (Chapter 15 = 2); Western Wash. (Chapter 15 = 1)

**Pending cases for 2005 revised.

After reaching record numbers in 2005, bankruptcy fi lings plummeted in 2006. Bankruptcy courts 

nationally reported 617,660 new fi lings, down 70.3 percent from the record 2,078,415 cases 

opened in 2005. Bankruptcy courts in the Ninth Circuit reported 78,505 fi lings, down 76.6 

percent from 335,454 fi lings in 2005. The circuit accounted for 12.7 percent of the 2006 national 

fi lings.
Annual Report 2006

44

the total. Business Chapter 13 fi lings numbered 2,749 

nationally, 14 percent of the total, and 454 in the circuit, 

13.3 percent. 

Chapter 11 was second largest category of bankruptcy 

fi lings among business fi lers, numbering 4,643 nationally, 

23.6 percent of the business fi lings total, and 725 in 

the circuit, 21.2 percent of all business fi lings. Chapter 

11 allows a business to continue operations while 

formulating a plan to repay its creditors. Although used 

less commonly in non-business fi lings, it also allows an 

individual to use future earnings to pay off creditors. Nonbusiness Chapter 11 fi lings totaled 520 nationally and 120 

in the circuit.

The smallest category of fi lings was Chapter 12, which 

is available only to business fi lers and provides family 

farmers facing bankruptcy a chance to reorganize their 

debts and keep their farms. Chapter 12 fi lings numbered 

348 nationally, 1.8 percent of the total business fi lings, and 

45 in the circuit, 1.3 percent of the total business fi lings.

Bankruptcy Filings by District

Every bankruptcy court in the circuit reported a sharp 

decrease in bankruptcy fi lings, ranging from 46.9 percent 

in the Northern Mariana Islands to 80.6 percent in Arizona.

The Central District of California reported 17,802 new 

bankruptcy fi lings, the most in the Ninth Circuit and the 

fi fth most in the nation in 2006. Its non-business fi lings 

numbered 16,843, 94.6 percent of the total. Business and 

non-business Chapter 7 fi lings numbered 14,230, 79.9 

percent of the total.

The Eastern District of California reported 9,323 new fi lings 

in 2006, followed by the Western District of Washington, 

8,448; the District of Arizona, 7,793; the Northern District 

of California, 7,742; and the District of Oregon, 7,585. 

Terminations and Pending Cases

Nationally, bankruptcy case terminations numbered 

1,435,482 in 2006, down 8.9 percent from the prior year, 

while pending cases totaled 1,331,023, down 38.1 percent. 

In the Ninth Circuit, terminations totaled 223,414, down 

8.1 percent, while pending cases numbered 140,931, 

down 50.7 percent.

Appointments, Transitions

In 2006, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals appointed 

four new bankruptcy judges. The newcomers are Mike K. 

Nakagawa, appointed to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for 

Nevada with chambers in Las Vegas; Richard M. Neiter 

and Victoria S. Kaufman, appointed to the U.S. Bankruptcy 

Court for the Central District of California, with chambers 

in Los Angeles; and Roger L. Efremsky, appointed to 

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

California, with chambers in San Jose. 

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of 

California saw the elevation of Chief Bankruptcy Judge 

Peter W. Bowie in June 2006. Judge Bowie, a veteran of the 

bankruptcy bench for 19 years, succeeded Judge John J. 

Hargrove. His appointment extends to 2011.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of 

California saw the elevation of Chief Bankruptcy Judge 

Vincent P. Zurzolo in December 2006. Judge Zurzolo, also 

a 19-year veteran of the bankruptcy bench, succeeded 

Judge Barry Russell. His appointment extends to 2009.

Ninth Circuit bankruptcy courts continue to rely on 

recalled judges to relieve the active bankruptcy judges. 

During 2006, nine recalled bankruptcy judges assisted in 

seven districts.

BANKRUPTCY COURT FILINGS CONTINUED
The Work of the Courts

45

BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL

New Filings

For calendar year 2006, 735 new appeals were fi led, down 

from 764 appeals the prior year. BAP handled 51 percent 

of all bankruptcy appeals, while 49 percent were heard in 

district courts. The BAP has historically handled between 

50 and 60 percent of all appeals in the circuit.

Bankruptcy appeal fi lings have gone up and down in 

recent years, from a six-year high in 2002 of 904 appeals 

fi led to an all-time low in 2006 of 735 appeals fi led. The 

decline in fi lings likely will slow at least somewhat in 2007, 

as litigants begin to fi le appeals challenging the 2005 

bankruptcy law amendments.

Dispositions

The BAP disposed of 423 appeals for the year. Of those, 

185 appeals were merits terminations. Oral argument was 

held in 174 appeals, and 11 appeals were submitted on 

briefs. Of the 185 merits terminations, 34 were published 

opinions. The reversal rate was 27.6 percent.

The median time for an appeal decided on the merits 

was 11.4 months. The remaining 238 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 

232 appeals pending.

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 fi les 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 four years, one position has 

intentionally been held vacant due to reduced work load based on new fi lings. 

The Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel consists of, seated from left, Bankruptcy Judge Christopher M. Klein of the Eastern District of 

California, Bankruptcy Judge Philip H. Brandt of the Western District of Washington, Bankruptcy Judge Dennis Montali of the Northern District of 

California; and, standing from left, Bankruptcy Judge Jim D. Pappas of the District of Idaho; Bankruptcy Judge Erithe A. Smith of the Central District 

of California and Bankruptcy Judge Randall L. Dunn of the District of Oregon.
Annual Report 2006

46

Appeals to the Ninth Circuit

Appeals from a decision of either the BAP or a district 

court may be fi led with the court of appeals for secondlevel appellate review. For the year, 143 second-level 

appeals were fi led. Of these, 79 were appeals from 

decisions by the BAP and 64 were from decisions by 

the district courts. Thus, of the 423 appeals which were 

disposed of by the BAP, over 80.4 percent were fully 

resolved with only about 19 percent seeking second-level 

review. 

District

Bankruptcy 

Appellate Panel *District Court Total

Alaska 3 3 6

Arizona 42 40 82

Cent. Calif. 143 129 272

East. Calif. 33 26 59

No. Calif. 59 62 121

So. Calif. 21 17 38

Hawaii 6 7 13

Idaho 5 4 9

Montana 4 2 6

Nevada 16 30 46

Oregon 12 12 24

East. Wash. 2 10 12

West. Wash. 28 19 47

Total 374 (51%) 361 (49%) 735

TABLE 9: New Bankruptcy Appeal Filings for the 12-Month Period 

Ending December 31, 2006

*The numbers for bankruptcy appeals to the district courts are taken 

directly from a statistical caseload table prepared by the Administrative 

Offi ce of the United States Courts (“AOUSC Table B-23”). The numbers for 

bankruptcy appeals to the BAP are calculated based on data from AOUSC 

Table B-23, and on data from the BAP’s ICMS docketing system. The district 

court numbers include all appeals in which a timely election was made to 

have the appeal heard in the district court (both appellant and appellee 

elections). The BAP numbers exclude all such appeals.

BAP Judges

The Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit, which has 

statutory for appointments to the BAP, appointed one 

new member in 2006. Bankruptcy Judge Randall L. Dunn 

of the District of Oregon, was appointed to the BAP in 

September, succeeding Bankruptcy Judge James M. 

Marlar of the District of Arizona. Judge Dunn, who has 

chambers in Portland, has served on the bankruptcy 

bench since 1998. He served on the Conference Executive 

Committee for the Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference, and is 

a past chairman of the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Education 

Committee.

BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL CONTINUED
The Work of the Courts

47

MAGISTRATE JUDGE MATTERS

The total number of matters disposed 

of by magistrate judges in the Ninth 

Circuit was 177,419 in 2006, down 

0.6 percent from 2005. Decreases 

were seen in arraignments, trials of 

Class A misdemeanors, civil consent 

cases heard without a jury, and civil 

settlement conferences. Increases 

were reported in the evidentiary 

proceedings, pretrial conferences, 

taking of guilty pleas, and prisoner 

petitions.

Magistrate judges presided over 747 

more criminal pretrial conferences, 

up 42.9 percent from the year before. 

They also reviewed 792 more prisoner 

petitions, most of them pertaining to 

civil rights. Civil rights petitions were 

up 25.4 percent from the year before 

and accounted for 45 percent of all 

prisoner petitions.

New Magistrate Judges and 

Governance

Six new magistrate judges were sworn into offi ce over the 

course of the year. They were Judge Edmund F. Brennan 

of the Eastern District of California, Judge Jeremiah C. 

Lynch of the District of Montana, and Judges Jacqueline 

Chooljian, Frederick F. Mumm, Oswald Parada and John C. 

Rayburn, Jr., of the Central District of California.

2006 saw the elevation of Magistrate Judge Anthony 

J. Battaglia of the Southern District of California as the 

new chair for the Magistrate Judges Executive Board, 

succeeding Magistrate Judge J. Kelley Arnold of the 

Western District of Washington. Judge Battaglia assumed 

the gavel at the board’s October meeting in Ashland, Ore. 

As chair, Judge Battaglia serves as an offi cial observer at 

meetings of the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit. He 

also serves on the Committee on Criminal Rules of the 

Judicial Conference of the United States.

Also during the year, the Magistrate Judges Executive 

Board established formal liaisons with the Ninth Circuit’s 

Lawyer Representative Coordinating Committee and 

its Advisory Committee. Plans were made to invite 

representatives of those groups to future board meetings 

to discuss issues of mutual concern, such as consent to 

magistrate judge jurisdiction. 

Educational Programs

At the 2006 Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference in 

Huntington Beach, Calif., the Magistrate Judges Education 

program featured remarks by Circuit Judge M. Margaret 

McKeown of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge 

McKeown, who serves on the JCUS Committee on Codes 

of Conduct, had advice and suggestions on matters 

related to judicial ethics. Among the matters noted by 

Judge McKeown was the ongoing controversy over the 

attendance of judges at privately sponsored conferences.

Magistrate judges assist district judges in a range of judicial matters, including presiding over 

preliminary proceedings, some criminal and civil cases, various other criminal and civil hearings, 

and prisoner petitions. In the Ninth Circuit, 95 full-time and 11 part-time magistrate judges 

made signifi cant contributions to the work of their courts in 2006.

The Magistrate Judges Executive Board consists of: seated from left, Leslie E. Kobayashi of Hawaii, 

Cynthia Imbrogno of Eastern Washington, J. Kelley Arnold, chair, of Western Washington, and Janice 

M. Stewart of Oregon; middle row from left, Ralph Zarefsky of Central California, John D. Roberts of 

Alaska, Mikel H. Williams of Idaho, James Larson of Northern California, Joaquin V.E. Manibusan 

of Guam, and Robert J. Johnston of Nevada; and, back row from left, Lawrence J. O’Neill of Eastern 

California, Leif “Bart” Erickson of Montana, Anthony J. Battaglia of Southern California and 

Bernardo P. Velasco of Arizona.
Annual Report 2006

48

Activity 2005 2006 Percent Change 2005-2006

Total Matters 178,540 177,419 -0.6%

Preliminary Proceedings 81,410 81,919 0.6%

 Search Warrants 8,123 8,219 1.2%

 Arrest Warrants/Summonses 6,071 6,064 -0.1%

 Initial Appearances 23,797 23,546 -1.1%

 Preliminary Examinations 5,057 5,448 7.7%

 Arraignments 14,840 14,174 -4.5%

 Detention Hearings 13,607 13,746 1.0%

 Bail Reviews/Nebbia Hearings 3,447 3,664 6.3%

 Other5 6,468 7,058 9.1%

Trial Jurisdiction Cases 20,377 20,414 0.2%

 Class A Misdemeanors 1,746 1,139 -34.8%

 Petty Off enses 18,631 19,275 3.5%

Civil Consent Cases 3,205 2,884 -10.0%

 Without Trial 3,142 2,819 -10.3%

 Jury Trial 45 42 -6.7%

 Nonjury Trial 18 23 27.8%

Additional Duties

 Criminal 26,415 27,368 3.6%

 Motions 636(b)(1)(A)1 11,457 11,283 -1.5%

 Motions 636(b)(1)(B) 996 1,107 11.1%

 Evidentiary Proceedings 196 274 39.8%

 Pretrial Conferences2 1,741 2,488 42.9%

 Probation Revocation and

 Supervised Release Hearings 1,338 1,191 -11.0%

 Guilty Pleas 6,002 6,685 11.4%

 Other3 4,685 4,340 -7.4%

 Civil 29,515 28,996 -1.8%

 Settlement Conferences 4,149 3,426 -17.4%

 Other Pretrial Conferences2 3,625 4,215 16.3%

 Motions 636(b)(1)(A)1 15,191 15,239 0.3%

 Motions 636(b)(1)(B) 1,222 999 -18.2%

 Evidentiary Proceedings 152 34 -77.6%

 Social Security 825 919 11.4%

 Special Masterships 71 96 35.2%

 Other4 4,280 4,068 -5.0%

 Prisoner Petitions 4,798 5,590 16.5%

 State Habeas 2,552 2,600 1.9%

 Federal Habeas 465 430 -7.5%

 Civil Rights 2,006 2,515 25.4%

 Evidentiary Proceedings 75 45 -40.0%

Miscellaneous Matters6 12,820 10,248 -20.1%

TABLE 10: Matters Disposed of by Ninth Circuit Magistrate Judges During the 12-Month Period Ending September 30, 2006

1 Before 2000, category included contested motions only. Beginning in 2000, uncontested motions were added.

2 Before 2000, category did not include status conferences. Beginning in 2000, status conferences were added.

3 Category includes writs, mental competency hearings, and motion hearings.

4 Category includes fee applications, summary jury trials, and motion hearings.

5 Category includes material witness hearings and attorney appointment hearings.

6 Before 2000, this category included seizure/inspection warrants and orders of entry; judgment debtor exams; extradition hearings, contempt proceedings; 

Criminal Justice Act fee applications; naturalization proceedings; grand jury returns; civil and criminal IRS enforcement proceedings; calendar calls; and 

voir dire. Beginning in 2000, civil and criminal other jury matters and international prisoner transfer proceedings were added.
The Work of the Courts

49

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDERS

Ninth Circuit defenders opened 25,588 new cases in 

FY2006, up 10.5 percent from the prior fi scal year. They 

closed 25,795 cases, up 12.3 percent from FY2005. The 

Ninth Circuit share of the national caseload was 26.3 

percent for both cases opened and closed.

In Arizona, one of two border courts in the circuit, new 

cases opened in FY2006 totaled 8,116, up 45.7 percent 

from 5,570 new cases the prior fi scal year. Of the new 

cases, 87.1 percent were criminal in nature, many of them 

involving illegal immigration. A modest increase also was 

reported by the circuit’s other border court, the Southern 

District of California, where new cases opened totaled 

4,361, up 8.2 percent from the 4,031 opened in FY2005.

Also reporting increases were the Eastern District of 

California, 2,089 new cases, up 4.9 percent; the Western 

District of Washington, 1,904 new cases, up 5.9 percent; 

and the Eastern District of Washington, 761 new cases, up 

2.6 percent.

The upturn in new cases opened in Arizona derives from 

several factors, most notably increased enforcement 

and prosecution by the U.S. Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement agency and U.S. attorney. A new defender 

offi ce opened in Yuma, in the extreme southwestern part 

of the state near the Mexico and California borders, has 

seen increased prosecutions as immigration activity shifts 

there from San Diego and from Tucson/Nogales. There 

also has been an increase in cases opened by the Flagstaff 

offi ce involving off enses from federal lands and parks.

Decreases in new cases were reported by nine districts. 

The biggest decreases, numerically and percentage-wise, 

were in the districts of Hawaii, 427 new cases, down 

24.8 percent from 568 cases the prior year; Guam, 49 

new cases, down 74.3 percent from 191 cases in FY2005; 

Central California, 3,180 new cases, down 3.4 percent from 

3,293; and Montana, 586 cases, down 15.4 percent from 

693 cases.

Circuit caseloads have varied over the last six years with 

increases reported in 2001, 2002, 2004 and 2006, and 

decreases in 2003 and 2005.

Congress created the Offi ce of the Federal Public Defender 

to fulfi ll the constitutional requirement that indigents 

charged with federal crimes be provided with no-cost, 

professional legal representation. Congress funds public 

defender and community defender offi ces through the 

Defender Services Division of the Administrative Offi ce of 

the United States Courts.

Community defender organizations are non-profi t 

legal service organizations staff ed by non-government 

employees, while public defender offi ces are federal 

agencies staff ed by employees of the judiciary. Both types 

of organizations are staff ed with experienced federal 

criminal law practitioners who provide a consistently high 

level of representation. 

In addition to criminal defense and appeals, public 

defenders are assigned to court-directed prisoner 

and witness representations, bail/pre-sentencing, and 

probation and parole revocation hearings.

Fiscal Year

Cases 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Percent Change

2005-2006

Opened 24,780 23,539 24,543 23,157 25,588 10.5%

Closed 24,634 23,247 24,215 22,979 25,795 12.3%

Pending 7,669 7,944 8,287 8,460 8,471 0.1%

TABLE 11: Federal Defender Organizations - Cases Opened, Closed and Pending, During the 12-Month Period 

Ending September 30, 2006

Federal public defenders and community defenders in nine of 14 judicial districts of the Ninth 

Circuit saw their workloads decrease in fi scal year 2006 (October 1, 2005 to September 30, 2006). 

But a big jump in the number of new cases opened in Arizona along with modest growth in four 

other districts resulted in a net increase in caseload for the circuit as a whole.
Annual Report 2006

50

District

Opened

Sept. 30, 2005

Opened

Sept. 30, 2006

Change

2005-2006

Closed

Sept. 30, 2006

Pending

Sept. 30, 2006

Alaska 298 287 -3.7% 291 104

Arizona 5,570 8,116 45.7% 8,092 1,186

Cent. Calif. 3,293 3,180 -3.4% 3,324 1,361

East. Calif. 1,991 2,089 4.9% 2,019 845

No. Calif. 866 815 -5.9% 860 392

*So. Calif. 4,031 4,361 8.2% 4,134 1,273

Guam 191 151 -20.9% 147 49

Hawaii 568 516 -9.2% 548 427

*Idaho 322 320 -0.6% 329 174

*Montana 693 586 -15.4% 606 252

Nevada 1,214 1,145 -5.7% 1,251 700

Oregon 1,580 1,548 -2.0% 1,524 899

*East. Wash. 742 761 2.6% 736 305

West. Wash. 1,798 1,904 5.9% 1,934 504

Circuit Total 23,157 25,588 10.5% 25,795 8,471

National Total 97,777 97,413 -0.4% 98,206 36,172

Circuit Total as % 

of National Total 23.7% 26.3% 2.6% 26.3% 23.4%

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

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

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

TABLE 12: Federal Defender Organizations - Summary of Representations by District During the 12-Month Period 

Ending September 30, 2006

Pending and Closed Cases

The pending caseload of Ninth Circuit public and 

community defenders was 8,471 cases in FY2006, 11 

more cases than the year before.

Appointments

By statute, judges of the circuit court of appeals select 

and appoint federal public defenders. The court makes 

its initial appointment after a nationwide recruitment 

and the use of a local screening committee. A federal 

public defender may be reappointed if the court 

concludes that he or she is performing in a highly 

satisfactory manner based upon a broad survey and 

performance evaluation process.

In 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 

appointed a new defender. Daniel Broderick was 

appointed in June for the Eastern District of California, 

which stretches from Bakersfi eld to the Oregon border. 

He had been the acting federal public defender for the 

district following the retirement of his predecessor Quin 

Denvir. He will serve a four-year term ending in 2010.

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDERS CONTINUED
The Work of the Courts

51

PROBATION OFFICES

United States probation offi ces in the Ninth Circuit are responsible for preparing pre-sentence 

investigation reports on convicted offenders, and for supervising offenders placed on probation, 

supervised release, parole, and conditional release.

As pre-sentence investigators, probation offi cers conduct 

an independent investigation of the off ense conduct, 

identify applicable guidelines and policy statements, 

calculate the defendant=s off ense level and criminal 

history category, report the resulting sentencing range, 

and identify factors relevant to the appropriate sentence.

In the area of supervision, probation offi cers establish 

supervision plans and make use of myriad programs to 

facilitate an off ender=s success under supervision. The 

diversity of the Ninth Circuit calls upon probation offi cers 

to perform their duties in a variety of settings; from 

courthouses in large metropolitan areas to one person 

offi ces in rural areas. Probation offi cers in the Ninth Circuit 

exemplify the highest ideals and standards in community 

corrections and are recognized nationally for delivering 

the highest quality services.

Offenders Under Supervision

At the close of fi scal year 2006 (October 1, 2005 to 

September 30, 2006), the number of persons under postconviction supervision in the Ninth Circuit remained 

relatively stable from the prior fi scal year. Districts 

reported 19,389 persons under supervision, up 0.8 percent 

from 19,244 in FY2005. The Ninth Circuit accounted for 

17 percent of the national total of 114,002 persons under 

supervision nationally.

Among persons under supervision in the Ninth Circuit, 

4,467 were on probation from the courts, while 14,529 

were on supervised release from institutions. Another 

372 persons were on parole and 21 in the custody of the 

Bureau of Prisons.

The Central District of California with 5,286 cases and the 

District of Arizona with 2,988 cases had the most persons 

under supervision. Both districts showed fewer cases than 

the previous year, however.

Eleven of 15 judicial districts in the Ninth Circuit reported 

increases in the number of persons under supervision. The 

greatest increase numerically was reported by the District 

of Nevada with 1,123 cases, up 9 percent from 1,030 cases 

in FY2005. The District of Idaho had 439 cases, up 14.9 

percent from 382 cases the prior fi scal year.

Drug off enses continue to account for the majority of 

cases under supervision in the Ninth Circuit as well 

as nationally. In FY2006, 7,465 persons were under 

supervision in the Ninth Circuit for drug law violations, 

amounting to 38.5 percent the total number of off enders 

under supervision in the Circuit. The next largest 

category was property violations with 5,189 persons 

under supervision or 26.8 percent of the total. This 

category includes data previously reported as burglary, 

larceny, embezzlement, fraud, auto theft, forgery and 

counterfeiting, and postal laws.

Cases Revoked

For FY2006, the total cases revoked and closed after postconviction supervision increased to 2,818 cases, up 3.4 

percent from 2,726 cases in FY2005. Of these, 341 cases 

were from courts and 2,477 were from institutions. The 

nationwide total cases revoked and closed is 13,485 cases, 

an increase of 5.9 percent over the 12,737 cases revoked in 

FY2005. The Ninth Circuit’s share of all cases revoked and 

closed is 20.9 percent of the national total.

Early Terminations

Since 2002, the Criminal Law Committee has worked to 

encourage offi ces to identify off enders who qualify for 

early termination. In general, when the conditions of 

Persons Under Supervision 2005 2006

Change

2005-2006

From Courts 4,752 4,467 -6.0%

From Institutions 14,492 14,922 3.0%

Total 19,244 19,389 0.8%

TABLE 13: Ninth Circuit Federal Probation System - Persons Under Post-Conviction Supervision as of 

September 30, 2006
Annual Report 2006

52

supervision have been met and the off ender does not 

pose a foreseeable risk to public safety or any individual 

third party, the probation offi cer may request the 

sentencing judge to consider early termination. 

During FY2006, 1,558 cases were terminated early by judges 

in the Ninth Circuit. The Central District of California led in 

the number of early terminations with 425 cases or 27.3 

percent of the total. The District of Arizona was second with 

394 cases or 25.3 percent, followed by the Northern District 

of California with 191 cases or 12.3 percent. The circuit 

average was 6.7 percent, down from 9.1 percent in 2005. 

Of Note

Probation Offi cer Michael J. Larson of the Western District 

of Washington was selected the Western Regional 

Offi cer of the Year by the national Federal Probation and 

Pretrial Offi cers Association. The award was presented in 

September by FPPOA Regional Vice President Curtis Hare 

of the Eastern District of Washington. The FPPOA award 

is given annually to a probation or pretrial offi cer in the 

West who through his or her own initiatives, makes a 

substantial contribution and provides outstanding service 

to the fi eld of corrections.

From Courts Referred by Institutions

District Probation1

 Supervised

Release Parole2 BOP Custody3

2005

 Total Cases

2006

 Total Cases

Change

2005-2006

Alaska 95 211 3 0 302 309 2.3%

Arizona 784 2,175 29 0 3,026 2,988 -1.3%

Cent. Calif. 1,178 4,006 101 1 5,501 5,286 -3.9%

East. Calif. 354 1,087 33 10 1,429 1,484 3.8%

No. Calif. 408 935 41 0 1,373 1,384 0.8%

So. Calif. 171 1,585 33 0 1,759 1,789 1.7%

Hawaii 153 629 4 0 766 786 2.6%

Idaho 131 302 2 4 382 439 14.9%

Montana 167 484 3 0 613 654 6.7%

Nevada 294 764 65 0 1,030 1,123 9.0%

Oregon 254 833 30 0 1,126 1,117 -0.8%

East. Wash 69 377 2 1 460 449 -2.4%

West. Wash. 332 1,005 25 0 1,288 1,362 5.7%

Guam 53 109 1 5 143 168 17.5%

NMI 24 27 0 0 46 51 10.9%

Circuit Total 4,467 14,529 372 21 19,244 19,389 0.8%

TABLE 14: Ninth Circuit Federal Probation System - Persons Under Post-Conviction Supervision by District as of 

September 30, 2006

1 Includes judge and magistrate judge probation

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

3 BOP (Bureau of Prisons)

PROBATION OFFICES CONTINUED
The Work of the Courts

53

The primary mission of pretrial 

services is to assist the courts in 

reducing the rate of unnecessary 

detentions, while at the same 

time reasonably ensuring the 

safety of the community and the 

appearance of defendants at future 

court dates. Offi ces in the Ninth 

Circuit continued to eff ectively 

achieve these goals in 2006 by 

working diligently to maintain very 

low levels of nonappearance and rearrests of released defendants. This was accomplished by 

professionally trained and experienced offi cers utilizing 

contracted substance abuse, mental health and residential 

treatment programs, and the enhanced use of both 

conventional and state-of-the-art technology. 

Pretrial services in the Ninth Circuit ranked fi rst nationally 

in case activations for 2006. Case activations totaled 

22,750 for the calendar year, up 0.1 percent from the prior 

year. New case activations nationwide totaled 94,978, 

down 2.6 percent from the year before. The Ninth Circuit 

accounted for 24 percent of the 2006 national total, up 

slightly from 2005.

Pretrial services offi ces in 12 of 15 judicial districts 

reported activating fewer new cases in 2006 than the prior 

year. But a big jump in new cases in the Southern District 

of California, a border court with a heavy immigration 

caseload, and modest increases in two other districts 

off set the declines. The Southern District of California, 

based in San Diego, saw its case activations increase to 

5,115, up 39.2 percent from 3,675 activations in 2005. 

Also reporting increases were the District of Oregon, 867 

new cases, up 4.8 percent from 827 cases in 2005, and the 

District of Hawaii, 433 new cases, up 5.6 percent from 410 

the year before.

Substantial workload decreases were reported by several 

districts. The number of new cases activated in the Central 

District of California was 2,143 in 2006, down 23.5 percent 

from 2,800 cases opened the year before. It was the 

largest decrease numerically and third largest percentageCaseload Measure 2005 2006

Change

2005-2006

*Reports 22,466 22,549 0.4%

Interviews 11,071 9,111 -17.7%

Cases Activated 22,732 22,750 0.1%

TABLE 15: Pretrial Services - Cases Activated in Ninth Circuit Courts, 2006

*Includes prebail reports with recommendation and without recommendation, and 

includes cases from column previously reported as “other reports.”

PRETRIAL SERVICES OFFICES

United States pretrial services offi ces within the Ninth Circuit serve two vital roles for the courts: 

the provision of bail reports that contain important information for making detention and 

release decisions, and the monitoring of defendants released to pretrial services supervision. 

In addition, pretrial services provides for the determination of eligibility and supervision of 

diversion programs in each district.

wise. Noteworthy decreases also were reported by the 

Western District of Washington, 1,303 new cases, down 

11.5 percent from 1,472 in 2005; the District of Nevada, 

848 new cases, down 13.6 percent from 982 in 2005; and 

the Eastern District of California, 1,118 new cases, down 

8.3 percent from 1,219 in 2005.

The District of Arizona, another border court with a heavy 

immigration caseload, had the largest number of new 

cases opened. Offi cers activated 8,462 cases in 2006, 

down 1.1 percent from 8,560 in 2005.

Pretrial Bail Interviews, Supervised Defendants

The number of interviews conducted by offi cers of pretrial 

defendants in the circuit decreased in 2006. Interviews 

numbered 9,111, down 17.7 percent from 11,071 reports 

in 2005. Pre-bail written reports increased to 21,958 from 

21,826, while post-bail and other reports decreased to 591 

from 640 the year before. Pretrial services offi ces made 

recommendations to the court in 96.9 percent of cases 

with interviews, compared to the national average of 91.1 

percent. Detention was recommended in 62.3 percent of 

all cases in 2006, a decrease of 3.2 percent from 2005. In 

comparison, Offi ces of the United States Attorney in the 

circuit recommended detention in 63.7 percent of the 

cases, a decrease from 67.1 percent in 2005.

During 2006, a total of 6,021 defendants were released 

from custody in the Ninth Circuit to pretrial services 

supervision, a decrease of 5.8 percent from 2005. Of 

these, 4,851 were released on standard pretrial services 

supervision, down 3 percent from 2005; 1,009 were 
Annual Report 2006

54

Defendant Contact Written Reports Total Cases

Activated 

2005

Total Cases

Activated 

2006

Change

District Interviewed 2005-2006

*Not

 Interviewed **Prebail

Postbail

& Other

Alaska 97 103 188 1 214 200 -6.5%

Arizona 1,626 6,836 8,421 13 8,560 8,462 -1.1%

Cent. Calif. 1,516 627 2,133 6 2,800 2,143 -23.5%

East. Calif. 568 550 1,072 44 1,219 1,118 -8.3%

No. Calif. 433 473 541 358 1,005 906 -9.9%

So. Calif. 2,410 2,705 5,063 51 3,675 5,115 39.2%

Hawaii 346 87 432 1 410 433 5.6%

Idaho 288 2 286 0 368 290 -21.2%

Montana 277 219 478 3 543 496 -8.7%

Nevada 442 406 846 2 982 848 -13.6%

Oregon 318 549 865 0 827 867 4.8%

East. Wash 184 269 239 110 470 453 -3.6%

West. Wash. 508 795 1,283 1 1,472 1,303 -11.5%

Guam 80 13 88 1 145 93 -35.9%

NMI 18 5 23 0 42 23 -45.2%

Circuit Total 9,111 13,639 21,958 591 22,732 22,750 0.1%

National Total 63,754 31,224 87,398 5,191 97,490 94,978 -2.6%

Circuit % 

of National 14.3% 43.7% 25.1% 11.4% 23.3% 24.0% 0.6%

TABLE 16: Pretrial Workload Chart, 2006

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

which defendants were interviewed in other cases.

**Includes prebail reports with recommendation and without recommendation, and includes cases from column previously 

reported as “other reports.”

supervised on a courtesy basis from another district 

or circuit, a decrease of 16.7 percent; and 161 were on 

pretrial diversion caseloads, a decrease of 12 percent.

Nonappearance and Re-arrest Rates Remain Low

The national initiative that began in 2000 to help reduce 

detention continues to have a positive impact in many 

districts. While pretrial service offi ces continuously look 

for ways to reduce unnecessary detentions, the rate of 

bail revocations due to nonappearance and/or re-arrest 

of supervised defendants continued to be signifi cantly 

low. In 2006, the rate of nonappearance in the circuit 

plummeted along with the national rate to less than 1 

percent. In 2006, the 15 district courts of the Ninth Circuit 

revoked the bail of only 171 defendants who absconded 

from supervision.

Violations

Of the 16,574 cases in release status in 2006, 2,852 of 

these cases had violations reported to the court. They 

include 193 violations were for felony rearrest, 142 

were for misdemeanor rearrest, 265 were for “other,” 

and 167 were for failure to appear. Technical violations 

(positive urine screens, violation of electronic monitoring 

conditions, possession of contraband, failure to report to 

offi cer, etc.) accounted for the remainder of the reported 

violations (3,421).

PRETRIAL SERVICES OFFICES CONTINUED
The Work of the Courts

55

Montana

Alaska

Hawaii

Western Washington

Eastern Washington

Idaho

Nevada

Oregon

Northern

California

Central

California

Southern

California

Eastern 

California

Arizona

Guam

N. Mariana 

Islands

DISTRICT CASELOADS
Annual Report 2006

56

Arizona

Alaska

Caseload Measure

 

2005 2006

Change

2005-2006

Per Judgeship Unweighted

2006

District Court

 Filings 520 525 1.0% 175

 Terminations 554 526 -5.1% 175

 *Pending 519 518 -0.2% 173

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 2,297 622 -72.9% 311

 Terminations 1,518 1,607 5.9% 804

 *Pending 2,146 1,161 -45.9% 581

Authorized Judgeships

 District 3

 Bankruptcy 2

 Magistrate

 Full time 2

 Part-time 4

TABLE 17: District of Alaska

*Total pending cases revised for 2005.

Authorized places of holding court:

Anchorage, Fairbanks, Juneau, Ketchikan, Nome

Caseload Measure 2005 2006

Change

2005-2006

Per Judgeship Unweighted

2006

District Court

 Filings 9,071 7,396 -18.5% 569

 Terminations 7,841 9,231 17.7% 710

 *Pending 8,118 6,283 -22.6% 483

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 40,214 7,793 -80.6% 1,113

 Terminations 31,840 25,445 -20.1% 3,635

 *Pending 38,056 20,404 -46.4% 2,915

Authorized Judgeships

 **District 13

 Bankruptcy 7

 Magistrate

 Full time 12

 Part-time 0

TABLE 18: District of Arizona

*Total pending cases revised for 2005.

**Includes one authorized temporary judgeship.

Authorized places of holding court: 

Flagstaff , Phoenix, Prescott, Tucson, Yuma

DISTRICT CASELOADS
The Work of the Courts

57

Central

Eastern

Caseload Measure 2005 2006

Change

2005-2006

Per Judgeship Unweighted

2006

District Court

 Filings 13,282 12,470 -6.1% 445

 Terminations 14,717 12,791 -13.1% 457

 *Pending 13,032 12,711 -2.5% 454

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 84,304 17,802 -78.9% 742

 Terminations 51,043 60,618 18.8% 2,526

 *Pending 64,072 21,256 -66.8% 886

Authorized Judgeships

 **District 28

 ***Bankruptcy 24

 Magistrate

 Full time 23

 Part-time 1

TABLE 19: Central District of California

Authorized places of holding court: 

Los Angeles, Riverside, Santa Ana

*Total pending cases revised for 2005.

**Includes one authorized temporary judgeship.

***Includes three authorized temporary judgeships.

Caseload Measure 2005 2006

Change

2005-2006

Per Judgeship Unweighted

2006

District Court

 Filings 5,181 5,707 10.2% 951

 Terminations 4,836 4,897 1.3% 816

 *Pending 6,780 7,590 11.9% 1,265

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 37,402 9,323 -75.1% 1,332

 Terminations 21,619 31,273 44.7% 4,468

 *Pending 35,372 13,422 -62.1% 1,917

Authorized Judgeships

 District 6

 **Bankruptcy 7

 Magistrate

 Full time 10

 Part-time 0

TABLE 20: Eastern District of California

Authorized places of holding court: 

Bakersfi eld, Fresno, Redding, Sacramento, South Lake Tahoe, 

Yosemite

*Total pending cases revised for 2005.

**Includes one authorized temporary judgeship.
Annual Report 2006

58

Northern

Southern

Caseload Measure 2005 2006

Change

2005-2006

Per Judgeship Unweighted

2006

District Court

 Filings 6,281 8,784 39.9% 627

 Terminations 6,740 6,828 1.3% 488

 *Pending 6,763 8,719 28.9% 623

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 29,383 7,742 -73.7% 860

 Terminations 24,627 17,402 -29.3% 1,934

 *Pending 26,682 17,022 -36.2% 1,891

Authorized Judgeships

 District 14

 Bankruptcy 9

 Magistrate

 Full time 10

 Part-time 1

TABLE 21: Northern District of California

*Total pending cases revised for 2005.

Authorized places of holding court: 

Eureka, Oakland, Salinas, San Francisco, San Jose, Santa Rosa

Caseload Measure 2005 2006

Change

2005-2006

Per Judgeship Unweighted

2006

District Court

 Filings 5,000 5,777 15.5% 444

 Terminations 5,150 5,440 5.6% 418

 *Pending 3,547 3,884 9.5% 299

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 15,679 4,338 -72.3% 1,085

 Terminations 12,303 9,563 -22.3% 2,391

 *Pending 10,721 5,496 -48.7% 1,374

Authorized Judgeships

 District 13

 Bankruptcy 4

 Magistrate

 Full time 10

 Part-time 0

TABLE 22: Southern District of California

*Total pending cases revised for 2005.

Authorized places of holding court: 

El Centro, San Diego

DISTRICT CASELOADS
The Work of the Courts

59

Caseload Measure 2005 2006

Change

2005-2006

Per Judgeship Unweighted

2006

District Court

 Filings 159 168 5.7% 168

 Terminations 200 115 -42.5% 115

 *Pending 108 161 49.1% 161

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 385 114 -70.4% 385

 Terminations 271 251 -7.4% 271

 Pending 327 190 -41.9% 327

Authorized Judgeships

 District 1

 Bankruptcy 0

 Magistrate

 Full time 1

 Part-time 0

TABLE 23: District of Guam

*Total pending cases revised for 2005.

Note: The district judge also handles all bankruptcy cases.

Authorized place of holding court: 

Hagatna

Caseload Measure 2005 2006

Change

2005-2006

Per Judgeship Unweighted

2006

District Court

 Filings 1,258 1,041 -17.2% 260

 Terminations 1,360 1,146 -15.7% 287

 *Pending 1,299 1,194 -8.1% 299

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 4,489 965 -78.5% 965

 Terminations 3,495 2,809 -19.6% 2,809

 *Pending 3,288 1,444 -56.1% 1,444

Authorized Judgeships

 **District 4

 Bankruptcy 1

 Magistrate

 Full time 3

 Part-time 1

*Total pending cases revised for 2005.

**Includes one authorized temporary judgeship.

Authorized place of holding court: 

Honolulu

TABLE 24: District of Hawaii

Guam

Hawaii
Annual Report 2006

60

Montana

Idaho

Caseload Measure 2005 2006

Change

2005-2006

Per Judgeship Unweighted

2006

District Court

 Filings 799 760 -4.9% 380

 Terminations 837 809 -3.3% 405

 *Pending 894 845 -5.5% 423

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 11,967 2,931 -75.5% 1,466

 Terminations 9,202 7,809 -15.1% 3,905

 *Pending 10,704 5,826 -45.6% 2,913

Authorized Judgeships

 District 2

 Bankruptcy 2

 Magistrate

 Full time 2

 Part-time 0

TABLE 25: District of Idaho

*Total pending cases revised for 2005.

Authorized places of holding court: 

Boise, Coeur d’Alene, Moscow, Pocatello

Caseload Measure 2005 2006

Change

2005-2006

Per Judgeship Unweighted

2006

District Court

 Filings 1,131 1,022 -9.6% 341

 Terminations 1,078 1,137 5.5% 379

 *Pending 1,320 1,205 -8.7% 402

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 5,899 1,845 -68.7% 1,845

 Terminations 4,011 3,381 -15.7% 3,381

 *Pending 5,164 3,628 -29.7% 3,628

Authorized Judgeships

 District 3

 Bankruptcy 1

 Magistrate

 Full time 3

 Part-time 1

TABLE 26: District of Montana

*Total pending cases revised for 2005.

Authorized places of holding court: 

Billings, Butte, Great Falls, Helena, Missoula

DISTRICT CASELOADS
The Work of the Courts

61

Caseload Measure 2005 2006

Change

2005-2006

Per Judgeship Unweighted

2006

District Court

 Filings 2,895 2,840 -1.9% 406

 Terminations 2,870 2,588 -9.8% 370

 *Pending 3,210 3,462 7.9% 495

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 23,786 5,517 -76.8% 1,379

 Terminations 19,971 16,226 -18.8% 4,057

 *Pending 27,137 16,428 -39.5% 4,107

Authorized Judgeships

 District 7

 **Bankruptcy 4

 Magistrate

 Full time 6

 Part-time 0

TABLE 27: District of Nevada

*Total pending cases revised for 2005.

**Includes one authorized temporary judgeship.

Authorized places of holding court: 

Carson City, Elko, Ely, Las Vegas, Lovelock, Reno

Caseload Measure 2005 2006

Change

2005-2006

Per Judgeship Unweighted

2006

District Court

 Filings 76 68 -10.5% 68

 Terminations 70 59 -15.7% 59

 *Pending 85 94 10.6% 94

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 32 17 -46.9% 32

 Terminations 12 38 216.7% 12

 *Pending 48 27 -43.8% 49

Authorized Judgeships

 District 1

 Bankruptcy 0

 Magistrate

 Full time 0

 Part-time 0

TABLE 28: District of Northern Mariana Islands

*Total pending cases revised for 2005.

Note: The district judge also handles all bankruptcy cases.

Authorized place of holding court: 

Saipan

Nevada

Saipan
Annual Report 2006

62

Eastern

Caseload Measure 2005 2006

Change

2005-2006

Per Judgeship Unweighted

2006

District Court

 Filings 3,255 3,104 -4.6% 517

 Terminations 3,230 3,175 -1.7% 529

 *Pending 3,212 3,141 -2.2% 524

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 32,687 7,585 -76.8% 1,517

 Terminations 23,993 18,904 -21.2% 3,781

 *Pending 25,621 14,302 -44.2% 2,860

Authorized Judgeships

 District 6

 Bankruptcy 5

 Magistrate

 Full time 6

 Part-time 1

TABLE 29: District of Oregon

*Total pending cases revised for 2005.

Authorized places of holding court: 

Coquille, Eugene, Klamath Falls, Medford, Pendleton, Portland

Caseload Measure 2005 2006

Change

2005-2006

Per Judgeship Unweighted

2006

District Court

 Filings 1,223 1,016 -16.9% 254

 Terminations 1,355 1,111 -18.0% 278

 *Pending 928 833 -10.2% 208

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 11,577 3,463 -70.1% 1,732

 Terminations 10,195 7,269 -28.7% 3,635

 *Pending 9,766 5,960 -39.0% 2,980

Authorized Judgeships

 District 4

 Bankruptcy 2

 Magistrate

 Full time 2

 Part-time 0

TABLE 30: Eastern District of Washington

*Total pending cases revised for 2005.

Authorized places of holding court: 

Richland, Spokane, Walla Walla, Yakima

Oregon

DISTRICT CASELOADS
The Work of the Courts

63

Caseload Measure 2005 2006

Change

2005-2006

Per Judgeship Unweighted

2006

District Court

 Filings 4,552 3,753 -17.6% 536

 Terminations 4,605 4,281 -7.0% 612

 *Pending 4,500 3,972 -11.7% 567

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 35,353 8,448 -76.1% 1,690

 Terminations 29,064 20,819 -28.4% 4,164

 *Pending 26,736 14,365 -46.3% 2,873

Authorized Judgeships

 District 7

 Bankruptcy 5

 Magistrate

 Full time 5

 Part-time 2

TABLE 31: Western District of Washington

*Total pending cases revised for 2005.

Authorized places of holding court: 

Bellingham, Seattle, Tacoma

f holding court

Tacoma

c

Western
Offi ce of the Circuit Executive

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

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

http://www.ce9.uscourts.gov