NINTH

CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES COURTS

2008 ANNUAL REPORT
The Office of the Circuit Executive would like to acknowledge the following for their 

contributions to the 2008 Ninth Circuit Annual Report:

Chief Judge Alex Kozinski

Cathy A. Catterson, Circuit and Court of Appeals Executive

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

Harold Marenus, Clerk, Bankruptcy Appellate Panel

Photo credit: GSA
Ninth Circuit Overview

Judicial Council Mission Statement 2

Foreword by Chief Judge Alex Kozinski 3

Ninth Circuit Overview 5

Judicial Council and Administration 6

Judicial Transitions

New Judges 10

New Senior Judges 12

In Memoriam 13

Ninth Circuit Highlights

Annual Judicial Conference 18

Conference Attendees Favor Juror Interviews 20

Annual Awards Presented 21

Circuit Responds to Influx of Prisoner Petitions 23

Judges, Journalists Gather in Nevada 24

Criminal Justice Act Summit Held 25

Judges, Clerks Consider Pro Se Litigants 26

Courts Focus on Capital Habeas Management 27

Technology Users Group Reaches Milestone 28

Magistrate Judges Test New Program 29

“Three Strikes” Database Project Advances 30

Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Selects New Chair 31

Court of Appeals Names New Clerk of Court 32

New Judges Meet in San Francisco 33

National Library Week Observed,

Law Clerk Orientation Held

34

Space & Facilities

James A. Walsh Courthouse Rededication,

Arizona Courtroom Dedications

36

Courthouses Under Construction and in Design Phase 38

The Work of the Courts

Court of Appeals 41

District Courts 45

Bankruptcy Courts 49

Bankruptcy Appellate Panel 51

Magistrate Judge Matters 53

Federal Public Defenders 56

Probation Officers 58

Pretrial Services Officers 61

Juror Utilization 63

Court Interpreters 64

District Caseloads 65

Table of

Contents
2 Annual Report 2008

1) Chief Judge Alex Kozinski; 2) Circuit Judge Sidney R. Thomas; 

3) Cathy A. Catterson, Circuit and Court of Appeals Executive; 4) 

*Circuit Judge Marsha S. Berzon; 5) Senior Circuit Judge David 

R. Thompson; 6) *District Clerk Sue Beitia (HI); 7) *Bankruptcy 

Clerk Bernard F. McCarthy (MT); 8) *Chief Pretrial Services 

Officer Robert J. Duncan (CAE); 9) Circuit Judge M. Margaret 

McKeown; 10) Chief District Judge Irma E. Gonzalez (CAS); 11) 

Chief District Judge Alicemarie H. Stotler (CAC) ; 12) *District 

Judge Donald W. Molloy (MT); 13) *Chief Probation Officer 

Jerrold G. Cooley (MT); 14) District Judge Charles R. Breyer (CAN); 15) Senior District Judge Stephen M. McNamee (AZ); 16) 

*Chief Bankruptcy Judge Michael S. McManus (CAE); 17) Chief District Judge Ancer L. Haggerty (OR); 18) Senior District Judge 

Terry J. Hatter, Jr. (CAC); 19) *Magistrate Judge Anthony J. Battaglia (CAS). Not shown, Circuit Judges Susan P. Graber and 

Johnnie B. Rawlinson; Chief District Judges Robert S. Lasnik (WAW) and Robert H. Whaley (WAE); Chief Bankruptcy Judge 

Robert J. Faris (HI), Magistrate Judge Karen L. Strombom (WAW), District Clerk Victoria Minor (CAE), Bankruptcy Clerk Jon D. 

Ceretto (CAC), Chief Probation Officer Yador J. Harrell (CAN), and Chief Pretrial Services Officer Timothy McTighe (WAW).

*Term expired Sept. 30, 2008 

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.

The Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit

4

6

7 8 9 10

11 12

13

14 15 16 17 18 19

2 1 3 5

Mission

State

ment
Ninth Circuit Overview 3

This was another challenging but productive year for our courts. On the operational 

side, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals saw its caseload increase by 4.8 percent. It was 

the first upturn in new filings since 2005. Immigration matters again constituted the 

largest category of new appeals, 32.7 percent of the court’s total filings. We continue to 

be the nation’s busiest appellate court with 21.6 percent of all new filings nationwide.

Caseloads held steady in the 15 district courts of the Ninth Circuit, bucking a downward trend nationally. District 

courts of the circuit reported an overall increase of .5 percent in new cases, compared to a 7.2 percent decline in 

filings nationwide. The Ninth Circuit had 16.4 percent of the total filings in district courts nationally.

Bankruptcy filings shot up 70 percent overall in the Ninth Circuit as the national recession took its toll in the western 

states. Filings were up in 14 judicial districts with the largest increases reported by the Central District of California, 

up 93.5 percent; the District of Arizona, up 78.9 percent; and the Eastern District of California, up 78.1 percent. The 

subprime mortgage crisis and rising unemployment were cited as key factors driving the upturn throughout the circuit.

Pro se appeals, in which at least one party is not represented by counsel, continue to make up a large portion of the 

Ninth Circuit caseload, both at the trial court and appellate levels. More than 15,000 cases, or 27.3 percent, of 

new cases brought last year in district courts of the Ninth Circuit were filed pro se. The Court of Appeals had more 

than 6,300 pro se filings, representing 47.5 percent of its new filings. Pro se cases pose special challenges for the 

courts and often take longer to resolve. More than 60 law clerks working in courts around the circuit are assigned 

exclusively to pro se matters and the circuit regularly holds training conferences to discuss related issues.

The pace of judicial appointments to courts of the Ninth Circuit slowed in 2008. In the district courts, three new judges 

were appointed, one each in Arizona, the Eastern District of California and the Southern District of California. Four 

other district judgeships remained vacant at year’s end. The Court of Appeals, which was authorized 28 judgeships, 

started and ended the year with one vacancy. We are hopeful the vacant position along with a new judgeship authorized 

the court effective January 21, 2009, will be filled very soon. It is the first new judgeship for our court in 25 years.

Also during the year, the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit made one appointment to the Ninth Circuit 

Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, and the BAP judges chose a new chief judge. Judges of the district courts filled six 

vacant magistrate judge positions.

New judgeships continue to be needed by our courts. Nowhere was the need more evident last year than in the 

Eastern District of California, which is laboring under a backlog of cases, many from inmates in state and federal 

prisons within the district. The Sacramento/Fresno-based court has the second heaviest judicial workload in the 

nation. Its judges are highly productive, terminating nearly twice as many cases as the national average, but cannot 

keep pace with the influx of new filings.

Chief Judge

Alex Kozinski

Foreword

Judges and court staff in all of the federal courts work hard to provide the 

highest level of service to the legal community and the public. The 2008 

Ninth Circuit Annual Report profiles the work done this past year by the federal 

courts serving nine western states and two Pacific island jurisdictions. Inside 

you will find various statistical summaries along with articles highlighting 

important events, trends and transitions in our courts. We hope you find the 

information useful and look forward to your feedback.
4 Annual Report 2008

The circuit strongly supported legislation introduced in the last 

Congress to provide the Eastern District with five new judges. 

While that bill was not passed, we are confident that our elected 

leaders are aware of this critical situation and will provide the 

necessary judicial resources. We also remain hopeful a national 

judgeship bill will become law during the next congressional 

session to help meet the needs of all courts.

One of the benefits of a large circuit is being able to rally 

resources where needed, which is what we have done to assist 

the Eastern District in the short term. The Judicial Council of 

the Ninth Circuit established a special committee to recruit 

judges from other courts in the circuit to take Eastern District 

cases. More than 80 judges volunteered to take more than 

1,000 cases, an extraordinary response. The circuit also sought 

to provide more law clerks and court staff, and to promote 

mediation and other means to resolve prisoner cases. Credit 

goes to all those involved, but particularly to Eastern District 

Chief Judge Anthony Ishii and Chief Circuit Judge Emeritus J. 

Clifford Wallace, who chairs the special committee.

On the administrative side, the Court of Appeals appointed 

Molly C. Dwyer as Clerk of Court. She was sworn into 

office in March at a Federal Bar Association event in San 

Francisco attended by more than 50 federal judges and 

450 lawyers. Ms Dwyer is a very experienced attorney and 

administrator who has a wonderful working relationship 

with judges of the court, court staff and the legal community.

One of Ms. Dwyer’s first tasks was managing the court’s 

transition from paper to electronic documents. The court 

implemented a more robust electronic docketing and case 

management system in March, followed in September by 

the introduction of electronic case filing, or ECF. Using 

ECF, attorneys are able to file documents directly with the 

court via the Internet using standard computer hardware 

and software. The system offers numerous benefits, most 

notably 24-hour access, automatic email notice of case 

activity, and expanded search and reporting capabilities. 

Court outreach to the legal community has helped smooth 

the way for the ECF rollout. In November, the Office 

of Staff Attorneys began offering hands-on training for 

attorneys, paralegals, legal secretaries and others who 

would be using the new system. More than 50 sessions 

were eventually held at locations throughout the circuit.

In the area of space and facilities, 2008 saw the rededication 

of the historic James A. Walsh U.S. Courthouse in Tucson, 

after major repairs and alterations. The building is used by the 

Arizona bankruptcy court. Substantial progress was made on 

construction of new district courthouses in Coeur d’Alene, 

Idaho, and Great Falls, Montana, and on the renovation and 

restoration of the historic William Kenzo Nakamura U.S. 

Courthouse in Seattle, which will be used by the Court of 

Appeals. Congress also gave approval to replace the aging and 

potentially hazardous district courthouse in Billings, Montana.

The circuit’s most pressing space needs, new courthouses 

in Los Angeles and San Diego, remain unmet. We were 

encouraged to see Congress authorize additional funding for 

the San Diego courthouse and remain hopeful that a solution 

will be found for the cost and funding issues facing the Los 

Angeles project. We also welcomed the agreement reached 

between the judiciary and General Services Administration 

on a formula for fair and reasonable rents for court facilities. 

A number of our judges were recognized during the year, 

including our esteemed Chief Circuit Judge Emeritus James 

R. Browning, who turned 90 in October. Judge Browning 

has served on our court since 1961 and is the eponym for 

our headquarters courthouse in San Francisco. Judge Wallace 

received the University of California at Berkeley School of 

Law’s Judge D. Lowell and Barbara Jensen Public Service 

Award, while Senior Circuit Judge Edward Leavy returned to 

the University of Portland, his alma mater, to receive a Doctor 

of Laws degree for extraordinary legal service and scholarship. 

Also to be noted was the selection of Circuit Judge M. 

Margaret McKeown as chair of the Committee on Codes 

of Conduct of the Judicial Conference of the United States, 

the national policy-making body for federal courts. 

Ninth Circuit courts mourned the passing of a number 

of judges during the year. They included two esteemed 

colleagues from the Court of Appeals, Senior Circuit Judge 

Joseph T. Sneed, III, and Senior Circuit Judge Warren 

J. Ferguson. Special sessions convened by our court to 

remember these renowned jurists were well attended and 

included the participation of Associate Justice Anthony M. 

Kennedy of the Supreme Court of the United States.

We invite you to review this report further for more 

information about the work of the courts of the West. 
Ninth Circuit Overview 5

Judicial districts 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 United States Constitution establishing the 

federal judiciary. Article III judges are nominated by 

the President, confirmed by the Senate and serve for 

life. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has been 

authorized 28 judgeships and ended 2008 with one 

vacant position. For most of the year, the district 

courts were authorized 112 judgeships, four of 

which were vacant at year’s end. 

Federal courts also rely on senior circuit and senior 

district judges to assist with their workload. These 

are Article III judges who are eligible for retirement 

but have chosen to continue working with a reduced 

caseload. In the Ninth Circuit, 22 senior circuit 

judges sat on appellate panels, served on circuit and 

national judicial committees, and handled a variety 

of administrative matters. In the district courts, 47 

senior judges heard cases, presided over procedural 

matters, served on committees and conducted other 

business during 2008.

In addition to Article III judges, the federal bench 

includes Article I judges, who serve as magistrate 

judges in the district courts and bankruptcy judges 

in the bankruptcy courts. Appointed by the court of 

appeals, bankruptcy judges serve terms of 14 years. 

Magistrate judges are appointed by the individual 

district courts and hold their positions for eight years. 

In 2008, bankruptcy courts in the Ninth Circuit 

were authorized 68 permanent and five temporary 

judgeships. The district courts were authorized 96 

full-time and 12 part-time magistrate judges; several 

courts also utilized recalled magistrate judges. 

Overall, the Ninth Circuit courts experienced 

increased caseloads in 2008. Unless otherwise noted, 

statistics in this report cover the 2008 calendar year.

The United States 

Courts for the Ninth 

Circuit consists of 

the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the Ninth 

Circuit, federal trial 

and bankruptcy 

courts in 15 federal 

judicial districts, 

and associated 

administrative units 

that provide various 

services to the court.

Ninth Cir

cuit

Overview
6 Annual Report 2008

In 2008, the Judicial Council authorized the recruitment of judges from 

other courts in the circuit to assist the Eastern District of California in 

resolving a backlog of prisoner and other cases. The council formed the 

Eastern District of California Resource Committee and appointed Senior 

Circuit Judge J. Clifford Wallace as chair to oversee the effort. In addition, 

the council also moved to obtain funding for additional law clerks and court 

staff, and to promote mediation and other means to resolve prison matters.

In other business, the Judicial Council voted to approve a resolution urging 

courts to repeal rules that prohibit juror interviews by attorneys and, 

instead, either leave the matter to the discretion of the presiding judge, or 

adopt a rule permitting interviews, subject to the consent of the jurors and 

reasonable time, place and manner restrictions. 

The council also approved the court of appeals’ proposal to appoint 18 appellate

lawyers to serve as lawyer representatives at the Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference.

The Judicial Council also approved the Pacific Islands Committee 

recommendation to reaffirm its support to Article III status for the District 

Court of Guam and the District Court of the Commonwealth of the 

Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The PIC supports 

a policy that would allow sitting judges to become Article III judges and 

provide credit for prior service completed for retirement purposes.

The Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit also has been delegated 

responsibilities by the Judicial Conference of the United States, the national 

governing body for the federal courts. These responsibilities include 

authorizing senior judge staffing levels and pay. The council accomplishes 

most of its work through committees. 

Conference of Chief District Judges

The Conference of Chief District Judges advises the Judicial Council of the 

Ninth Circuit about the administration of justice in the circuit’s 15 district 

courts. The conference, which is comprised of the chief district judge of each 

district, meets twice a year. Chief District Judge Donald W. Molloy of the 

The Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit is the governing 

body of the United States Courts for the Ninth Circuit. The 

council’s statutory mission is to support the effective and 

expeditious administration of justice and the safeguarding of 

fairness in the administration of the courts. It has statutory 

authority to “make all necessary and appropriate orders 

for the effective and expeditious administration of justice 

within its circuit,” [28 U.S.C. 332(d)(1)]. 

Judi

cial Coun

cil & 

A

d

ministration
Ninth Circuit Overview 7

District of Montana served as chair of the conference from 

April 2007 to February 2008. He was succeeded by Chief 

District Judge Ancer L. Haggerty of the District of Oregon 

whose term will in expire in January 2009.

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 also meets twice per year, consists of 

chief bankruptcy judges from each district and the presiding 

judge of the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel 

(BAP). Chief Bankruptcy Judge Michael S. McManus of the 

Eastern District of California chaired the conference from 

November 2007 to May 2008, when Chief Bankruptcy 

Judge Robert J. Faris of the District of Hawaii became chair. 

Judge Faris will chair the conference until May 2009.

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 holds a session 

with all magistrate judges at the annual circuit conference. 

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

Magistrate Judge Karen L. Strombom of the Western 

District of Washington is the current chair. Her term began 

in July 2008 and will expire in July 2011.

Clerks of Court

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

judges and clerks or district executives of the court of appeals 

and each of the district and bankruptcy courts. The clerks’ 

offices process new cases and appeals, handle docketing 

functions, respond to procedural questions from the public 

and bar, and provide adequate judicial staff resources. The 

clerk of court for the court of appeals also supervises the 

work of the Circuit Mediation Office and the Office of the 

Staff Attorneys, which includes the research, motions, case 

management, and pro se units. The Office of the Appellate 

Commissioner, also located in the Ninth Circuit Court 

of Appeals Clerk’s Office, reviews Criminal Justice Act 

vouchers for cases that come before the court of appeals.

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 offices, which are responsible for 

background investigations and reports, and supervision of 

persons charged with or convicted of federal crimes. All but 

one judicial district is served by federal public defender and 

community defenders who represent indigent defendants 

unable to afford private counsel. Probation and pretrial 

services for the District of Northern Mariana Islands 

relies on a Criminal Justice Act panel of attorneys for such 

representation and are provided by the District of Guam.

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, offering 

training opportunities, and performing direct research on 

more complex topics. Librarians also conduct research to 

assist court executives and judges in the administration 

of local courts and on matters involving committees of 

the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit and the Judicial 

Conference of the U.S. Library resources are also made 

available to the bar and public with the level of access 

determined by local judges.

Office of the Circuit Executive

The Office of the Circuit Executive provides staff support 

to the Judicial Council and implements its administrative 

decisions and policies. By statute, the circuit executive is the 

administrative assistant to the chief judge of the circuit and 

secretary to the council. The circuit executive and her staff 

assist in identifying 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 Office of the Circuit Executive 

provides management and technical assistance to courts 

within the circuit upon request. It also administers the 

annual Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference.
8 Annual Report 2008

Executive Committee Office of the Circuit Executive

Cathy A. Catterson, Circuit & Court

of Appeals Executive

Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit

Chief Judge Alex Kozinski

Judicial Conference 

Executive Committee

Lawyer 

Representatives 

Coordinating 

Committee

Associations of

Judicial Officers

Conference of Chief 

District Judges

Conference of Chief 

Bankruptcy Judges

Magistrate Judges 

Executive Board

Liaison Committees

District Clerks

Bankruptcy Clerks

Chief Probation 

& Chief Pretrial 

Services Officers

Advisory Standing 

Committees

Advisory Board

Alternative Dispute 

Resolution

Capital Case

Court-Council 

Committee on 

Bankruptcy Judge 

Appointments

Federal Public 

Defenders

Information 

Technology

Jury Instructions

Jury Trial 

Improvement

Ninth Circuit

Judges Education

Pacific Islands

Public Information & 

Community Outreach

Self Represented 

Litigants (Pro Se)

Space & Security

Wellness III
JUDICIAL TRANSITIONS
10 Annual Report 2008

New Judges

District Judges

Judge Michael M. Anello was 

appointed a district judge for the 

Southern District of California 

on October 10, 2008. Judge 

Anello served previously as a 

California Superior Court judge 

in San Diego County from 1998 

to 2008. Prior to coming onto 

the bench, he was in private practice in San Diego as a 

partner at Wingert, Grebing, Anello & Brubaker, from 

1974 to 1998, and was an associate at Todd, Toothacre & 

Wingert from 1973 to 1974. He began his legal career as 

a deputy city attorney working in the criminal division of 

the San Diego City Attorney’s Office from 1972 to1973. 

Judge Anello received his B.A. from Bowdoin College in 

Maine, graduating cum laude in 1965, and his J.D. from 

Georgetown University Law Center in 1968, where 

he was selected for law review after his first year. He 

maintains chambers in San Diego.

Judge John A. Mendez was 

appointed a district judge for the 

Eastern District of California on 

April 17, 2008. Judge Mendez 

served previously as a California 

Superior Court judge in 

Sacramento County from 2001 to 

2008. Prior to coming onto the 

bench, he engaged in private practice in California for 

most of his career. He served as a U.S. attorney for the 

Northern District of California from 1992 to 1993, and as 

an assistant U.S. attorney there from 1984 to 1986. Judge 

Mendez received his B.A. from Stanford University in 

1977 and his J.D. from Harvard Law School in 1980. He 

maintains chambers in Sacramento.

Judge G. Murray Snow was 

appointed a district judge for 

the District of Arizona on July 

23, 2008. Judge Snow served 

previously as an Arizona Court of 

Appeals judge from 2002 to 2008. 

Prior to coming onto the bench, 

he was a partner in the Phoenix 

law firm of Osborn Maledon from 1995 to 2002, and was 

associated with the Phoenix law firm of Meyer, Hendricks, 

Victor, Osborn & Maledon from 1988 to 1995. Judge 

Snow received his B.A. from Brigham Young University, 

graduating magna cum laude in 1984, and his J.D. from the 

BYU J. Reuben Clark Law School, graduating magna cum 

laude in 1987. He served as editor-in-chief of the school’s 

law review from 1986 to 1987 and received the Order of 

the Coif. Following law school, Judge Snow served as a law 

clerk to Circuit Judge Stephen H. Anderson of the Tenth 

Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals from 1987 to 1988. He 

maintains chambers in Phoenix.
Judicial Transitions 11

Magistrate Judges

Judge John V. Acosta was appointed 

a magistrate judge for the District 

of Oregon on March 5, 2008. Prior 

to his appointment, Judge Acosta 

served for five years as senior 

deputy general counsel for TriMet, 

the public transportation authority 

for metropolitan Portland. Before 

that, he practiced with Stoel Rives LLP in Portland from 

1987 to 2002, first as an associate and then as a partner. 

Judge Acosta began his legal career with the Alaska law 

firm of Hughes, Thorsness, Gantz, Powell & Brundin. He 

received his B.A. from San Diego State University in 1979 

and his J.D. from the University of Oregon School of Law 

in 1982. Judge Acosta serves on the Oregon State Bar’s 

Joint Bench/Bar Commission on Professionalism, is active 

in the community and has taught as an adjunct professor at 

the University of Oregon School of Law. He has chambers 

in Portland.

Judge Ronald E. Bush was 

appointed a magistrate judge for the 

District of Idaho on October 1, 

2008. Judge Bush served previously 

as a trial judge of the Idaho State 

Courts. Prior to coming onto the 

bench, he practiced law for 20 years 

in the Pocatello and Boise offices of 

the law firm of Hawley, Troxell, Ennis & Hawley, LLP. 

Judge Bush received his B.A. in 1979 from the University 

of Idaho and his J.D. in 1983 from The George Washington 

University College of Law. Judge Bush is a former 

chairman of the board of trustees for the Idaho State 

Historical Society, co-founder and former president of the 

Idaho Legal History Society, and a former Ninth Circuit 

lawyer representative. He has chambers in Boise.

Judge Candy W. Dale was appointed 

a magistrate judge for the District 

of Idaho on March 30, 2008. Prior 

to coming onto the bench, Judge 

Dale was in private practice in Boise 

as a founding partner and president 

of Hall, Farley, Oberrecht & 

Blanton, P.A., and as an associate 

and shareholder in the law firm of Moffatt Thomas. Judge 

Dale received her B.S. from the College of Idaho in 1979 

and her J.D. from the University of Idaho College of Law 

in 1982, where she served as editor-in-chief of the Idaho 

Law Review. She maintains chambers in Boise.

Judge Douglas Thomas Ferraro, Jr., 

was appointed a magistrate judge 

for the District of Arizona on 

December 30, 2008. Prior to 

coming onto the bench, Judge 

Ferraro had worked as a federal 

prosecutor in the offices of the U.S. 

attorney for the District of Arizona, 

from 2005 to 2008, the Eastern District of Texas, from 

1997 to 2005, and the Southern District of California, 

from 1985 to 1997. Judge Ferraro received his 

undergraduate degree from Northern Arizona University 

in 1977 and his J.D. from California Western School of 

Law in San Diego in 1980. He maintains chambers in 

Tucson.

Judge James P. Hutton was 

appointed a magistrate judge for the 

Eastern District of Washington on 

January 14, 2008. Judge Hutton 

served previously as Washington 

Superior Court judge in Yakima 

County from 1996 to 2007. Prior 

to coming onto the bench, he 

engaged in private practice from 1976 to 1996. Judge 

Hutton received his B.A. from the University of 

Washington in 1972 and his J.D. from Gonzaga University 

School of Law in 1976. He maintains chambers in Yakima.
12 Annual Report 2008

Magistrate Judges continued

Judge Brian A. Tsuchida was 

appointed a magistrate judge for the 

Western District of Washington on 

May 13, 2008. Prior to his 

appointment to the bench, Judge 

Tsuchida served as an assistant 

federal public defender in Seattle. 

Judge Tsuchida began his legal 

career in Seattle as a staff attorney with The Defender 

Association, working in the juvenile, misdemeanor and 

adult felony divisions, and serving as adult felony 

supervisor from 1994 to 1998. He was also an associate 

with Schroeter, Goldmark and Bender. Judge Tsuchida is 

one of the original members of the Washington Supreme 

Court’s Minority and Justice Task Force and Commission, 

and also served for nine years as the chair of the 

Washington Supreme Court’s Capital Counsel Committee. 

Judge Tsuchida is a past chair of the Washington State Bar 

Association CLE Committee and a former member of the 

MCLE Board. He maintains chambers in Seattle.

New Senior Judges

Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr., of the 

Eastern District of California 

assumed senior status on December 

31, 2008. Judge Damrell was 

appointed a district judge on 

November 12, 1997. Prior to 

coming onto the bench, Judge 

Damrell engaged in private practice 

in Modesto, California, from 1968 to 1997. He served as 

deputy district attorney for the State of California from 

1966 to 1968, and was a deputy attorney general, Office 

of the State Attorney General, Calif., from 1964 to 1966. 

Judge Damrell received his B.A. from the University of 

California at Berkeley in 1961 and his LL.B. from Yale Law 

School in 1964. He maintains chambers in Sacramento. 

Judge Fred Van Sickle of the Eastern 

District of Washington assumed 

senior status on May 1, 2008. Judge 

Van Sickle was appointed a district 

judge on May 14, 1991, and served 

as chief judge from 2000 to 2005. 

Judge Van Sickle served previously 

as a Washington Superior Court 

judge in Douglas County from 1975 to 1992. Prior to 

coming onto the bench, he was a prosecuting attorney in 

Douglas County from 1971 to 1975, and engaged in 

private practice in Waterville, Washington, from 1970 to 

1975. He received his B.S. from the University of 

Wisconsin in 1965 and his J.D. from the University of 

Washington School of Law in 1968. Judge Van Sickle 

served in the Army and was first lieutenant, JAG Corps, 

from 1968 to 1970. He maintains chambers in Spokane.

New Judges
Judicial Transitions 13

In Memoriam

Judge Volney V. Brown, Jr., 81, a 

magistrate judge for the Central 

District of California, died on 

February 22, 2008. Appointed to 

the court in 1982, he retired as 

chief magistrate judge in 1994. 

Prior to his appointment, Judge 

Brown was an assistant U.S. 

attorney for the Central District of California from 1979 

to 1982. He served as chief of the Freedom of Information 

Appeals Unit, Department of Justice, from 1975 to 1978. 

He was a regional director for the Office of Drug Abuse 

Law Enforcement in Los Angeles from 1972 to 1974. 

Judge Brown received his B.S. from the University of 

California at Los Angles in 1948 and his J.D. from the 

University of Southern California in 1951. He enlisted in 

the Army in 1944 and was honorably discharged in 1946. 

He is survived by his wife, Margaret; his sons, Todd and 

Tyler; and four grandchildren.

Judge William D. Browning, 76, a 

district judge for the District of 

Arizona, died on February 26, 2008. 

Appointed to the court on May 3, 

1984, he maintained chambers in 

Tucson and served as chief judge 

from 1990 to 1994. He assumed 

senior status on May 14, 1998. Prior 

to his appointment, Judge Browning engaged in private 

practice in Tucson from 1960 to 1984. He received his B.S. 

and B.A. from the University of Arizona in 1954 and his 

LL.B. from the University of Arizona College of Law in 

1960. He is survived by his wife, Zeke, and four children.

Judge Jesse William Curtis, Jr., 102, 

a retired senior district judge for 

the Central District of California, 

died on August 5, 2008. He was 

appointed to the Southern District 

of California on August 27, 1962, 

and reassigned to the Central 

District of California on September 

18, 1966. He maintained chambers in Los Angeles and 

assumed senior status on December 31, 1975. Judge 

Curtis served previously as a California Superior Court 

judge in San Bernardino County from 1953 to 1962. Prior 

to coming onto the bench, he engaged in private practice 

in San Bernardino from 1932 to 1953. Judge Curtis 

received his A.B. in 1928 from the University of Redlands 

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

1932. He is survived by his daughter, Suzanne; three sons, 

Christopher, Jesse Curtis, III, and Clyde; two 

grandchildren; and three great-grandchildren.

Judge Warren J. Ferguson, 87, a 

judge of the United States Court of 

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, died 

on June 25, 2008. Judge Ferguson 

was appointed to the court on 

November 27, 1979. He assumed 

senior status on July 31, 1986, and 

maintained chambers in Santa Ana. 

Judge Ferguson served previously as a judge of the U.S. 

District Court for the Central District of California in Los 

Angeles, and as a judge of the Superior Court in Santa Ana 

from 1961 to 1966, and the Anaheim-Fullerton Municipal 

Court from 1959 to 1961. Judge Ferguson received his 

B.A. from the University of Nevada in 1942 and his LL.B. 

from the University of Southern California Law School in 

1949. He served in the Army during World War II, 

achieving the rank of master sergeant and earning a Bronze 

Star medal for service in North Africa and Italy. He is 

survived by his son, Peter, and daughter, Faye.
14 Annual Report 2008

In Memoriam continued

Judge William H. Hyer, 87, a 

retired bankruptcy judge for the 

Central District of California, died 

in April 2008. He was appointed to 

the Central District of California on 

February 15, 1964. He maintained 

chambers in San Bernardino and 

retired on May 31, 1986. Judge 

Hyer received his B.S. from the University of Kansas in 

1942 and his LL.B. from the University of Southern 

California Law School in 1948. He served in the Air Force 

as staff sergeant from 1942 to 1946. He had a wife, Phyllis; 

a son, William IV; and a daughter, Halie Ann. Information 

on survivors is not available.

Judge John M. Klobucher, 76, a 

bankruptcy judge for the Eastern 

District of Washington, died on 

July 12, 2008. He was appointed 

to the court on December 7, 

1981, and had his chambers in 

Spokane. Judge Klobucher served 

as an active judge until his 

retirement in 1997, and as a recalled judge until 2005. 

From the time of his appointment until late 1987, he was 

the court’s only bankruptcy judge. Prior to coming onto 

the bench, he had been in private practice as a founding 

partner in Murphy, Bantz, Klobucher. Judge Klobucher 

received his undergraduate degree from Washington State 

University in 1952 and his J.D. from Gonzaga University 

School of Law in 1960. He joined the Army in 1953 and 

served in the Korean War before being discharged in 1954. 

He is survived by his wife, Ginger; his two sons, John, Jr., 

and Chris; his daughter, Marcie; and four grandchildren.

Judge Richard Mednick, 74, a 

retired bankruptcy judge for the 

Central District of California, died 

on February 5, 2008. Judge 

Mednick was appointed to the 

court on January 5, 1976. Prior to 

coming onto the bench, he had 

been a litigation supervisor for a 

title insurance company, and engaged in private practice, 

specializing in real estate and business transactions. After 

retiring from the bench, Judge Mednick returned to 

private practice and served as a member of the Trustee 

Panel for the Office of the U.S. Trustee. Judge Mednick 

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

Angeles in 1954; an M.S. from the University of Southern 

California in 1955; and his J.D. from Loyola Law School in 

1966. He is survived by his wife, Marcia Ann; his son, 

David; and daughters, Lisa Ann and Irene Michelle.

Judge Esther Mix, 87, a retired 

magistrate judge for the Eastern 

District of California, died on 

September 17, 2008. She was 

appointed to the court on May 1, 

1971 and was recalled on February 

1, 1992. Judge Mix was the first 

woman appointed to the federal 

bench in the Eastern District of California. She worked as a 

legal secretary and began to study law under the supervision 

of Frank Richardson, who later became a justice of the 

California Supreme Court. Judge Mix attended the 

University of Oklahoma and McGeorge School of Law. She 

was admitted to the California State Bar in 1951. Judge Mix 

is survived by her two children, Richard and Sally.
Judicial Transitions 15

Judge Edward Rafeedie, 79, a 

district judge for the Central 

District of California, died on 

March 25, 2008. Appointed to the 

court on September 24, 1982, he 

assumed senior status on January 6, 

1996, and maintained chambers in 

Los Angeles. Judge Rafeedie served 

previously as a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge, 

from 1971 to 1982, and as a Santa Monica Municipal 

Court judge, from 1969 to 1971. Prior to coming onto the 

bench, he was a practicing trial attorney in Santa Monica. 

Judge Rafeedie received his B.A. from the University of 

Southern California in 1956 and his J.D. from the USC 

Law School in 1959. He is survived by his wife, Ruth; two 

children, Fred and Jennifer; and four grandchildren.

Judge Joseph T. Sneed, III, 87, a 

judge of the United States Court of 

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, died 

on February 9, 2008. Appointed to 

the court on August 24, 1973, he 

assumed senior status on July 21, 

1987, and maintained chambers in 

San Francisco. Prior to his 

appointment to the bench, Judge Sneed was the deputy 

attorney general in the U.S. Department of Justice. A 

respected teacher, he was dean and a professor of law at 

Duke University from 1971 to 1973; a professor of law at 

Stanford University from 1962 to 1971; and a professor of 

law at Cornell University from 1957 to 1962. He also was 

a professor of law from 1954 to 1957, and an assistant and 

an associate professor of law from 1947 to 1954 at the 

University of Texas Law School. Judge Sneed received his 

B.B.A. from Southwestern University in 1941, his LL.B. 

from the University of Texas School of Law in 1947, and 

his S.J.D. from Harvard Law School in 1958. He entered 

active duty in the Army Air Corps in 1942 and was 

released as staff sergeant in 1946. He is survived by his 

daughters, Clara and Carly; his son, Joseph IV; and two 

grandsons, Sam and Joseph V.

Judge Philip K. Sweigert, 74, a 

magistrate judge for the Western 

District of Washington, died on May 

23, 2008. He was appointed to the 

court on August 1, 1977. He 

remained on recall status for the 

district until the time of his death. 

Prior to his appointment, he was an 

attorney at Bogle and Gates in Seattle, from 1965 to 1977. 

He clerked for District Judge William T. Beeks for the 

Western District of Washington from 1963 to 1964. Judge 

Sweigert received his B.A. from Stanford University in 

1956 and his J.D. from the University of California, 

Hastings College of the Law, in 1961. Following law 

school, he joined the firm of Kindal and Anderson in Los 

Angeles. Judge Sweigert served in the Army from 1956 to 

1958. He is survived by his wife, Alice; his daughter, 

Elizabeth; and his grandchildren.

Judge Spencer M. Williams, 85, a 

district judge for the Northern 

District of California, died on 

January 3, 2008. He was appointed 

to the court on July 29, 1971. He 

assumed senior status on February 

24, 1987, and maintained chambers 

in San Jose. Prior to his 

appointment, Judge Williams was co-founder of the Federal 

Judges Association and served as its first president from 

1982 to 1987. He was made an Honorary Life Member of 

the FJA in 2004. Judge Williams engaged in private practice 

in Sacramento and San Jose from 1970 to 1971. He was a 

secretary, California State Human Relations Agency, from 

1967 to 1970, and was a county counsel, Santa Clara 

County, from 1952 to 1966. He served in the Naval Reserve 

as a lieutenant from 1950 to 1952 and as a lieutenant in the 

Navy from 1943 to 1946. Judge Williams received his A.B. 

from the University of California at Los Angeles in 1943 and 

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

of Law in 1948. He is survived by his wife, Kay; his six 

children; 15 grandchildren; and two great-grandchildren.
16 Annual Report 2008

Judge Robert E. Woodward, 94, a 

retired bankruptcy judge for the 

Eastern District of California, died 

on August 1, 2008. Appointed to 

the court on July 1, 1964, Judge 

Woodward was the Eastern 

District’s first bankruptcy judge. 

He served as chief bankruptcy 

judge in 1979 and retired on May 31, 1986. Prior to his 

appointment, Judge Woodward served as an assistant U.S. 

attorney for the Eastern District of California from 1953 

to 1964. He also served as a Sacramento County 

prosecutor, a private attorney, and a court-appointed 

special master for Yuba County. He was deputy clerk of 

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

of California from 1941 to 1945. He graduated from San 

Diego State University and received his J.D. from the 

University of California, Hastings College of the Law, in 

1941. Judge Woodward is survived by his sons, Robert, 

Bruce, and Gary; brother, Avery; and four grandchildren.

In Memoriam continued
NINTH CIRCUIT HIGHLIGHTS
18 Annual Report 2008

Annual Judicial Conference

The 2008 Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference, held July 28-31 

in Sun Valley, Idaho, drew more than 700 judges, attorneys, 

court staff and special guests, including Supreme Court Justice 

Anthony M. Kennedy.

The conference is held annually 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 Alex Kozinski welcomed attendees to the 

annual event, which was last held in Idaho in 2000. Other opening 

session speakers included Idaho Gov. C.L. “Butch” Otter, and Paul 

D. Clement, former solicitor general of the United States. Circuit 

Above from left are Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, Supreme Court 

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, and Circuit Judge Richard R. 

Clifton. At left is Circuit Judge Marsha S. Berzon. Opposite 

page: Kenneth W. Starr and Paul D. Clement discussed 

presidential powers under the Constitution.

Judge Richard R. Clifton of Hawaii, who chaired the 

Conference Executive Committee, presided over the 

proceedings.

Educational Programs

The conference general sessions included educational 

programs focusing on presidential power, the effect 

of television crime shows on jurors, dwindling 

opportunities for associate attorneys to obtain 

courtroom experience, the growing threat of wild 

fires in the West, international law, and wellness. 

The session “Executive Power: Does the President 

Have to Obey the Law?” discussed the extent of 

presidential powers under the Constitution, the impact 

of a presidential refusal to comply with act of Congress 
Ninth Circuit Highlights 19

on the basis of the executive branch’s own constitutional 

interpretation on the judiciary’s role, and whether the president 

should always inform Congress that he intends not to comply 

with a statutory command. Panelists included Kenneth W. Starr, 

dean of Pepperdine University School of Law; Kathleen M. 

Sullivan, a partner at Quinn Emanuel and a Stanley Morrison 

Professor of Law at Stanford Law School; Seth P. Waxman, 

chair of the Appellate and Supreme Court Litigation Practices 

Group at Wilmer Hale; and Paul D. Clement. Circuit Judge 

Consuelo M. Callahan of Sacramento introduced the panel, 

and Walter Dellinger, chair of the Appellate Practice Group at 

O’Melveny and Myers, and a Douglas B. Maggs Professor of 

Law at Duke University, served as moderators.

In “The CSI Effect: From the Living Room to the Courtroom” 

segment, experts reviewed research findings of interest to 

judges and lawyers concerning the so-called “CSI effect” on 

jurors, where the real-world evidence may or may not have 

corresponded to what they have seen on TV. Panelists for this 

session included Dr. Dan Gallipeau, president of Dispute 

Dynamics, Inc.; Peter Neufeld, co-founder and director of The 

Innocence Project; Michael Saks, professor of law and psychology 

at Arizona State University; Dr. Robert C. Shaler, director of 

Forensic Science Program at Pennsylvania State University. 

Chief District Judge Anthony W. Ishii of the Eastern District of 

California introduced the panel, and Adam Liptak, a national 

legal reporter for The New York Times, moderated the panel.

“Breakfast with the Bench — Beyond the Vanishing Trial: Are 

We Training the Next Generation?,” considered whether the 

next generation of lawyers are getting the training they need to 

master federal practice. Participants reviewed trends in filings 

and trials within the circuit. Audience response systems 

were used to gather opinions, and suggested solutions 

were collected for further research and examination. 

Bankruptcy Judge Laura S. Taylor of the Southern 

District of California and LRCC Vice-Chair Robbin 

L. Itkin participated in the discussion. District Judge 

William Alsup of the Northern District of California 

moderated the session.

In the “Bigger, Hotter, Faster: The Nature of Fire in the 

West,” experts on wild fire management gave a special 

presentation about trends in new fire science specific to 

the West and how people can help decrease the threat 

of wild fires damaging their own property. Providing 

a glimpse into the complex world of fire fighting and 

fire management were panelists Dr. Richard Minnich, 

a professor of the Department of Earth Sciences at the 

University of California at Riverside; Jeanne PinchaTulley, forest fire chief of the Tahoe National Forest; 

and Wayne Williams, foreman of a U.S. Forest Service 

“smoke jumper” firefighters unit. LRCC Chair Joseph M. 

Meier of the District of Idaho introduced the panel, and 

Lyle Carlile, director of the Branch of Fire Management 

Bureau of Indian Affairs at the National Interagency Fire 

Center in Boise, moderated the session. 

The final day of the conference included a segment on 

the complexities of international law and its influence 

on international trade and finance. The “Spanning 

the Globe: Dilemmas of Law and Policy” panel was 

moderated by Stanford University Professor Helen 

Stacy and included attorneys Kent Walker and Bruce 

Sewell, general counsels of Google and Intel Corp., 

respectively; attorney Alejandro Mayorkas, a former U.S. 

attorney for the Central District of California; and Linda 

Chatman Thomsen, director, Division of Enforcement, 

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Attorney 

Robert T. Torres of Saipan, a member of the Conference 

Executive Committee, introduced the panel.

A health segment, which has become a regular part of 

the conference program, offered critiques of popular 

diets. “Deconstructing Designer Diets: The Myths 

and the Realities,” featured Dr. Melina Jampolis of 

San Francisco. Bankruptcy Judge Leslie Tchaikovsky 

of the Northern District of California introduced Dr. 

Jampolis to the audience.
20 Annual Report 2008

Conference Attendees Favor

Juror Interviews

J

udges and lawyers who participated in the 2008 

Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference largely favored a 

resolution that allowed legal counsel to interview jurors 

at the conclusion of both civil and criminal trials in 

federal courts. The Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit 

subsequently voted to approve the resolution.

The resolution urges courts to repeal rules that prohibit 

juror interviews and, instead, either leave the matter 

to the discretion of the presiding judge, or adopt a rule 

permitting interviews, subject to the consent of the jurors 

and reasonable time, place and manner restrictions.

Among the 15 federal trials courts in the Ninth Circuit, 

nine allow counsel to interview jurors after trial with 

certain conditions. Six courts prohibit counsel from 

interviewing jurors after trial, citing a Ninth Circuit legal 

precedent, Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. Mely, 219 F.2d 

199, 202 (9th Circuit, 1954). The resolution sought a 

circuit-wide policy permitting the practice.

Jurors are under no obligation to talk with attorneys. The 

policy would only allow attorneys to approach jurors for 

interviews.

Proponents said lawyers can improve their advocacy 

skills by learning how jurors experienced different 

aspects of a trial, such as the presentation of evidence 

or cross-examination of witnesses. Opponents worried 

that overzealous lawyers would abuse the interview 

by seeking information about juror conduct and jury 

deliberations that might lead to a new trial or setting 

aside a verdict.

At the conference, judges and attorneys briefly debated 

the resolution prior to the vote. Speakers in favor of 

the resolution included Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Alex 

Kozinski, Senior District Judge John C. Coughenour of 

Seattle and two federal public defenders, Thomas Hillier 

of Seattle and Franny Forsman of Las Vegas. Senior District 

Judge H. Russel Holland of Anchorage and attorney Gary 

Grimmer of Honolulu spoke in opposition.

Conversation with the Justice

Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy brought 

the 2008 Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference to a close 

Thursday, July 31, with a speech focused on the rule of law 

in an increasingly globalized world.

The “Conversation with the Justice” segment, which 

traditionally concludes the conference, also included a 

question-and-answer session with Senior District Judge 

John C. Coughenour of Seattle and attorneys Kelli Sager of 

Los Angeles and Joe Meier of Boise.

Justice Kennedy spoke of his experience as a member of the 

United Nations Commission on the Legal Empowerment of 

the Poor. Globalization may reduce opportunities for future 

generations of Americans to influence world events, but not 

the freedom they enjoy, Justice Kennedy said. And while 

the future may be uncertain, we need not feel threatened, 

he said. Justice Kennedy received several standing ovations 

during his appearance.

Presenting questions to Justice Kennedy were Circuit 

Judge Richard R. Clifton, Senior District Judge John 

C. Coughenour, attorneys Kelli L. Sager and Joseph M. 

Meier. 

Program Chair Kelli Sager participates in the “Conversation with 

Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.”
Ninth Circuit Highlights 21

The Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference provides an 

opportunity to recognize outstanding service to the 

legal profession and judicial system. Awards established by 

the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit, the Administrative 

Office of the United States Courts, and the prestigious 

American Inns of Court are presented during the conference. 

The following recipients were announced for 2008:

Ninth Circuit Professionalism Award

Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Judith C. 

Chirlin received the 2008 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.”

Judge Chirlin has taught, lectured and mentored judges 

in Eastern Europe, Central and South America, and the 

Middle East, where she helped reestablish the judiciary in 

war-torn Iraq. She is a past chair of the CEELI (Central 

and East European Law Initiative) Advisory Board for the 

American Bar Association. Judge Chirlin received a B.A. 

in 1969 from George Washington University, an M.A. in 

1970 from Rutgers University, and a J.D. in 1974 from the 

University of Southern California School of Law, where 

she served on the law review editorial board.

Judge Chirlin is a counselor and an active Master of the 

Bench of Southern California Business Litigation American 

Inn of Court, and an alumnus of the William J. Rea 

American Inn of Court and the William P. Gray Legion 

Lex American Inn of Court. Appointed to the state court 

bench in 1985, Judge Chirlin is highly esteemed by her 

colleagues and lawyers practicing in her court.

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. 

The inns are intended to improve the skills, professionalism 

and ethics of the bench and bar.

John P. Frank Award

Robert S. Warren, a litigation partner in the Los Angeles 

office of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, received the 2008 

John P. Frank Award, which recognizes a lawyer who 

has “demonstrated outstanding character and integrity; 

dedication to the rule of law; proficiency as a trial and 

appellate lawyer; success in promoting collegiality among 

members of the bench and bar; and a lifetime of service to 

the federal courts of the Ninth Circuit.”

Annual Awards Presented

Pictured above from left are Fifth Circuit Chief Judge Deanell 

Reece Tacha; L.A. Superior Court Judge Judith C. Chirlin, American 

Inns of Court Ninth Circuit Professionalism Award recipient; and 

Ninth Circuit Judge Milan D. Smith, Jr. Pictured below from left 

are Robert S. Warren, John P. Frank Award recipient, and Meryl L. 

Young, Advisory Board chair.
22 Annual Report 2008

Mr. Warren’s legal career spans 52 years, all of it spent 

with Gibson Dunn. He joined the firm in 1956, the same 

year he received his J.D. from the USC School of Law, 

where he was an associate editor of the law review and a 

member of the Order of the Coif. He has been a fellow of 

the American College of Trial Lawyers since 1974. He also 

formerly served on the board of the Institute of Corporate 

Counsel. He is a member of the California Supreme Court 

Historical Society, the Ninth Judicial Circuit Historical 

Society and the USC Law School Board of Councilors.

Alternative Dispute Resolution Awards

The staffs for the Southern District of California’s 

magistrate judges received the 2008 Robert F. Peckham 

Award for Excellence in Alternative Dispute Resolution. 

The Peckham award recognizes judicial employees who 

have significantly advanced the delivery of effective courtbased ADR programs in the circuit.

The judicial staffs were chosen for their successful 

facilitation of the Early Neutral Evaluation (ENE) program, 

which involves parties meeting with their assigned 

magistrate judge for settlement conference within 45 days 

of the first answer in the case. The conference serves both 

as the initiation of mediation as well as a case management 

tool. 

The staffs are involved in many tasks from scheduling of 

conferences to informing the public and the bar about the 

ENE program, and in summarizing files. They ensure that 

the program’s goals are met as well as assisting to integrate 

this program with the broader case management and other 

support services. The staff members reduced the court’s 

workload significantly and helped to shorten the time 

from filing to disposition. They met the award criteria of 

delivering “the highest level of service as an administrator 

and innovation in program design and implementation.” 

Senior Circuit Judge Dorothy W. Nelson presented the 

award to the staff members at a luncheon held in San 

Diego, California, on June 24.

The University of Nevada, William S. Boyd School of 

Law, received the 2008 Ninth Circuit ADR Education 

Award, which recognizes law schools that have significantly 

advanced ADR scholarship and research. The Boyd 

Law School established its Saltman Center for Conflict 

Resolution in 2003. The center is the primary vehicle for 

advancing the university’s ADR studies. The Saltman Center 

has hosted numerous conferences and seminars, which are 

open to the public, to enhance public awareness of ADR. 

Peter Reilly, director of the center’s negotiation training, 

accepted the award on behalf of the school at the Ninth 

Circuit Judicial Conference in Sun Valley, Idaho.

Magistrate judges’ staffs from the Southern District of California received the Robert F. Peckham Award at a luncheon held in 

San Diego, June 24.
Ninth Circuit Highlights 23

With help from the Judicial Council of the Ninth 

Circuit, the United States District Court for 

the Eastern District of California made progress in 

2008 toward resolving a backlog of cases, many of 

them brought by inmates in state and federal prisons.

The council authorized the recruitment of judges 

from other courts in the circuit to take Eastern 

District cases. The council also moved to obtain 

funding for additional law clerks and court staff, 

and undertook promotion of mediation and other 

means to resolve prison matters.

The joint effort was announced at the 2008 Ninth 

Circuit Judicial Conference in Sun Valley, Idaho, 

by Eastern District Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii 

and Senior Circuit Judge J. Clifford Wallace of the 

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

Wallace chairs a special committee formed by the 

judicial council to assist the district.

“The problems facing the Eastern District result 

not from lack of effort, but lack of judges and staff. 

Judges and court staff are doing all they can, but 

there are just not enough of them,” Judge Wallace 

said in a statement announcing the effort.

The Eastern District’s six judges are among the most 

productive in the nation. They terminated 932 cases per 

judge in 2008, the most in the circuit and second most 

in the nation. Despite these efforts, the court’s pending 

caseload continues to grow as a result of new filings and 

the nature of its cases. The number of pending cases per 

judge averaged 1,393 in 2008, an increase of 3.9 percent 

from 1,340 cases reported in 2007. 

(The court also relies on six semi-retired senior district 

judges, two of whom are carrying nearly full caseloads, 

and 12 magistrate judges, who have limited authority to 

preside over cases.)

New case filings continue to exceed terminations in the 

Eastern District, which had 1,004 weighted filings per 

judgeship in 2008, the highest of any court in the nation. 

The Eastern District’s civil filings totaled 4,974, up 9.8 

percent, while criminal filings numbered 940, a 5.6 

percent increase from the prior year.

The court’s burgeoning caseload has been driven by 

population growth and a phenomenal increase in prisoner 

filings. New prisoner petitions numbered 2,461 in 

2008, amounting to 41.6 percent of the Eastern District 

caseload. Most prisoner petitions are filed pro se, or 

without benefit of counsel, and generally require more 

time and effort to process.

Weighted filings per judgeship is a statistical work measure 

used in part to determine the need for new federal judgeships. 

A minimum of 430 weighted filings is currently required to 

justify a new judgeship. Based on this standard, the Eastern 

District qualifies for as many as six new judgeships.

Since 1990, Congress has authorized 14 additional 

permanent and temporary judgeships for the four federal 

judicial districts in California. However, the Eastern District 

has received only one of those, a temporary judgeship 

authorized in 1990. The temporary judgeship expired in 

2004 after Congress chose not to renew the position.

Circuit Responds to Influx

of Prisoner Petitions

Wasco State Prison

Valley State Prison for Women

Sierra Conservation Center

Pleasant Valley 

State Prison

North Kern State Prison

Mule Creek State Prison

Kern Valley State Prison

High Desert State Prison

Folsom State Prison

Deuel Vocational 

Institution

CSP - Solano

CSP - Sacramento 

Central California Women's Facility 

California Substance Abuse 

Treatment Facility & State Prison

CSP - Corcoran 

California 

Medical 

Facility

California Correctional

Institution

California Correctional Center

Avenal State 

Prison 

CAS

CAC

CAN

CAE

Eastern District of California Prison Locations
24 Annual Report 2008

Judges, Journalists Gather in Nevada

Nearly 100 journalists, media lawyers and academics participated in a media conference held June 5, 

2008, at the Lloyd D. George U.S. Courthouse in Las 

Vegas, Nevada. The program, entitled Federal Courts: 

Removing the Mystery, included topics on federal 

criminal case process, judicial codes of conduct, the Wen 

Ho Lee case, and access to court information. 

The event was cosponsored by the district court and the 

Ninth Circuit Public Information and Community Outreach 

(PICO) Committee. The committee was established in 2000 

by the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit “to facilitate 

better relations between the courts and the news media, and 

to promote existing community outreach programs, which 

help educate the public about the work of the courts.”

Media panelists included Martha Bellisle, legal affairs 

reporter, Reno Gazette-Journal; Lucy Dalglish, executive 

director, The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the 

Press; Colleen McCarty, investigative reporter, KLAS-TV, 

Las Vegas; Jane Ann Morrison, columnist, Las Vegas ReviewJournal; and Emily Thomas Neilson, president and general 

manager, KLAS-TV, Las Vegas.

Judicial participants included Ninth Circuit Judge M. 

Margaret McKeown, District Judges Larry R. Hicks, Clive 

Jones, James C. Mahan, Howard D. McKibben, and Philip 

M. Pro, and Magistrate Judge Lawrence Leavitt. Chief 

District Judge Roger L. Hunt welcomed the attendees and 

moderated an open forum set aside for follow-up questions 

about subjects discussed or new topics raised for comment 

and further discussion. PICO chair Judge Marilyn Huff of 

San Diego also served as a moderator.

Other participants from the District of Nevada included Chief 

Pretrial Services Officer Shiela Adkins; First Assistant Federal 

Public Defender Michael Kennedy; Assistant U.S. Attorney 

Russell E. Marsh, Chief of Criminal Division; and District 

Court Clerk Lance Wilson.

Chief District Judge Roger L. Hunt opened the floor for media 

questions. Pictured below, jounalists shared their thoughts on 

outreach efforts made by the courts.
Ninth Circuit Highlights 25

In addition, the CJA process requires that a circuit judge 

review and approve expenditures that exceed certain 

statutory limits. Circuit Judge Raymond C. Fisher of 

Pasadena, one of three judges currently assigned this task 

in the Ninth Circuit, opened the program, challenging 

summit participants to make the processing of CJA 

vouchers more uniform throughout the circuit. 

Cole Benson, Debra Rhodes and Lynn Warton from the 

court of appeals clerk’s offices in Pasadena, San Francisco, 

and Seattle discussed ways of improving and expediting the 

approval process of CJA voucher payments.

District Judge Barry Moskowitz from the Southern District 

of California and Paul Denicoff of the AO’s Defender 

Services Office, discussed the Ninth Circuit 

Case Management and Budgeting Pilot Project, 

which began in January 2007 and includes the 

Second and Sixth circuits. The pilot program 

was designed to help the courts contain costs 

and to simultaneously promote high-quality 

representation of defendants consistent with 

the best practices of the legal profession.

The program involved judges, court staff and 

defense counsel in developing a phased case 

management and budgeting plans. Electronic worksheets 

developed with Microsoft Excel spreadsheet software 

helped automate data collection, manage information 

and project and track expenditures. The worksheets 

automatically replicate key case information, incorporated 

approved hourly rates and relied on mathematical formulas 

to guard against computational errors, which were 

common in manual processing of data.

Circuit executive staff is exploring further refinements 

to the system, including the ability to enter data over the 

Internet using a web browser.

Other presenters included Ronnie Honey, chief deputy 

clerk for the District of Arizona; Randy Schnack, a 

CJA supervising attorney from the Central District of 

California; Jeane DeKelver, a CJA supervising attorney 

for the Northern District of California; Diane Goldberg 

of the AO Defender Services Office; and Tim Reagan, FJC 

researcher.

Once criticized for spending too much on legal defense of defendants charged with major crimes, federal 

courts in the Ninth Circuit now lead the way in controlling 

such costs without compromising representation. The 

circuit’s Criminal Justice Act Summit was the latest chapter 

in this ongoing effort to better manage some of the courts’ 

most complex and challenging cases.

Held Jan. 9-11 in San Diego, the CJA Summit brought 

together judges, court staff, attorneys from several 

federal public defender offices, and representatives of the 

Administrative Office of the United States Courts and the 

Federal Judicial Center. All told, 14 of the 15 district courts 

within the Ninth Circuit were represented along with 

visitors from the Second, Fourth, Sixth and 10th circuits.

The event was organized by the Office 

of the Circuit Executive, which has 

developed and is promoting broader 

use by the courts of a case management 

system that includes electronic budgeting 

and record-keeping tools to plan and 

track expenses. Initially intended for 

capital habeas cases, the system also is 

being used on a trial basis for federal 

direct death penalty cases and large 

criminal “mega” trials in a three-circuit pilot program 

funded by the AO.

Circuit executive staff was among the presenters. They 

included Nancy Rutledge, CJA case-budgeting attorney, 

who is providing staff support to the pilot program, and 

Sandy Andrews, policy and research analyst, who helped 

develop the original system.

The Ninth Circuit was the first in the nation to adopt a 

policy setting compensation rates for legal counsel and 

others involved in CJA and capital habeas matters. Adopted 

in 1998 and amended several times since then, the policy 

sets a tiered rate structure for counsel and maximum rates 

for investigators, paralegals and numerous categories of 

experts who may become involved in the case. The policy 

also provides for review and approval of case budgets by 

the circuit’s Capital Case Committee and Judicial Council. 

Criminal Justice Act Summit Held
26 Annual Report 2008

Some 90 law clerks, district and magistrate judges and other court staff gathered for the fourth annual 

Ninth Circuit Pro Se Conference, held September 18-19 in 

Scottsdale, Arizona. The event was sponsored by the Ninth 

Circuit Committee on Self-Represented (Pro Se) Litigants 

with support from the Office of the Circuit Executive. All 

15 judicial districts of the circuit and the Ninth Circuit 

Court of Appeals participated.

Senior Circuit Judge William C. Canby, Jr., who has 

chambers in Phoenix, opened the conference by 

recognizing the dedication and effort by all those working 

on pro se litigation. The keynote address was delivered by 

Senior District Judge James K. Singleton of Anchorage, 

who chaired the Self-Represented Litigants Task Force, 

which conducted an exhaustive study of pro se litigation 

and evaluated existing alternative approaches to managing 

the growing caseload.

Conference attendees received a case law update from 

Professor Rory Little of the University of California, 

Hastings College of the Law, which was followed by 

breakout sessions for judges and pro se law clerks. 

Magistrate Judge James P. Donohue of Seattle facilitated 

the judges’ breakout session, which focused on how to 

handle pro se litigants in the courtroom and the extent 

of assistance that can be ethically provided by the court. 

Supervising staff attorney Susan Gelmis of the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals facilitated the breakout session 

for clerks, which included discussion on how to deal with 

pro se litigants who are mentally ill, habeas petitions 

challenging denial of parole in California, and other case 

management issues.

The conference also heard remarks from J. Clark Kelso, 

the federal receiver appointed by a special three-judge 

federal court presiding over civil rights litigation involving 

medical care in California prisons. Mr. Kelso discussed 

efforts to establish centralized management of health care 

appeals, correspondence, and habeas corpus petitions. 

The conference drew more than 90 

participants.

Judges, Clerks Consider 

Pro Se Litigants

Keynote speaker. J. Clark 

Kelso talked of the 

California prison litigation. 
Ninth Circuit Highlights 27

Capital habeas corpus petitions, in which a death penalty 

defendant claims a violation of constitutional rights, 

are extremely complex and often quite costly to adjudicate. 

Through its Capital Case Committee, the Ninth Circuit 

seeks to better manage capital habeas corpus cases, thereby 

containing costs without compromising legal representation. 

Capital habeas corpus case budgets are submitted by 

Criminal Justice Act panel attorneys to the presiding 

judges of the district courts in which the cases are heard. 

The budgets are reviewed and approved by the Judicial 

Council of the Ninth Circuit 

based on recommendations from 

the Capital Case Committee. The 

previous review and approval 

process often took several 

months to complete. If the 

Capital Case Committee or the 

Judicial Council recommended 

subsequent budget changes, 

additional time was needed 

before final approval. 

The Capital Case Committee has 

sought to speed up the process 

by dividing its workload among 

three subcommittees. Each 

subcommittee reviews one-third 

of the budgets submitted and 

makes recommendations. Cases 

are immediately assigned as they 

are received, rather than being 

held for a quarterly committee 

meeting. Subcommittees are expected to act within two 

weeks of receiving the budget. If after discussing any issues, 

subcommittee members are unable to reach a consensus, the 

budget is held over and discussed at the next full committee 

meeting.

While only the assigned subcommittee members are 

required to review budget materials, the materials are 

available to all committee members, who also can and 

sometimes do offer additional input.

The committee agreed to evaluate the new process after 

one year.

In 2008, the committee also evaluated whether there was 

a need to increase the maximum hourly rates charged by 

investigators and paralegals involved in capital habeas cases. 

The committee recommended increasing the maximum 

hourly rates that can be charged by investigators and 

paralegals to $75 per hour from $55-$65 per hour, 

and paralegal rates to $45 per hour from $35 per hour, 

respectively. The higher rates were approved in October by 

the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit. It was the first 

increase in rates for investigators and paralegals since 2002.

The Capital Case Committee is chaired by District Judge 

David O. Carter of the Central District of California. The 

committee meets four times a year in the different judicial 

districts of the Ninth Circuit having active capital cases. Judges 

and court staff working on those cases in the host district are 

invited to attend all or parts of the meetings.

Capital Case Committee members also attend the Ninth 

Circuit’s annual conference for death penalty law staff 

attorneys and case management workshops for staff 

attorneys, and have provided training for Article III 

judges. 

Courts Focus on Capital Habeas 

Management

Seated from left to right: Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison (CAE), District Judge Mary H. 

Murguia (AZ), District Judge David O. Carter, Chair (CAC), District Judge Ronald M. Whyte 

(CAN), District Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz (CAS). Standing from left to right: Margaret Epler, 

law clerk (COA), Andy Parnes, CJA attorney (ID), Carla Ortega, staff attorney (CAC), Margaret 

Fainer-Towne, staff attorney (CAE), Sandy K. Andrews, policy and research analyst, Nancy 

Rutledge, CJA case-budgeting attorney, Kristine Fox, staff attorney (AZ), Dr. Robert Rucker, 

assistant circuit executive for policy and research, Jeane DeKelver, CJA supervising attorney 

(CAN). Not pictured: District Judge Philip M. Pro (NV), Senior District Judge Wm. Fremming 

Nielsen (WAE) and Steven T. Wax, federal public defender (OR).
28 Annual Report 2008

Technology Users Group

Reaches Milestone

The Ninth Circuit’s 20th annual 

Technology Users Group (TUG) 

Conference was held August 19-21 in San 

Francisco, drawing some 240 information 

technology and other court staff 

representing all of the judicial districts of 

the circuit and the Administrative Office of 

the United States Courts.

The program included opening session 

remarks by Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, who 

also sat with Circuit Judge Sidney R. Thomas 

and Circuit and Court of Appeals Executive 

Cathy A. Catterson on a panel that took 

questions from the audience.

TUG is sponsored by the Office of the 

Circuit Executive with assistance from IT 

staff throughout the circuit. Assistant Circuit 

Executive Don Vincent welcomed attendees 

and recognized the contributions of his staff, 

the IT System Managers Committee, and the 

staff of the court of appeals.

AO staff in attendance included Joseph 

Peters, deputy assistant director, Office of 

Information Technology (OIT); Terry 

Cain, chief of IT policy staff, OIT; 

Thomas Baribeau, support branch chief, 

IT Systems Deployment and Support 

Division; Neal Dillard, supervisory IT 

specialist, Infrastructure Management 

Division; and Keith Dove, IT specialist, 

Infrastructure Management Division. 

AO staff reported on the expansion of 

the court’s internal data communications 

network, or DCN, which has nearly 

doubled since 2003; the success of 

email spam filters, which block 94 

percent of unsolicited messages; and the 

provision of redundant services that are 

automatically engaged in emergencies.

Above: Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, Circuit Judge Sidney R. Thomas, and Circuit 

and Court of Appeals Executive Cathy A. Catterson field questions at the TUG 

Conference. Below: Chief Pretrial Services Officer George Walker takes a look at 

vendor displays. 

In his opening remarks, Chief Judge Kozinski told attendees that he 

was pleased to see the Ninth Circuit develop a closer relationship 

with the AO and praised AO Director James C. Duff for bringing 

change to the organization. He encouraged court staff to view 

technology as a partner and a way for court to become more efficient 

and more effective.

“We have to keep in mind that we must have technology work for us 

and not the other way around,” said Chief Judge Kozinski.
Ninth Circuit Highlights 29

Magistrate judges in the Ninth Circuit gained a better understanding of sentencing issues 

through a first-of-its-kind Pretrial and Misdemeanor 

Sentencing Institute, held November 5-7 in San 

Diego. The institute focused on various issues arising 

in the handling of pretrial criminal matters and 

the considerations associated with sentencing in 

misdemeanor cases. 

The program was organized by the Ninth Circuit’s 

Magistrate Judges Executive Board, the Federal 

Judicial Center, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, 

the Federal Detention Trustee, the United States 

Sentencing Commission, the U.S. Probation Office 

for the Southern District of California, and the U.S. 

Pretrial Services offices for the Southern 

and Central Districts of California. It was 

modeled after an FJC sentencing program 

held regularly for Article III judges.

Pretrial and misdemeanor sentencing make 

up a significant volume of cases in the U.S. 

district courts. In fiscal year 2008, there 

were 100,742 misdemeanor dispositions in 

the United States. Approximately onefifth or 21,637 dispositions were handled 

by magistrate judges in the Ninth Circuit. 

In terms of pretrial proceedings, out of 

a national 332,852 matters, 80,158, or 

approximately 25 percent of the total, 

occurred in the Ninth Circuit. These 

proceedings were predominately initial 

appearances, arraignments, detention 

hearings, competency evaluations, and 

guilty pleas. These areas, along with 

sentencing considerations under the 

Sentencing Guidelines, and the U.S. Code, 

were the focus of the three-day event. 

In addition to discussions by judges and other 

court professionals, the program featured 

presentations by health care professionals in 

the areas of the neurobiology of addiction, 

the psychology of the sex offender, and the 

process of mental competency evaluation 

and treatment. The participants also heard 

from academics who studied the risk of bias and cognitive error 

when dealing with pretrial detention and misdemeanor sentencing. 

Prison officials discussed transportation issues associated with 

moving pretrial detainees, and rehabilitative programs offered in 

the prisons.

The presentations were lively, interactive, and very 

entertaining. Pre-program videos of sample detention hearings, 

the use of audience response systems, and a host of PowerPoint 

presentations were offered in addition to some research 

memoranda created especially for this program. 

Feedback from magistrate judges was largely positive with 

many saying the program will help in day-to-day management 

of their very busy criminal dockets.

Magistrate Judges Test 

New Program

Magistrate Judge Anthony J. 

Battaglia (left) chaired the 

planning committee. Participants 

(below) enjoyed and gained a better 

understanding of sentencing issues.
30 Annual Report 2008

J

udges and court staff from the Ninth Circuit have 

developed a tool to identify prisoner litigants 

who repeatedly file pro se actions later found to be 

unsupported by facts or law.

The Pro Se “Three Strikes” Database project has been 

implemented by the district courts in the Ninth Circuit 

and by the Eastern District of Texas in the Fifth Circuit 

using funding authorized by the Judicial Conference of 

the United States. The JCUS Committee on Information 

Technology recommended the project for an Edwin 

L. Nelson Local Initiatives Program IT grant for fiscal 

year 2008. The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 

allocated $171,000 to the effort.

The “three strike” reference is derived from the federal 

Prison Litigation Reform Act, which provides for sanctions 

if a prisoner’s complaints are dismissed on three occasions 

as frivolous, malicious or for failure to state a claim. A 

prisoner with three strikes may not file in forma pauperis, 

thereby requiring full payment of court filing fees at the 

outset of a case, rather than in installments over time.

The database program is designed to track pro se prisoner 

filings that are dismissed as frivolous, malicious or for failure 

to state a claim for relief, and to more easily identify so-called 

“three strikers” regardless of which courts issued the strike.

Federal courts expend substantial staff time processing the 

thousands of pro se filings received from prisoners each 

year. The ability to identify prisoners known to be frequent 

filers and to limit their ability to file future actions unless 

they pay filing fees are expected to free up resources and 

staff for other work. 

Case clerks in many courts now track strikes accumulated 

in their courts but this does not reflect prior cases filed 

outside a particular district or circuit. Many prisoners 

intent on “gaming the system” will file cases in multiple 

districts under various aliases.

The Ninth Circuit Pro Se “Three Strikes” Database has 

been online since March 2007 and now includes more than 

845 litigants and 1,405 cases.

During the development of the Ninth Circuit system, it 

was discovered that the Fifth Circuit has had a three-strikes 

tracking system in place since the mid-1990s managed 

by the Eastern District of Texas. The system has proven 

effective in identifying prisoners with three strikes.

Pro se law clerks who use the system have asked that it 

provide a direct link to case dockets stored online through 

the PACER system (Public Access to Court Electronic 

Records). They want to be able to double check records to 

verify that what constitutes a “strike” in another district is 

consistent with the rules of their own districts. This added 

capability is being reviewed by the AO.

AO Director James C. Duff has expressed interest in the 

program’s national potential, noting that the availability 

of the database tracking system would be a great benefit 

to the entire judiciary. Indeed, the Fifth and Ninth circuits 

are working together to produce one database to be used 

nationally by building a new system using the best ideas 

from both current applications as well as suggestions 

gathered from the other circuits.

“Three Strikes” Database 

Project Advances

The Ninth Circuit effort is supported by information technology 

staff from the Office of the Circuit Executive working with 

Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck of the Eastern District of 

California and others. Pictured above are Application Developer 

Jane Rokita and Assistant Circuit Executive for IT Don Vincent.
Ninth Circuit Highlights 31

United States Bankruptcy Judge Dennis Montali of the Northern District of California assumed the gavel 

in 2008 as chief judge of the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy 

Appellate Panel (BAP), which resolves appeals arising out 

of bankruptcy court decisions.

Judge Montali was elevated to chief judge on a vote of his 

fellow judges on the BAP. His term will run through 2010, 

when he is scheduled to step down from the BAP after 10 

years of service, the maximum allowed under circuit rules.

Judge Montali, who has been a bankruptcy judge since 

1993 and has chambers in San Francisco, described the 

BAP as the “ultimate peer review panel.”

“We are very proud of the fact that (the BAP) decides cases 

very quickly and we plan to keep up that pace,” he added, 

noting that the court had no pending cases under submission.

Judge Montali was appointed to the bankruptcy court in 

1993 and reappointed in 2007. Prior to coming onto the 

bench, he headed the Creditors Rights and Bankruptcy 

Group at the law firm of Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro. He 

is a fellow of the American College of Bankruptcy and a 

former member of the National Bankruptcy Conference.

A native of San Francisco, Judge Montali received his 

bachelor’s degree from the University of Notre Dame in 

1961 and his juris doctorate from the University of California 

at Berkeley Boalt Hall School of Law in 1968. He served on 

active duty with the Naval Reserve from 1961 to 1965.

Judge Montali succeeded Bankruptcy Judge Christopher M. 

Klein of Sacramento as chief judge of the BAP. Judge Klein, 

who served on the BAP for 10 years, became chief judge 

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

California in October 2008.

The BAP, which is based in the Richard H. Chambers U.S. 

Courthouse in Pasadena, has six permanent judges who 

serve seven-year terms with the possibility of a threeyear extension. A seventh BAP judgeship has been left 

vacant in recent years, in part so that bankruptcy judges 

from around the circuit might be able to experience the 

appellate process as judges pro tem. 

BAP appointments are made by the Judicial Council of the 

Ninth Circuit, governing body for federal courts in nine 

western states and two Pacific Island jurisdictions.

The BAP was established in 1979 by the Judicial Council 

of the Ninth Circuit as an alternative forum for hearing 

bankruptcy appeals. Since then, it has disposed of more 

than 15,000 cases, including more than 5,250 decided on 

the merits. 

The Ninth Circuit was the first federal circuit to establish 

a bankruptcy appellate panel. Other circuits with 

bankruptcy appellate panels are the First, Sixth, Eighth and 

Tenth circuits. 

Bankruptcy Appellate Panel

Selects New Chair

Bankruptcy Judge Dennis 

Montali has been serving 

on the BAP for nearly 10 

years.
32 Annual Report 2008

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals judges filled a key 

administrative post in March with the selection of

Molly C. Dwyer as clerk of court. She succeeded Cathy A. 

Catterson, who was appointed circuit and court of appeals 

executive in December 2007. Ms. Dwyer had been chief 

deputy clerk under Ms. Catterson.

 In announcing the selection, Ninth Circuit Chief Judge 

Alex Kozinski described Ms. Dwyer as “a very experienced 

attorney and administrator who has a wonderful working 

relationship with the judges of the court, the court staff and 

the legal community.” 

Ms. Dwyer was sworn into office by Chief Judge Alex 

Kozinski at a Federal Bar Association event in San Francisco 

attended by more than 50 federal judges 450 lawyers.

As chief administrative officer for the court, Ms. Dwyer 

manages a staff of more than 200 working in the court’s 

headquarters in San Francisco and divisional offices in 

Pasadena, Portland and Seattle.

Ms. Dwyer has been with the Court of Appeals since 1988. 

She worked as a staff attorney and supervising staff attorney 

before being promoted to chief deputy clerk in 1994. 

Ms. Dwyer received her B.A. in history from Saint Michael’s 

College in 1981, an M.A. in international history from the 

London School of Economics in 1984, and her J.D. from 

the State University of New York at Buffalo School of Law 

in 1988. She was editor of the Buffalo Public Interest Law 

Review and a research assistant while in law school.

Court of Appeals Names 

New Clerk of Court

Molly C. Dwyer has been serving the 

court for 20 years.
Ninth Circuit Highlights 33

The Office of the Circuit Executive (OCE) 

offered a two-day orientation for new judges 

at the James R. Browning United States Courthouse 

held April 17-18 in San Francisco.

Chief Judge Alex Kozinski met with the judges during 

the event, and Circuit and Court of Appeals Executive 

Cathy A. Catterson welcomed the judges.

Circuit Judge M. Margaret McKeown, member of 

the Judicial Conference of the United States Codes 

of Conduct Committee, made a presentation on 

“Navigating Ethics in a See-Through Environment.” 

Several judges also discussed juror utilization, case 

management and electronic case filing, bankruptcy 

judges and magistrate judges programs.

Staff from the OCE, Office of the Clerk, Office of the 

Circuit Mediator, and the library, gave presentations 

on court governance, role of the Ninth Circuit Judicial 

Council, case management and electronic case filing, 

motions and screening panels, mediation program, and 

library services.

A docent-led tour of the Browning Courthouse was 

held following an afternoon reception.

New Judges Meet in San Francisco

Attendees included, seated above from left, District Judge Benjamin 

Hale Settle (WAW), Magistrate Judges Keith Strong (MT), Gary S. 

Austin (CAE) and James P. Hutton (WAE). Standing from left are 

Bankruptcy Judge Laura S. Taylor (CAS), Magistrate Judges John V. 

Acosta (OR) and Candy Dale (ID), and District Judge Richard A. 

Jones (WAW).

Pictured from left is Chief District Judge Frances Marie TydingcoGatewood, and Circuit and Court of Appeals Executive Cathy A. 

Catterson.
34 Annual Report 2008

Law Clerk Orientation Held

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 

held its annual law clerk orientation program in September 

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

Some 150 new law clerks spent two days in meetings with 

judges and court staff, discussing a wide range of legal 

and operational matters. The program included sessions 

on immigration, habeas corpus law, en banc process and 

procedures, sentencing, and ethics. Highlights included 

remarks by Associate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy of the 

Supreme Court, who was visiting the court and agreed 

into participating in an informal conversation moderated 

by Circuit Judge Richard R. Clifton of Honolulu. Also 

participating in the program were Chief Judge Alex Kozinski 

and Circuit Judges Sidney R. Thomas, Stephen Reinhardt, 

Michael Daly Hawkins, M. Margaret McKeown, Circuit and 

Court of Appeals Executive Cathy A. Catterson, and Clerk 

of Court Molly C. Dwyer.

National Library Week Observed

The National Library Week is a time to celebrate 

libraries and to promote library use. It was first 

sponsored by the American Library Association in 

1958, and the Ninth Circuit library staff have been 

holding an annual celebration each April for more 

than a decade. It is celebrated by library staff in San 

Francisco as well as selected other branches around the 

circuit and generally features library-themed contests 

with prizes as well as food and refreshments.

Pictured above, bottom row (L-R): Trish McCurdy, 

Emily Newman, Benh Loc, and Ed Hosey. Top row 

(L-R): James Maldovan, Filiberto Govea, Nancy 

Tsang, Debbie Sham, Sally Bingham, Lisa Larribeau, 

Eric Wade, Deborah Celle, John M. Hendricks (from 

U.S. District Court library in San Francisco), and 

James Goodlett.
SPACE and FACILITIES
36 Annual Report 2008

The historic James A. Walsh United States 

Courthouse in Tucson, Arizona, was officially 

rededicated on November 13, 2008, following a $13 

million renovation project.

Tucson Mayor Robert E. Walkup and Chief District 

Judge John M. Roll welcomed attendees to the 

rededication ceremony. They included U.S. Rep. 

Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Attorney General Terry 

Goddard, Pacific Rim Regional Administrator Peter 

G. Stamison of the General Services Administration, 

and Professor Charles E. Ares, dean emeritus of 

the University of Arizona College of Law. Circuit 

Judge Michael Daly Hawkins, who has chambers in 

Phoenix, and Bankruptcy Judge James M. Marlar 

were among those making remarks.

The Tucson courthouse was built during the 

Depression and opened in 1930 as a combination 

courthouse and U.S. Post Office. Renamed in 1985 

in honor of James A. Walsh, a major civic figure 

in Tucson history, the building is included on the 

National Register of Historic Places.

James A. Walsh Courthouse Rededication

The Walsh Courthouse was a major repair and alteration project 

for use by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court and the U.S. Trustees 

Office. The scope of work included:

• landscaping and enlarging the entrance at the front door on 

 Scott Avenue;

• refurbishing two courtrooms (one historic);

• building a third courtroom and a state of the art video 

 conference hearing room;

• building a cashier/intake area;

• upgrading and improving perimeter security and blast protection;

• conforming with the American with Disabilities Act, and the 

 Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards; and 

• replacing all non-historic windows with new blast windows. 

The building was fully occupied during construction and work 

was completed during off hours and weekends. The project took 

30 months to complete and had an estimated budget of $17.250 

million but was completed below budget at $13.050 million, an 

overall savings of $4.2 million.
Space & Facilities 37

Arizona judges gathered to celebrate 

completion of the 30-month and $13 million 

project. Pictured above is Charles E. Area, dean 

emeritus of the University of Arizona College 

of Law.

Arizona Courtroom Dedications

Pictured above right is a plaque 

installed during a special courtroom 

dedication ceremony honoring Senior 

District Judge William D. Browning 

in recognition of his contributions 

in the planning and construction of 

the Evo A. DeConcini United States 

Courthouse in Tucson. The event was 

held on November 21, 2008.

Pictured below right is a plaque 

installed during a special courtroom 

dedication ceremony honoring Senior 

District Judge Robert C. Broomfield 

in recognition of his contributions in 

the planning and construction of the 

Sandra Day O’Connor United States 

Courthouse in Phoenix. The event 

was held December 19, 2008.
38 Annual Report 2008

Los Angeles

U.S. Courthouse

Gross Square Footage: 1,016,300

Architects: Perkins & Will Architecture

Great Falls

U.S. Courthouse

Gross Square Footage: 48,411

Project Completion Date: 2009

Architects: BC Development 

 with Hoefer Wysocki Architects, LLC

Coeur d’Alene

U.S. Courthouse

Gross Square Footage: 63,079

Project Completion Date: 2009

Architects: ALSC Architects

Courthouses Under Construction

In Design Phase

San Diego

U.S. Courthouse

Gross Square Footage: 619,644

Architects: Richard Meier & Partners
THE WORK of THE COURTS

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Judges
40 Annual Report 2008

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Judges

1 3 4 2 5

9 10 11 7 8

6 12

13

14

15 16

17 18

31

32

25

24

26

27

28

29

30

23

21 22

20 19

1. Alex Kozinski Pasadena, CA

2. Mary M. Schroeder Phoenix, AZ

3. Betty Binns Fletcher Seattle, WA

4. Robert Boochever Pasadena, CA 

5. Harry Pregerson Woodland Hills, CA

6. Stephen Reinhardt Los Angeles, CA

7. Susan P. Graber Portland, OR

8. Kim McLane Wardlaw Pasadena, CA

9. M. Margaret McKeown San Diego, CA

10. Consuelo M. Callahan Sacramento, CA

11. Johnnie B. Rawlinson Las Vegas, NV

12. Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain Portland, OR

13. David R. Thompson San Diego, CA 

14. Jerome Farris Seattle, WA

15. Pamela Ann Rymer Pasadena, CA

16. Sandra S. Ikuta Pasadena, CA

17. Andrew J. Kleinfeld Fairbanks, AK

18. Michael Daly Hawkins Phoenix, AZ

19. Richard A. Paez Pasadena, CA

20. Arthur L. Alarcón Los Angeles, CA

21. Alfred T. Goodwin Pasadena, CA

22. Sidney R. Thomas Billings, MT

23. Carlos T. Bea San Francisco, CA

24. Marsha S. Berzon San Francisco, CA

25. Milan D. Smith, Jr. El Segundo, CA

26. Raymond C. Fisher Pasadena, CA

27. Jay S. Bybee Las Vegas, NV

28. Richard R. Clifton Honolulu, HI

29. J. Clifford Wallace San Diego, CA

30. William A. Fletcher San Francisco, CA

31. Richard C. Tallman Seattle, WA

32. N. Randy Smith Pocatello, ID

Not Pictured: 

Robert Beezer Seattle, WA

James R. Browning San Francisco, CA

Melvin Brunetti Reno, NV

William C. Canby, Jr. Phoenix, AZ

Ferdinand F. Fernandez Pasadena, CA

Ronald M. Gould Seattle, WA

Cynthia Holcomb Hall Pasadena, CA

Procter Hug, Jr. Reno, NV

Edward Leavy Portland, OR

Dorothy W. Nelson Pasadena, CA

Thomas G. Nelson Boise, ID

John T. Noonan, Jr. San Francisco, CA

Barry G. Silverman Phoenix, AZ

Otto R. Skopil Portland, OR

A. Wallace Tashima Pasadena, CA

Stephen Trott Boise, ID

Deceased:

Warren J. Ferguson Santa Ana, CA

Joseph T. Sneed, III San Francisco, CA 
The Work of the Courts 41

Court of Appeals

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit saw its 

filings increase in 2008. The court reported 13,299 

new appeals, up 4.8 percent from 2007. The increase, the 

first in three years, was due in part to an upturn in prisoner 

appeals.

Appellate filings nationally rose 6.1 percent from the 

prior year with eight of the 12 regional courts of appeal 

reporting increases. The Ninth Circuit continued to 

have the largest share of new filings, 21.6 percent of the 

national total.

The court terminated 12,586 appeals for the year, down 

5.4 percent. Judicial panels terminated 5,527 appeals on 

the merits, while judges and staff disposed of 6,577 appeals 

before the completion of briefing because of jurisdictional 

defects, settlements or summary dispositions. Appellate 

case terminations nationally were down 12.4 percent.

Breakdown of New Appeals

Appeals of decisions from the U.S. Department of Justice’s 

Board of Immigration Appeals, or BIA, continued to 

constitute the largest category of new appeals. The court 

received 4,355 BIA appeals in 2008, which represented 32.7 

percent of the total filings. 

Appeals of cases originating in the federal district courts 

in the circuit numbered 7,562 in 2008, an increase of 7.6 

percent over the prior year. Of the appeals originating in the 

district courts, 5,907, or 78.1 percent, were civil in nature 

and 1,655, or 21.9 percent, were criminal.

Rounding out the new cases were 961 original proceedings 

and 165 bankruptcy appeals. 

The Central District of California generated the largest 

number of appeals among the district courts of the Ninth 

Circuit. In 2008, the Central District produced 2,109 

appeals, or 15.9 percent of the total filings. The Central 

District total was up 8.7 percent from 2007.

Six other district courts also generated more appeals in 

2008. They were the District of Alaska, 122 appeals, up 37.1 

percent; the Eastern District of California, 1,043 appeals, 

up 35.8 percent; the Eastern District of Washington, 192 

appeals, up 18.5 percent; the District of Nevada, 534 

appeals, up 18.4 percent; the District of Hawaii, 173 

appeals, up 13.1 percent; and the Southern District of 

California, 537 appeals, up 12.6 percent.

Fewer appeals were reported from the District of the 

Northern Mariana Islands, 10 appeals, down 41.2 percent; 

the District of Guam, 11 appeals, down 15.4 percent; the 

District of Idaho, 127 appeals, down 10.6 percent; the 

Western District of Washington, 436 appeals, down 10.1 

percent; the District of Montana, 300 appeals, down 4.5 

percent; the District of Oregon, 388 appeals, down 4.4 

percent; the Northern District of California, 808 appeals, 

down 3.0 percent; and the District of Arizona, 772 appeals, 

down less than 1 percent.

Appeals of criminal cases dipped 2.2 percent in 2008, to 

1,655 filings from 1,692. The circuit had 11.6 percent 

of criminal appeals filed nationally. The most numerous 

criminal appeals involved drug offenses, 482 filings; criminal 

immigration offenses, 409 filings; property offenses, 225 

filings; and firearms and explosives offenses, 182 filings. 

Violent offenses numbered 104, including 17 homicides. 

Total civil appeals coming from the district courts numbered 

5,907 in 2008, up 10.7 percent from the prior year. The 

federal government was either a plaintiff or defendant 

in 1,136 of those cases, or 19.2 percent. Private cases 

numbered 4,771, or 80.8 percent. Among private cases, 

prisoner petitions constituted the largest single category. 

In 2008, prisoners filed 1,906 petitions for habeas corpus, 

capital habeas corpus, civil rights, prison conditions and 

other causes. Prisoner filings constituted 32.3 percent of the 

civil appeals coming from the district courts.

2007

Total

2008

Total

Change

2007-2008

Filings 12,685 13,299 4.8%

Terminations 13,300 12,586 -5.4%

*Pending Cases 16,883 17,596 4.2%

*Total pending cases for 2007 revised.

1 Appellate Caseload Profile, 2007-2008
42 Annual Report 2008

Terminations and Pending Cases

The court terminated 12,586 appeals in 2008, down 5.4 

percent from 13,300 in 2007. The number of administrative 

appeals terminated was 4,531, down 11.7 percent from 

the prior year. The court also terminated 2,158 private civil 

matters, up 6.9 percent; 1,941 private prisoner petitions, down 

12.3 percent; and 1,737 criminal appeals, down 7.8 percent. 

Of the appeals terminated, 6,577 involved procedural 

terminations by judges and court staff. Another 5,527 

cases were terminated on the merits, 1,926 cases after oral 

argument and 3,601 cases after submission of briefs. Cases 

disposed of by consolidation numbered 482.

Among the 5,527 cases decided on the merits, 3,924 cases, 

or 70.9 percent, were affirmed or enforced. The remaining 

1,603 were dismissed, reversed, remanded or terminated 

by other means. The reversal rate was 10.8 percent.

En banc courts, used to resolve intra-circuit conflicts or 

other legal questions of exceptional importance, heard 19 

cases in 2008. 

Type of Appeal

2007

Filings

2008

Filings

Change

2007-08

% of 

Circuit

Total

2007

Terminated

2008

Terminated

Change

2007-08

2007

Pending

2008

Pending

Change

2007-08

Civil

U.S. Prisoner

Petitions 357 528 47.9% 4.0% 397 434 9.3% 319 485 52.0%

Private Prisoner

Petitions 2,372 2,761 16.4% 20.8% 2,214 1,941 -12.3% 2,079 2,863 37.7%

Other U.S. Civil 656 608 -7.3% 4.6% 651 689 5.8% 860 785 -8.7%

Other Private 

Civil 1,950 2,010 3.1% 15.1% 2,018 2,158 6.9% 2,720 2,592 -4.7%

Criminal 1,692 1,655 -2.2% 12.4% 1,884 1,737 -7.8% 2,116 2,043 -3.4%

Other

Bankruptcy 197 165 -16.2% 1.2% 176 178 1.1% 245 240 -2.0%

Administrative 

Appeals 4,625 4,611 -0.3% 34.7% 5,133 4,531 -11.7% 7,992 8,270 3.5%

*Original

Proceedings 836 961 15.0% 7.2% 827 918 11.0% 230 318 38.3%

Circuit Total 12,685 13,299 4.8% 13,300 12,586 -5.4% 16,561 17,596 6.2%

National

Appellate Total 57,973 61,492 6.1% 67,699 59,283 -12.4% 51,240 53,155 3.7%

Ninth Circuit

as % of

National Total 21.9% 21.6% 0.3% 19.6% 21.2% -1.6% 32.3% 33.1% 0.8%

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

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

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

reinstated cases.

2 Filings, Terminations and Pending Cases by Appeal Type, 20088
The Work of the Courts 43

 Number of Months

 Ninth Circuit National 

By Stage of Appeal 2007 2008 2007 2008

From Notice of Appeal to Filing Last Brief 6.4 6.5 5.9 5.8

From Filing Last Brief to Hearing or Submission 8.7 11.0 4.6 4.8

From Hearing to Final Disposition 1.2 1.3 2.0 2.1

From Submission to Final Disposition 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.7

From Filing of Notice of Appeal to Final Disposition 18.6 19.0 12.5 12.7

From Filing in Lower Court to Final Disposition in Appellate Court 38.4 38.4 28.8 30.3

Note: The subtotals do not add up to the number for total cases because total cases include original proceedings not 

reported separately in this table. This table does not include data for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Median Time Intervals in Cases Terminated After Hearing or Submission,

2007 and 2008 3

The court ended the year with 17,596 pending cases, up 4.2 

percent from 16,883 cases in 2007.

Median Time Intervals

Median time intervals, which measure how long it takes 

for cases decided on the merits to proceed through the 

appellate process, increased slightly for the Ninth Circuit 

in 2008. The median time interval from filing of a notice of 

appeal to final disposition of a case was 19 months in 2008, 

up from 18.6 months in 2007. The median time interval 

from the filing of a case in a lower court to final disposition 

by the Ninth Circuit remained at 38.4 months. 

Once an appeal was fully briefed, Ninth Circuit judges 

decided cases fairly quickly. In 2008, the median time 

interval for final disposition was 1.3 months for a case in 

which oral arguments were heard, and .3 months for a case 

submitted on briefs.

National median time intervals also increased, but were 

shorter than those of the Ninth Circuit. National median 

times were 12.7 months from notice of appeal to final 

disposition by a circuit court of appeals, and 30.3 months 

from the filing of a case in a lower court to final disposition 

by a circuit court.

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. New pro 

se filings numbered 6,319 in 2008, up 14.9 percent from 

2008. Private prisoner petitions and administrative appeals 

ranked first and second among categories of pro se filings 

with 2,317 and 1,679 cases, respectively.

The Ninth Circuit terminated of 3,926 pro se cases in 2008, 

most on procedural grounds. 

Contributions by Active, Senior 

and Visiting Judges

The court ended the year with 27 active circuit judges and 

21 senior circuit judges (two senior circuit judges died over 

the course of the year). Active circuit judges participated in 

64.4 percent of the cases terminated on the merits during 

the year. Senior circuit judges participated in 29.1 percent, 

while visiting judges helped decide 6.5 percent.

In addition to sitting on panels, senior circuit judges served 

on screening and motions panels and various administrative 

court committees.
44 Annual Report 2008

District

Appeals

Total % of Total

Alaska 122 0.9%

Arizona 772 5.8%

C. Calif. 2,109 15.9%

E. Calif. 1,043 7.8%

N. Calif. 808 6.1%

S. Calif. 537 4.0%

Hawaii 173 1.3%

Idaho 127 1.0%

Montana 300 2.3%

Nevada 534 4.0%

Oregon 388 2.9%

E. Wash. 192 1.4%

W. Wash. 436 3.3%

Guam 11 0.1%

Northern Mariana Islands 10 0.1%

Bankruptcy 165 1.2%

Administrative Agencies, Total 4,611 34.7%

 IRS 58 0.4%

 National Labor Relations Board 25 0.2%

 BIA 4,355 32.7%

 Other Administrative Agencies 173 1.3%

Original Proceedings 961 18.0%

Circuit Total 13,299

4 Source of Appeals and Original Proceedings

Commenced, 2008

Note: Totals include reopened and remanded appeals as well 

as original appeals. Administrative agency cases previously 

reported as immigration service (INS) are shown under Board 

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

under IRS.

Alex Kozinski Pasadena

James R. Browning San Francisco

Alfred T. Goodwin Pasadena

J. Clifford Wallace San Diego

*Joseph T. Sneed, III San Francisco

Procter Hug, Jr. Reno

Otto R. Skopil Portland

Mary M. Schroeder Phoenix

Betty Binns Fletcher Seattle

Jerome Farris Seattle

Harry Pregerson Woodland Hills

Arthur L. Alarcón Los Angeles

*Warren J. Ferguson Santa Ana

Dorothy W. Nelson Pasadena

William C. Canby, Jr. Phoenix

Robert Boochever Pasadena

Stephen Reinhardt Los Angeles

Robert R. Beezer Seattle

Cynthia Holcomb Hall Pasadena

Melvin Brunetti Reno

John T. Noonan, Jr. San Francisco

David R. Thompson San Diego

Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain Portland

Edward Leavy Portland

Stephen S. Trott Boise

Ferdinand F. Fernandez Pasadena

Pamela Ann Rymer Pasadena

Thomas G. Nelson Boise

Andrew J. Kleinfeld Fairbanks

Michael Daly Hawkins Phoenix

A. Wallace Tashima Pasadena

Sidney R. Thomas Billings

Barry G. Silverman Phoenix

Susan P. Graber Portland

M. Margaret McKeown San Diego

Kim McLane Wardlaw Pasadena

William A. Fletcher San Francisco

Raymond C. Fisher Pasadena

Ronald M. Gould Seattle

Richard A. Paez Pasadena

Marsha S. Berzon San Francisco

Richard C. Tallman Seattle

Johnnie B. Rawlinson Las Vegas

Richard R. Clifton Honolulu

Jay S. Bybee Las Vegas

Consuelo M. Callahan Sacramento

Carlos T. Bea San Francisco

Milan D. Smith, Jr. El Segundo

Sandra S. Ikuta Pasadena

N. Randy Smith Pocatello

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Judges

in Order of Seniority

 Judge Chambers Location

*Deceased 2008
The Work of the Courts 45

Criminal and civil cases filed in the federal district courts of the Ninth Circuit increased slightly in 2008. 

District courts in the circuit reported a combined 55,377 

filings, up 0.5 percent from the prior year. The Ninth 

Circuit total represented 16.4 percent of the national 

district court caseload of 337,795 criminal and civil filings. 

Overall, national filings decreased by 7.2 percent in 2008.

Criminal Filings, Terminations and 

Pending Cases

Criminal filings in district courts of the 

circuit totaled 15,345 in 2008, up 5 

percent from the prior year. Criminal 

filings accounted for 27.7 percent of 

the circuit’s total district court filings. 

Immigration offenses were the largest 

category of criminal filings, numbering 

6,935 and constituting 45.2 percent of 

the total criminal filings. Drug offenses 

followed with 2,929 filings, or 19.1 

percent of the total.

Increases were reported in 12 of 19 

categories of criminal filings (see Table 

6). Categories with the largest increases 

were robbery, 178 filings, up 32.8 percent 

from 2007; property offenses, 37 filings, 

up 32.1 percent, and homicide, 50 filings, 

up 28.2 percent. Also showing increases 

were other immigration offenses, 2,511 

filings, up 25 percent, and sex offenses, 

539 filings, up 24.2 percent.

Nationwide, criminal filings (excluding 

transfers) numbered 72,164, up 5.3 

percent from 2007. District courts of the 

Ninth Circuit accounted for 21.1 percent 

of the national criminal caseload, a slight 

decrease of .1 percent from last year. 

Immigration cases accounted for 31.9 

percent of criminal cases filed nationally 

while drug offense cases accounted for 

21.8 percent in 2008.

Nine out of 15 districts reported increases in criminal 

filings in 2008. The Southern District of California had the 

largest numerical increase, reporting 4,554 filings, up 31.8 

percent from 3,455 cases the year before, followed by the 

Central District of California with 1,893 new cases, up 

15.9 percent; the Northern District of California with 787 

new cases, up 21.5 percent; and the District of Hawaii, 

with 555 new cases, up 30.3 percent.

2007

Total

2008

Total

Change 

2007-2008

Civil Filings 40,478 40,032 -1.1%

Criminal Filings 14,615 15,345 5.0%

Total Filings 55,093 55,377 0.5%

Civil Terminations 39,245 40,580 3.4%

Criminal Terminations 15,048 15,497 3.0%

Total Terminations 54,293 56,077 3.3%

 *Pending Civil Cases 41,192 40,644 -1.3%

 *Pending Criminal Cases 13,546 13,394 -1.1%

*Total Pending Cases 54,738 54,038 -1.3%

Civil Case Termination Index 

(in months) 12.6 12.0 -4.8%

*Criminal Case Termination Index 

(in months) 10.8 10.4 -3.7%

*Overall Case Termination Index 12.1 11.6 -4.1%

Median Months (from filing to 

disposition) Civil Cases 7.8 7.9 1.3%

Median Months (from filing to 

disposition) Criminal Defendants 6.4 6.0 -6.3%

Median Months National Total 

from filing to disposition) Civil 

Cases 8.7 8.1 -6.9%

Median Months National Total 

from filing to disposition) Criminal 

Defendants 7.0 6.7 -4.3%

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

more defendants. Includes defendants in all felony and Class A misdemeanor cases, 

but includes only those petty offense defendants whose cases have been assigned to 

district judges. Median time intervals computed from the date case was filed to the 

date the defendant was either found not guilty or was sentenced.

*Revised

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

Terminated, and Pending, 2008 5

District Courts
46 Annual Report 2008

AK AZ

C. 

Calif.

E. 

Calif.

N. 

Calif.

S. 

Calif. HI ID MT NV OR

E. 

Wash.

W. 

Wash. GU NMI

2007

Total

2008

Total

Change

2007- 08

Violent

Offenses

Homicide 0 23 1 3 0 1 0 1 16 0 3 0 2 0 0 39 50 28.2%

Robbery 2 10 34 12 16 15 8 2 2 12 44 2 16 3 0 134 178 32.8%

Assault 0 78 14 7 7 19 5 7 35 7 12 2 6 0 0 283 199 -29.7%

Other 0 15 5 10 2 2 3 2 7 6 1 4 4 0 1 66 62 -6.1%

Property

Offenses

Burglary, 

Larceny & 

Theft 2 65 55 49 38 5 28 7 18 9 23 5 129 16 1 603 450 -25.4%

Embezzlement 12 16 12 9 4 3 3 3 7 2 6 4 14 2 1 79 98 24.1%

Fraud 16 140 384 76 114 388 67 40 51 59 58 23 85 21 3 1,777 1,525 -14.2%

Forgery & 

Counterfeiting 0 7 50 21 7 1 3 2 0 4 4 7 2 0 2 90 110 22.2%

Other 0 1 1 7 1 1 3 0 2 3 5 3 10 0 0 28 37 32.1%

Drug Offenses

Marijuana 1 303 17 34 4 681 11 4 4 1 19 5 67 0 0 1,238 1,151 -7.0%

All Other 

Drugs 64 200 249 164 120 376 89 46 75 61 92 84 139 11 8 1,706 1,778 4.2%

Firearms and

Explosives

Offenses 24 162 121 90 87 45 17 56 59 66 58 62 62 11 2 901 922 2.3%

Sex Offenses 7 53 135 71 39 34 11 22 60 34 25 19 28 1 0 434 539 24.2%

Justice System

Offenses 1 48 14 9 13 24 0 6 4 6 6 5 15 1 0 153 152 -0.7%

Immigration

Offenses

Improper Alien 

Reentry 2 1,794 653 294 242 978 9 87 22 104 59 155 25 0 0 3,924 4,424 12.7%

Other 0 236 26 6 9 1,938 1 5 2 11 206 2 67 1 1 2,008 2,511 25.0%

General

Offenses 1 13 33 39 16 12 10 1 18 13 16 3 53 0 1 250 229 -8.4%

Regulatory

Offenses 15 57 64 20 21 22 6 10 2 3 21 4 15 5 0 294 265 -9.9%

Traffic

Offenses 10 2 8 15 43 0 275 0 6 2 1 0 200 9 0 515 571 10.9%

All Offenses

Total 157 3,223 1,876 936 783 4,545 549 301 390 403 659 389 939 81 20 14,522 15,251 5.0%

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

(Excluding Transfers), 2008 6

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

to district judges.
The Work of the Courts 47

Unweighted Filings Per Judgeship Weighted Filings Per Judgeship

District

Authorized

Judgeships Civil Criminal

Supervised 

Release 

Hearings

2008

Total Civil Criminal

Supervised

Release 

Hearings

2008

Total

2007

Total

Change

2007-2008

Alaska 3 121 78 5.67 205 133 71 0.87 205 199 3.0%

Arizona 13 244 287 111.38 642 257 201 15.61 474 528 -10.2%

C. Calif. 28 430 98 45.18 573 496 84 6.36 586 569 3.0%

E. Calif. 6 803 238 64.17 1,106 791 204 9.01 1,004 866 15.9%

N. Calif. 14 404 69 42.64 516 521 52 5.97 579 615 -5.9%

S. Calif. 13 187 398 90.23 675 221 243 12.72 477 427 11.7%

Hawaii 4 148 158 30.75 337 192 91 4.54 288 290 -0.7%

Idaho 2 275 202 31.00 508 311 178 4.58 493 505 -2.4%

Montana 3 188 152 46.67 387 209 156 7.28 373 379 -1.6%

Nevada 7 362 72 39.43 474 424 63 6.10 493 466 5.8%

Oregon 6 350 136 58.33 545 374 115 8.25 497 558 -10.9%

E. Wash. 4 145 129 119.75 394 152 108 17.02 277 270 2.6%

W. Wash. 7 371 172 34.43 577 445 119 5.00 569 596 -4.5%

Circuit

Total 110 4,028 2,189 720 6,939 4,526 1,685 103.31 6,315 6,268 0.7%

Circuit

Mean

*** 310 168 55.36 534 348 130 7.95 486 482 0.7%

Circuit

Median

*** 275 152 45.18 516 311 115 6.36 493 505 -2.4%

National

Mean

*** 321 138 33.17 493 354 109 4.84 468 468 0.0%

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

77 Ninth Circuit District Courts - Weighted and Unweighted Filings Per Authorized Judgeship, 2008
48 Annual Report 2008

Criminal case filings decreased in the District of Guam, 

81 cases, down 30.2 percent; the District of Arizona, 

3,231 cases, down 20.8 percent; the District of Northern 

Mariana Islands, 20 cases, down 16.7 percent; the Western 

District of Washington, 950 cases, down 16.3 percent; the 

District of Montana, 392 cases, down 12.1 percent; and 

the District of Alaska, 169 cases, down 6.6 percent.

The district courts of the circuit terminated 15,497 

criminal cases in 2008, up 3 percent from the prior year. 

The number of pending criminal cases decreased to 

13,394, down 1.1 percent from 2007.

Civil Filings, Terminations and Pending Cases

Civil filings in the Ninth Circuit district courts declined 

1.1 percent to 40,032 new cases in 2008. The circuit 

accounted for 15.1 percent of the 265,178 civil filings 

in the district courts nationally in 2008. Civil filings 

increased nationally by 7.8 percent over the prior year.

Private civil cases accounted for 79.3 percent of all 

new civil filings in district courts of the circuit. The 

U.S. government acted as a plaintiff or defendant in 

the remaining 20.7 percent of the new filings. Prisoner 

petitions made up 33.5 percent of all new private civil 

cases, up slightly from the prior year. Other major 

categories of new private civil filings were civil rights, 

15.6 percent; contracts, 12.2 percent; and copyright, 

patent and trademark cases, 8.3 percent. 

Among civil filings in which the government was a party, 

the most numerous were Social Security, which accounted 

for 31.5 percent; prisoner petitions, 18.4 percent; and 

contracts 7.2 percent.

Eight out of 15 districts in the circuit reported fewer new 

civil cases. The largest numerical decreases were reported 

by the Northern District of California, which had 5,907 

filings, down 12.6 percent in 2007. The District of Oregon 

followed at 2,195, down 12 percent, and the District of 

Arizona at 3,298, down 7.7 percent.

Elsewhere in the circuit, increases in new civil filings were 

reported in the districts of Alaska, Eastern California, 

Central California, Southern California, Idaho, Nevada, 

and Northern Mariana Islands. 

Civil case terminations in the Ninth Circuit numbered 

40,580, up 3.4 percent from 39,245 in 2007. The number 

of pending civil cases was, down 1.3 percent from 41,192 

the prior year.

Case Processing Times

Case processing times in the district courts of the Ninth 

Circuit’s improved in 2008. The Case Termination Index, 

which computes how long it would take to clear the 

pending caseload if the current termination rate remained 

constant, was 11.6 months in 2008, down from 12.1 in 

2007.

The median time from filing to disposition for civil cases 

in the Ninth Circuit was 7.9 months, slightly longer than 

the 7.8 months reported in 2007. The national median 

time for civil cases was reduced to 8.1 months in 2008 

compared with 8.7 months in 2007.

For criminal cases, the median time from filing to 

disposition in the Ninth Circuit was 6 months, compared 

to 6.4 months the year before. The national median time 

was 6.7 months, down 7 months in 2007.
The Work of the Courts 49

Bankruptcy filings in the Ninth Circuit 

rose 70 percent in calendar year 2008 

with a total of 216,517 new cases reported. 

Filings were up in 14 judicial districts of the 

circuit, with 

the biggest 

increases 

reported by 

bankruptcy 

courts in 

California, 

Arizona, and Nevada. The sub-prime 

mortgage crisis and rising unemployment 

were key factors driving the upturn 

throughout the circuit.

The biggest increase in filings was reported by 

the Central District of California, which takes 

in seven Southern California counties with a 

combined population of more than 18 million. 

The district received 65,856 new bankruptcy 

filings, up 93.5 percent from the prior year. 

Its Chapter 7 filings totaled 49,451, up 92.7 

percent, while Chapter 13 filings reached 

15,611, an increase of 94.8 percent.

Case filings have been increasing steadily in 

the Eastern District of California, whose 

jurisdiction includes areas hit hard by 

the subprime crisis. From 2004 to 2007, 

the district experienced the third highest 

percentage increase in the nation, according to 

the Administrative Office of the United States 

Courts. Bankruptcy filings in the Eastern 

District of California jumped 78.1 percent 

with 32,154 new cases.

The District of Arizona experienced an 78.9 

percent increase with 19,532 filings compared 

to 10,920 filings the previous year. Chapter 7

filings totaled 15,535, up 86.6 percent, while 

Chapter 13 filings increased 52.7 percent with 

3,586 new cases. 

In Nevada, another of the states hit hard by 

the sub-prime mortgage crisis, the bankruptcy 

court reported 18,716 new filings, up 70.9 

Bankruptcy Courts

percent from calendar year 2007. Chapter 7 filings jumped 93.5 

percent with 13,039 new cases, while Chapter 13 filings totaled 5,489, 

an increase of 33.7 percent.

Nevada has had one of highest foreclosures rates in the nation for the 

past two years. Heavily dependent on tourism, its unemployment rate 

has risen as casinos and other visitor destinations lay off staff. Lack of 

financing has stalled construction of major developments and several 

large casinos are reported to be in financial difficulties.

Bankruptcy Judge Gregg Zive of Reno, current president of the 

National Conference of Bankruptcy Judges, sees a clear corollary 

Caseload Measure 2007 2008

Change

2007-2008

Filings

 Business Chapter 7 3,705 6,945 87.4%

 Business Chapter 11 1,009 1,819 80.3%

 Business Chapter 12 36 41 13.9%

 Business Chapter 13 594 774 30.3%

 Non-Business Chapter 7 88,128 157,037 78.2%

 Non-Business Chapter 11 189 315 66.7%

 Non-Business Chapter 13 33,726 49,570 47.0%

 *Circuit Total 127,392 216,517 70.0%

Terminations 125,713 162,761 29.5%

**Pending Cases 143,634 197,390 37.4%

*Chapter 15 was added and section 304 was terminated by changes in 

the bankruptcy laws effective October 17, 2005.

(1) Section 101 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code defines consumer (nonbusiness) debt as that incurred by an individual primarily for a personal, 

family, or household purpose. If the debtor is a corporation or a 

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

the nature of the debt is business.

Calendar Year 2007: Central Calif. (Chapter 9 = 1 and Chapter 15 = 1); 

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

Arizona (Chapter 15 = 1); Central Calif. (Chapter 9 = 1 and Chapter 15 = 

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

Calendar Year 2008: Central Calif. (Chapter 15 = 3); Eastern Calif. 

(Chapter 9 = 1); Nevada (Chapter 15 = 2); Western Wash. (Chapter 9 = 1 

and Chapter 15 = 9)

**Pending cases for 2007 revised.

8 Business and Non-Business Bankruptcy Cases 

Commenced, by Chapter of the U.S. Bankruptcy 

Code, 2008

70%
50 Annual Report 2008

between depressed real estate values and bankruptcy 

filings.

“Those districts with the highest filings are in areas 

which had the greatest appreciation in real estate values 

and subsequently the greatest depreciation. There is an 

analogue there,” Judge Zive said.

Bankruptcy filings in the Southern District of California 

surged with 14,017 filings, up 76.6 percent, the highest 

annual filings since 1999 (excluding the flood of filings that 

preceded bankruptcy reform in 2005). Chapter 7 filings 

totaled 11,799, up 88 percent, while Chapter 13 filings 

also increased 31.6 percent with 2,139 total filings. 

The Northern District of California reported a total of 

21,196 filings, an increase of 68.2 percent the previous 

year with 12,599 cases. Chapter 7 filings jumped 94.3 

percent with 14,144 new cases reported, while Chapter 

13 filings were up 32.6 percent with 6,794 total filings.

The court’s four divisions in San Francisco, San Jose, 

Oakland and Santa Rose all reported increases.

The District of Hawaii reported a total of 2,087 

bankruptcy filings for 2008, an increase of 50.6 percent 

from the previous year with 1,386 cases. Chapter 7 filings 

were up 46.8 percent, while Chapter 13 filings also 

increased 68.3 percent with 436 total cases.

Bankruptcy filings in the Western District of Washington 

showed a 44.8 percent increase with 16,252 cases. Filings 

in Seattle totaled 6,380 and Tacoma with 5,059 cases. 

Chapter 7 filings totaled 11,413 cases, up 49.1 percent 

from 2007. Chapter 13 filings increased 34.9 percent with 

4,707 cases reported in 2008.

The District of Idaho followed suit in the increase of filings 

in the circuit. The district reported a total of 5,300 filings, 

an increase of 38.1 percent compared to the prior year 

with 3,838 cases. Chapter 7 filings totaled 4,450 cases 

while Chapter 13 filings totaled 815 cases. The court’s 

Boise division received more than two-thirds of the filings.

Bankruptcy filings in the District of Oregon totaled 

12,802, up 36.4 percent from the prior year with 9,386 

cases. Chapter 7 filings made up 74.6 percent of the total 

filings with 9,551 cases, while Chapter 13 filings made up 

24.9 percent with 3,184 total filings.

While the increase in Oregon was more modest than 

some places, the worst may be yet to come. The state’s 

unemployment was running 9 percent in December, the 

highest in more than 23 years and up from 5.5 percent in 

June of last year. Judges are hearing frequently that a debtor 

has lost a job, had work hours reduced, or lost a job and 

become re-employed at a lower rate of pay.

The Districts of Alaska, Montana, and Eastern Washington 

also experienced increase in filings for calendar year 2008. 

The District Alaska reported a total of 891 filings, up 27.8 

percent; the Eastern District of Washington with 5,583 cases, 

an increase of 28.5 percent; and the District of Montana with 

1,968 filings, also up 4.7 percent the prior year.

The only district reporting a decrease is the District of 

Northern Mariana Islands with 12 total filings, down 29.4 

percent last year with only 17 reported cases.

District

2007

Total

 2008 

Total

Change

2007-2008

Alaska 697 891 27.8%

Arizona 10,920 19,532 78.9%

C. Calif. 34,028 65,856 93.5%

E. Calif. 18,052 32,154 78.1%

N. Calif. 12,599 21,196 68.2%

S. Calif. 7,936 14,017 76.6%

Hawaii 1,386 2,087 50.6%

Idaho 3,838 5,300 38.1%

Montana 1,879 1,968 4.7%

Nevada 10,953 18,716 70.9%

Oregon 9,386 12,802 36.4%

E. Wash. 4,344 5,583 28.5%

W. Wash. 11,224 16,252 44.8%

Guam 133 151 13.5%

NMI 17 12 -29.4%

Circuit Total 127,392 216,517 70.0%

9 Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Courts

Total Filings, 2008
The Work of the Courts 51

Bankruptcy Appellate Panel

The Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, or BAP, 

operates under the authority of 

the Judicial Council of the Ninth 

Circuit. It is authorized seven 

bankruptcy judges who serve 

seven-year terms, renewable for 

an additional three-year term. 

Since 2003, one seat on the BAP 

has been left vacant intentionally 

due to reduced workload 

based on new filings. In their 

appellate capacity, BAP judges are 

precluded from hearing matters 

arising from their own districts. 

All district courts within the 

Ninth Circuit have issued 

general orders providing 

for the automatic referral of 

bankruptcy appeals to the BAP 

for disposition. However, if 

any party files a timely election 

to have the appeal heard by 

a district court, the appeal is 

transferred according to the 

consent rule. Historically, the 

BAP has heard between 49 

percent and 60 percent of the 

appeals filed each year.

New Filings

In the 2008 calendar year, 542 

new appeals were filed. The BAP 

received 49 percent of those 

filings, while the district courts 

had 51 percent. Bankruptcy 

appeal filings have been steadily 

declining from a seven-year high 

of 904 in 2002. The trend may be 

ending in light of the significant 

upturn in bankruptcy filings last 

year. Table 10 shows bankruptcy 

appeal filings by district for 

2008.

The Ninth Circuit 

Bankruptcy Appellate 

Panel consists of, seated 

from left, Bankruptcy 

Judges Jim D. Pappas of the 

District of Idaho, Dennis 

Montali of the Northern 

District of California 

(chair of the BAP), Randall 

L. Dunn of the District 

of Oregon; and, standing 

from left, Bankruptcy 

Judges Meredith A. Jury 

of the Central District 

of California, Bruce A. 

Markell of the District 

of Nevada, and Eileen W. 

Hollowell of the District of 

Arizona.

District

Bankruptcy 

Appellate Panel *District Court Total

Alaska 0 2 2

Arizona 27 26 53

C. Calif. 105 115 220

E. Calif. 34 24 58

N. Calif. 34 32 66

S. Calif. 6 18 24

Hawaii 2 3 5

Idaho 3 2 5

Montana 4 7 11

Nevada 16 21 37

Oregon 7 8 15

E. Wash. 1 2 3

W. Wash. 26 17 43

Totals 265 (49%) 277 (51%) 542

*The numbers for bankruptcy appeals to the district courts are 

taken directly from a statistical caseload table prepared by the 

Administrative Office of the United States Courts (“AOUSC Table 

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

calculated based on data from AOUSC Table B-23, and on data 

from the BAP’s CM/ECF docketing system. The district court 

numbers include all appeals heard in the district court (both 

appellant and appellee elections). The BAP numbers exclude all 

such appeals.

10 New Bankruptcy Appeal Filings, 2008
52 Annual Report 2008

Dispositions

The BAP disposed of 372 appeals in 2008. Of those, 117 

appeals were terminated on the merits. Oral argument 

was held in 105 appeals, and 12 appeals were submitted 

on briefs. Of the 117 merits decisions, 19 resulted in 

published opinions. The reversal rate was 5.1 percent. 

Median time from submission to decision for an appeal 

decided on the merits was 7.9 months, down from 8.9 

months in 2007. 

The remaining 255 appeals were terminated on 

procedural grounds, such as for lack of prosecution, lack 

of jurisdiction and consolidation, or based on voluntary 

dismissal. The BAP ended the period with 125 appeals 

pending.

Appeals to the Ninth Circuit

Appeals from a decision of either the BAP or a district 

court may be filed with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 

for second-level appellate review. In 2008, 164 secondlevel appeals were filed; 63 were appeals of BAP decisions 

by the BAP, 101 were from district court decisions. Thus, 

of the 372 appeals that were disposed of by the BAP, 

roughly 83 percent were fully resolved, with only about 17 

percent seeking second-level review. 
The Work of the Courts 53

Magistrate Judge Matters

I

n federal district courts, magistrate judges assist district 

judges in a wide range of judicial matters. Magistrate 

judges preside over preliminary proceedings and 

jurisdictional matters, some criminal and civil cases, and 

various other criminal and civil hearings. They also review 

prisoner petitions.

In the Ninth Circuit, 96 full-time and 12 part-time 

magistrate judges made significant contributions to the 

work of their courts in 2008. They disposed of a combined 

183,470 judicial matters during the year, up 3.1 percent 

from 2007. Increases were reported in 17 categories, 

led by criminal pretrial conferences, which jumped 92.3 

percent from 2007. Petty offenses for trial jurisdiction 

cases were up 34.1 percent from the prior year, while 

criminal evidentiary proceedings increased 31.7 percent. 

Decreases were seen in 15 categories including criminal 

motions, down 43.8 percent, Class A misdemeanors 

for trial jurisdiction cases, down 38.3 percent, and bail 

reviews/Nebbia proceedings, down 33 percent. 

Magistrate judges issued 1,519 more arrest warrants and 

summonses, up 27.5 percent from the year before. They 

also issued 1,222 more search warrants, an increase of 

15.8 percent from 2007. State habeas petitions were up 

13.3 percent from the year before and accounted for 52.2 

percent of all prisoner petitions.

New Magistrate Judges and Governance

Six new magistrate judges were sworn into office over 

the course of the year. They were John V. Acosta of the 

District of Oregon, Ronald E. Bush and Candy W. Dale of 

the District of Idaho, Douglas Thomas Ferraro, Jr., of the 

District of Arizona, James P. Hutton of the Eastern District 

of Washington, and Brian A. Tsuchida of the Western 

District of Washington.

Magistrate Judge Karen L. Strombom of the Western 

District of Washington was seated as the chair of the 

Magistrate Judges Executive Board. She succeeded 

Magistrate Judge Anthony J. Battaglia of the Southern 

District of California in July 2008. Judge Strombom serves 

as an official observer at meetings of the Judicial Council 

of the Ninth Circuit. Judge Strombom’s term as chair of 

the board expires in July 2011. Magistrate Judge Janice 

M. Stewart of the District of Oregon serves as vice-chair, 

The Magistrate Judges Executive Board consists of, seated from left, Judges James L. Larson (CAN), Leslie E. Kobayashi (HI), Anthony J. 

Battaglia (CAS), Robert A. McQuaid, Jr. (NV), and Stephen J. Hillman (CAC). Standing from left, Judges Karen L. Strombom (WAW), 

Deborah M. Smith (AK), David K. Duncan (AZ), Larry M. Boyle (ID), Janice M. Stewart (OR), Gregory G. Hollows (CAE), and Joaquin V.E. 

Manibusan (GU). Not pictured: Cynthia Imbrogno (WAE), Kevin S. C. Chang (HI), Candy W. Dale (ID), and Nita L. Stormes (CAS).
54 Annual Report 2008

Activity

2007

Total

2008

Total

Change

2007-2008

Total Matters 177,890 183,470 3.1%

Preliminary Proceedings 80,158 79,112 -1.3%

 Search Warrants 7,730 8,952 15.8%

 Arrest Warrants/Summonses 5,529 7,048 27.5%

 Initial Appearances 24,587 22,093 -10.1%

 Preliminary Examinations 5,693 4,734 -16.8%

 Arraignments 13,987 15,245 9.0%

 Detention Hearings 13,642 12,278 -10.0%

 Bail Reviews/Nebbia Hearings 2,900 1,942 -33.0%

 Other5 6,090 6,820 12.0%

Trial Jurisdiction Cases 21,617 27,713 28.2%

 Class A Misdemeanors 1,764 1,089 -38.3%

 Petty Offenses 19,853 26,624 34.1%

Civil Consent Cases 2,459 2,794 13.6%

 Without Trial 2,398 2,737 14.1%

 Jury Trial 37 37 0.0%

 Nonjury Trial 24 20 -16.7%

Additional Duties

 Criminal 28,159 27,563 -2.1%

 Motions 636(b)(1)(A)1 11,968 9,384 -21.6%

 Motions 636(b)(1)(B) 648 364 -43.8%

 Evidentiary Proceedings 164 216 31.7%

 Pretrial Conferences2 2,621 5,039 92.3%

 Probation Revocation and

 Supervised Release Hearings 1,034 729 -29.5%

 Guilty Pleas 6,771 7,183 6.1%

 Other3 4,953 4,648 -6.2%

 Civil 29,544 29,475 -0.2%

 Settlement Conferences 3,193 3,165 -0.9%

 Other Pretrial Conferences2

4,048 3,948 -2.5%

 Motions 636(b)(1)(A)1 16,176 16,462 1.8%

 Motions 636(b)(1)(B) 1,144 1,168 2.1%

 Evidentiary Proceedings 24 28 16.7%

 Social Security 735 673 -8.4%

 Special Masterships 107 111 3.7%

 Other4 4,117 3,920 -4.8%

 Prisoner Petitions 5,723 6,274 9.6%

 State Habeas 2,892 3,278 13.3%

 Federal Habeas 359 376 4.7%

 Civil Rights 2,397 2,570 7.2%

 Evidentiary Proceedings 75 50 -33.3%

Miscellaneous Matters6 10,230 10,539 3.0%

11 Matters Disposed of by Ninth Circuit Magistrate Judges

Period:12 Months Ending September 30, 2008

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. 

Beginning in 2006, early neutral evaluations 

were added.

5 Category includes material witness 

hearings and attorney appointment 

hearings.

6 Before 2000, this category included 

seizure/inspection warrants and orders of 

entry; judgement debtor exams; extradition 

hearings, contempt proceedings; Criminal 

Justice Act fee applications; naturalization 

proceedings; grand 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 55

succeeding Magistrate Judge Leslie E. Kobayashi of the 

District of Hawaii.

The Magistrate Judges Executive Board also participated 

in the orientation of new magistrate judges and held a 

roundtable discussion after their April meeting in San 

Francisco. The new members of the board in 2008 include 

Magistrate Judges Kevin S. C. Chang of Honolulu, Candy 

W. Dale of Boise, and Nita L. Stormes of San Diego.

Educational Programs

A Pretrial and Misdemeanor Sentencing Institute 

sponsored by the Magistrate Judges Executive Board was 

held in San Diego on November 5-7, 2008. Chaired by 

Magistrate Judge Anthony J. Battaglia, the program was 

modeled after the Sentencing Institute offered to Article III 

judges by the Federal Judicial Center. Cosponsors

included the FJC, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the U.S. 

Detention Trustee, the U.S. Sentencing Commission, and 

the U.S. Probation and U.S. Pretrial Services Offices for 

the Southern District of California. 

At the 2008 Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference in Sun 

Valley, Idaho, the Magistrate Judges Education program 

featured a panel discussion of issues faced by courts in 

applying electronic discovery (eDiscovery) rules. Panelists 

included Magistrate Judge William McCurine, Jr., of the 

Central District of California; Adam S. Bendell, president 

of Strategic Discovery, Inc.; Michael Kelleher, litigation 

partner at Folger Levin & Kahn; and Kimberly A. Udovic, 

senior counsel at Honda. From the perspective of the 

attorney, vendor, client and judge, the panel delved 

deeper into the eDiscovery process with the goal of 

providing more clarity into the practical realities from the 

perspectives presented.
56 Annual Report 2008

Bucking the national trend, federal public defenders and 

community defenders in the Ninth Circuit reported 

opening more new cases in fiscal year 2008 than the prior 

fiscal year. Defenders in 11 of 14 judicial districts of the 

Ninth Circuit reported more new cases with Alaska, Hawaii 

and Nevada reporting the highest percentage increases

While the number of new defender cases nationally declined 

by 6.3 percent, Ninth 

Circuit defenders reported 

an increase of 3.6 percent, 

opening 29,700 new cases. 

The Ninth Circuit had 22.5 

percent of the new cases 

opened nationally, down from 

28.8 percent in FY 2007. 

Ninth Circuit defenders 

closed 29,233 cases, an 

increase of 3.5 percent from 

the prior year.

New case openings varied in the circuit’s two border 

courts. In the Southern District of California, defenders 

opened 5,840 new cases in FY 2008, up 17.3 percent from 

4,980 in FY 2007. The District of Arizona, meanwhile, 

reported 8,912 cases opened, down 11.9 percent from 

10,121 new cases the prior fiscal year. Of Arizona’s new 

cases, 7,785 or 87.4 percent of the total were criminal in 

nature, many of them involving illegal immigration. 

The top five districts with the largest increase in number 

of cases opened were the Central District of California, 

3,724 new cases, up 15.4 percent; the Eastern District 

of California, 2,230 new cases, up 12.5 percent; the 

District of Oregon, 1,737 new cases, up 11.8 percent; the 

Northern District of California, 1,050 new cases, up 12.4 

percent; and the District of Nevada, 1,176 new cases, up 

18 percent.

Joining Arizona in reporting decreases from the prior fiscal 

year were the District of Guam, 119 new cases, down 41.1 

percent, and the District of Idaho, 266 new cases, down 

11.3 percent.

Circuit caseloads have varied over the last six years with 

increases reported in 2004, 2006, 2007, and 2008, and 

decreases in 2003 and 2005.

Congress created the Office of the Federal Public 

Defender to fulfill the constitutional requirement that 

indigents charged with federal crimes be provided with 

no-cost, professional legal representation. Congress funds 

public defender and community defender offices through 

the Defender Services Division of the Administrative 

Office of the United States Courts.

Community defender organizations are non-profit legal 

service organizations staffed by non-government employees, 

while public defender offices are federal agencies staffed by 

employees of the judiciary. Both types of organizations are 

staffed with experienced federal criminal law practitioners 

who provide a consistently high level of representation. 

In addition to criminal defense and appeals, public 

defenders are assigned to court-directed prisoner 

and witness representations, bail/pre-sentencing, and 

probation and parole revocation hearings.

Pending and Closed Cases

The pending caseload of Ninth Circuit federal public and 

community defenders was 9,340 cases, up 5.2 percent the 

prior fiscal year. 

Reappointment

By statute, judges of the circuit court of appeals select 

and appoint federal public defenders to four-year terms. 

The court makes its initial appointment after a nationwide 

recruitment and the use of a local screening committee. 

A federal public defender may be reappointed if the 

court concludes that he or she is performing in a highly 

satisfactory manner based upon a broad survey and 

performance evaluation process.

Cases 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Change 

2007-2008

Opened 54,543 23,157 25,779 28,676 29,700 3.6%

Closed 24,215 22,979 25,795 28,253 29,233 3.5%

Pending 8,287 8,460 8,471 8,880 9,340 5.2%

12 Federal Defender Organizations - Cases Opened, Closed and Pending

Period: 12 Months Ending September 30, 2008 

Federal Public Defenders
The Work of the Courts 57

District

Opened

Sept. 30, 2007

Opened

Sept. 30, 2008

Change

2007-2008

Closed

Sept. 30, 2008

Pending

Sept. 30, 2008

Alaska 277 364 31.4% 346 136

Arizona 10,121 8,912 -11.9% 8,968 1,088

C. Calif. 3,227 3,724 15.4% 3,569 1,536

E. Calif. 1,983 2,230 12.5% 2,040 1,009

N. Calif. 934 1,050 12.4% 983 442

*S. Calif. 4,980 5,840 17.3% 5,887 1,599

Guam 202 119 -41.1% 106 71

Hawaii 481 583 21.2% 569 477

*Idaho 300 266 -11.3% 239 164

*Montana 678 694 2.4% 682 293

Nevada 997 1,176 18.0% 1,125 683

Oregon 1,554 1,737 11.8% 1,664 1,007

*E. Wash. 812 835 2.8% 839 276

W. Wash. 2,130 2,170 1.9% 2,216 559

Circuit Total 28,676 29,700 3.6% 29,233 9,340

National Total 99,503 132,117 32.8% 123,741 45,064

Circuit Total as % 

of National Total 28.8% 22.5% -6.3% 23.6% 20.7%

*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.

13 Federal Defender Organizations - Summary of Representations by District

Period: 12 Months Ending September 30, 2008

In 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 

reappointed the following federal public defenders:

• Richard Curtner, reappointed to a fourth term for the 

District of Alaska on January 2 and has served as the FPD 

in Alaska since 1996;

• Steven Wax, reappointed to a seventh term for the 

District of Oregon on January 20 and has served as the 

FPD in Oregon since 1983;

• Barry Portman, reappointed to a sixth term for the 

Northern District of California on May 19 and has served 

as the district’s FPD since 1988;

• Peter Wolff, reappointed to a fourth term for the 

District of Hawaii on July 15 and has served as the FPD in 

Hawaii since 1996; and

• Jon Sands, reappointed to a second term for the District 

of Arizona on August 30 and has served as the district’s 

FPD since 2004.
58 Annual Report 2008

Probation Officers

United States probation officers prepare pre-sentence 

investigation reports on convicted offenders, 

and supervise offenders who are placed on probation, 

supervised release, parole, and conditional release. There 

are 835 probation officers and other probation staff in the 

Ninth Circuit, working under the direction of their chief 

probation officers and respective district courts. They have 

a significant role in the federal criminal justice system. 

As part of the pre-sentence process, probation officers 

conduct an independent investigation of the offense 

conduct, identify applicable 

guidelines and policy 

statements, calculate 

the defendant’s offense 

level and criminal history 

category, report the resulting 

sentencing range, and identify 

factors relevant to the 

appropriate sentence.

In the area of supervision, 

probation officers establish supervision plans and make use 

of numerous programs to facilitate an offender’s successful 

supervision. In the Ninth Circuit, probation officers perform 

their duties in a variety of setting, from courthouses in large 

metropolitan areas to one-person offices in rural areas. 

Probation officers in the circuit exemplify the highest ideals 

and standards in community corrections and are recognized 

nationally for delivering the highest quality services.

Offenders Under Supervision

The Ninth Circuit experienced a slight increase in the 

number of persons under post-conviction supervision. 

In fiscal year 2008, there were 20,241 persons under 

supervision, up 1.6 percent from 19,929 in FY 2007. The 

circuit accounted for 16.8 percent of the national total of 

120,676 persons under supervision.

Among persons under supervision in the Ninth Circuit, 4,117 

were on probation from the courts, while 16,124 were on 

supervised release from institutions. Another 317 persons 

were on parole and 10 in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons.

The Central District of California with 5,493 cases and 

the District of Arizona with 3,146 cases had the most 

persons under supervision. The District of Guam reported 

the greatest increase in supervision percentage-wise, up 

16.8 percent with 113 cases. The Northern District of 

California followed with 1,463 cases, up 9.5 percent from 

1,336 cases the prior fiscal year.

Five judicial districts in the Ninth Circuit reported 

decreases in the number of persons under supervision. 

The District of the Northern Mariana Islands reported 

33 cases, down 15.4 percent, followed by the District of 

Montana with 606 cases, down 3.7 percent. Although the 

Central District of California had the highest number of 

persons under supervision, its total cases declined by 2.1 

percent. The District of Oregon with 1,048 cases was 

down 4.2 percent, while the District of Nevada with 1,190 

cases decreased by .3 percent.

Drug offenders comprised the largest group of persons 

under supervision both in the Ninth Circuit and nationally. 

In fiscal year 2008, persons who were under supervision 

in the Ninth Circuit for drug violations totaled 7,925, an 

increase of 2.2 percent from 7,758 in FY 2007. Drug cases 

accounted for 39.2 percent of persons under supervision 

in the circuit. The next largest category of offenders was 

property violations with 4,876 persons under supervision 

or 24.1 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

In FY 2008, Ninth Circuit cases that were revoked and 

closed after post-conviction supervision numbered 

2,797, a slight increase of .9 percent from FY 2007. Of 

the revocations, 252 were from courts and 2,492 from 

Persons Under Supervision 2007 2008 Change 2007-2008

From Courts 4,235 4,117 -2.8%

From Institutions 15,694 16,124 2.7%

Total 19,929 20,241 1.6%

14 Ninth Circuit Federal Probation System

Persons Under Post-Conviction Supervision

Period: 12 Months Ending September 30, 2008
The Work of the Courts 59

From Courts Referred by Institutions

District Probation1

 Supervised

Release Parole2 BOP Custody3

2007

 Total Cases

2008

 Total Cases

Change

2007-2008

Alaska 89 220 2 0 304 311 2.3%

Arizona 690 2,423 31 2 3,137 3,146 0.3%

C. Calif. 1,148 4,267 78 0 5,609 5,493 -2.1%

E. Calif. 328 1,240 23 0 1,554 1,591 2.4%

N. Calif. 399 1,030 34 0 1,336 1,463 9.5%

S. Calif. 209 1,840 19 0 1,914 2,068 8.0%

Hawaii 114 702 8 0 804 824 2.5%

Idaho 113 308 4 0 407 425 4.4%

Montana 120 482 4 0 629 606 -3.7%

Nevada 275 850 65 0 1,193 1,190 -0.3%

Oregon 234 790 24 0 1,070 1,048 -2.1%

E. Wash. 44 419 3 0 434 466 7.4%

W. Wash. 283 1,086 20 0 1,338 1,389 3.8%

Guam 68 113 2 5 161 188 16.8%

NMI 3 27 0 3 39 33 -15.4%

Circuit Total 4,117 15,797 317 10 19,929 20,241 1.6%

1 Includes judge and magistrate judge probation

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

3 BOP (Bureau of Prisons)

Ninth Circuit Federal Probation System, Persons Under Post-Conviction Supervision by District

Period: 12 Months Ending September 30, 2008

15

institutions. Nationwide, total cases revoked and closed 

was 13,459 cases, down 1.9 percent in FY 2007. The Ninth 

Circuit had 20.8 percent of all cases revoked nationally.

Early Terminations

Since 2002, the Committee on Criminal Law of 

the Judicial Conference of the United States has 

encouraged officers to identify offenders who qualify 

for early termination. In general, when the conditions of 

supervision have been met and the offender does not pose 

a foreseeable risk to public safety or any individual third 

party, the probation officer may request the sentencing 

judge to consider early termination. 

During FY 2008, a total of 1,301 cases were terminated 

early by judges in the Ninth Circuit. The District of 

Arizona led with 323 cases or 24.8 percent of the total 

early terminations. The Central District of California 

had 197 early terminations or 15.1 percent, followed by 

the Eastern District of California with 158 cases or 12.1 

percent. The circuit average was 6.7 percent, down slightly 

from 7.2 percent in 2008. 

Of Note

• Chief Probation Officer 

Richard Crawford of 

the U.S. Probation 

Office for the District 

of Hawaii received the 

2008 Director’s Award for 

Outstanding Leadership. 

Chief Crawford’s district 
60 Annual Report 2008

utilizes cognitive behavioral therapy in conjunction 

with an electronic journaling system for offenders. 

In addition, he pioneered satellite drug screening and 

reporting stations in remote areas of the islands of 

Hawaii. Chief Crawford has been the chief probation 

officer for the district since 2005. He received his 

bachelor’s degree from Moorhead State University in 

Moorhead, Minnesota, and his master’s degree from 

Fordham University in Bronx, New York.

• Information Systems Manager 

George W. Hoggan of the 

U.S. Probation Office for the 

Southern District of California 

received the 2008 Director’s 

Award for Excellence in 

Court Operations (Court 

Technology) for developing 

the Probation and Pretrial 

Services Case Tracking 

System (PACTS) Document Imaging Module (PDIM). 

The module creates electronic access to key case 

documents and allows officers to access documents 

from any location, saving time, money and space. 

Mr. Hoggan was the first systems manager for the 

probation office in Southern District of California. He 

received his bachelor’s degree from Brigham Young 

University in 1980. 
The Work of the Courts 61

United States pretrial services officers working in the Ninth Circuit have key roles in the judicial system. 

Officers prepare bail reports that help judges decide 

whether to detain or release a defendant prior to trial, 

and they monitor and supervise those defendants who 

have been released. In addition, pretrial services officers 

recommend eligibility for and supervision of diversion 

programs in each district.

The primary mission of 

pretrial services officers 

is to assist in the fair 

administration of justice, 

to protect the community, 

and to bring about a longterm positive change in 

individuals who are under 

supervision. To achieve 

these goals, officers work 

diligently to ensure that 

defendants appear for court as required and are not rearrested while awaiting trial. Officers are professionally 

trained, utilize contracted services for treatment of 

substance abuse and mental health problems, and make 

use of advanced technology. 

Pretrial services offices in the Ninth Circuit ranked first 

nationally in new cases last year. Case activations totaled 

26,898 in 2008, an increase of 10.6 percent from 2007. 

New case activations nationwide totaled 100,431, up 

4.6 percent from the previous year. The Ninth Circuit 

accounted for 26.8 percent of the national total, up from 

25.3 percent in 2007.

Pretrial services offices in 11 of 15 judicial districts 

reported increases in case activations. The Southern District 

of California, a border court with a heavy immigration 

caseload, led with an increase of 22.7 percent, 7,557 cases 

compared to 6,159 cases in 2007. Also reporting increases 

were the Central District of California, up 20.8 percent 

with 3,070 case activations compared to 2,542 cases in 

2007; the Northern District of California with 1,031 new 

cases, up 18.8 percent from 2007; and the Eastern District 

of California, with 1,299 case activations, up 15 percent 

from 1,130 activations the year before. 

Four districts reported fewer new cases. The District of 

Guam had 114 new cases in 2008, down 8.8 percent; the 

District of Montana, 503 new cases, down 4.4; the District 

of Hawaii, 366 new cases, down 3.4 percent; and the 

District of Arizona, 8,719 new cases, down slightly by .6 

percent. 

Pretrial Bail Interviews, Supervised Defendants

The number of interviews conducted by officers of pretrial 

defendants in the circuit increased in 2008. Interviews 

totaled 10,695 up 7.1 percent from 9,983 reports in 

2007. Pre-bail written reports increased to 25,896 from 

23,569, and post-bail reports also increased to 630 from 

494 the year before. 

Pretrial services officers made recommendations to the 

court in 94.1 percent of cases with interviews, compared 

to the national average of 87 percent. Detention was 

recommended in 62.1 percent of all cases in 2008, an 

increase of 1 percent from 2007. In comparison, offices of 

the United States attorneys in the circuit recommended 

detention in 93.2 percent of the cases, a spike from 63 

percent in 2007.

During 2008, a total of 5,772 defendants in the Ninth 

Circuit were released from custody to pretrial services 

supervision, six defendants less than the 2007 total. Of 

these, 4,508 were released on standard pretrial services 

supervision, a decrease of 1.3 percent from 2007; 

1,084 were supervised on a courtesy basis from another 

district or circuit, up 5.6 percent; and 180 were on 

pretrial diversion caseloads, a decrease of 1.1 percent.

Pretrial Services Officers

Caseload Measure 2007 2008 Change 2007-2008

*Reports 23,569 25,896 9.9%

Interviews 9,983 10,695 7.1%

Cases Activated 24,326 26,898 10.6%

*Includes prebail reports with and without recommendation, and includes types of reports 

categorized in previous periods as “other reports.”

16 Pretrial Services - Cases Activated in Ninth Circuit Courts, 2008
62 Annual Report 2008

Nonappearance and Re-Arrest Rates Remain Low

The rate of bail revocations due to nonappearance and/

or re-arrest of supervised defendants continued to be 

significantly low in 2008. The rate of nonappearance in 

the circuit stayed at 0.5 percent. The 15 district courts of 

the Ninth Circuit revoked the bail of 182 defendants who 

absconded from supervision.

Violations

Of 16,200 cases in release status in 2008, 1,542 had 

violations reported to the court. They include 98 violations 

for felony re-arrest, 92 for misdemeanor re-arrest, 68 for 

other re-arrest violations, and 86 for failure to appear. 

Technical violations, which include positive urine tests 

for illegal substances, violation of electronic monitoring 

conditions, possession of contraband, and failure to report 

to officer, accounted for the remainder of the 1,142 

reported violations.

Defendant Contact Written Reports

District Interviewed

*Not

 Interviewed **Prebail

Postbail

& Other

No 

Reports 

Made

Total Cases

Activated 

2007

Total Cases

Activated 

2008

Change

2007-2008

Alaska 83 162 235 0 10 219 245 11.9%

Arizona 1,194 7,525 8,660 32 27 8,771 8,719 -0.6%

C. Calif. 1,817 1,253 3,044 15 11 2,542 3,070 20.8%

E. Calif. 558 741 1,271 28 0 1,130 1,299 15.0%

N. Calif. 349 682 735 295 1 868 1,031 18.8%

S. Calif. 4,344 3,213 7,422 117 18 6,159 7,557 22.7%

Hawaii 264 102 366 0 0 379 366 -3.4%

Idaho 388 1 385 0 4 359 389 8.4%

Montana 259 244 482 15 6 526 503 -4.4%

Nevada 425 311 728 5 3 686 736 7.3%

Oregon 271 599 859 1 10 813 870 7.0%

E. Wash. 140 408 227 82 239 462 548 18.6%

W. Wash. 505 917 1,345 40 37 1,260 1,422 12.9%

Guam 77 37 109 0 5 125 114 -8.8%

NMI 21 8 28 0 1 27 29 7.4%

Circuit Total 10,695 16,203 25,896 630 372 24,326 26,898 10.6%

National 

Total 64,482 35,949 92,988 4,664 2,779 95,980 100,431 4.6%

Circuit % of

National 16.6% 45.1% 27.8% 13.5% 13.4% 25.3% 26.8% 1.4%

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

which defendants were interviewed in other districts.

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

reports.”

17 Pretrial Workload Chart, 2008
The Work of the Courts 63

Petit Juror Utilization Rate

Percent Not Selected or Challenged*

District

 Grand Juries 

Empaneled, 

2008

Grand Juries 

Selected, 

2008 2007 2008

Change

2007-2008

Alaska 3 32 22.7 33.5 47.6

Arizona 13 93 34.7 32.1 -7.5

C. Calif. 26 166 54.3 58.3 7.4

E. Calif. 10 97 42.9 41.4 -3.5

N. Calif. 7 49 41.6 47.6 14.4

S. Calif. 8 116 45.0 43.8 -2.7

Hawaii 5 27 36.9 34.2 -7.3

Idaho 6 22 22.2 42.7 92.3

Montana 4 65 32.3 27.9 -13.6

Nevada 4 41 58.0 56.5 -2.6

Oregon 8 47 16.4 43.5 165.2

E. Wash. 3 21 37.6 50.6 34.6

W. Wash. 4 52 35.8 31.4 -12.3

Guam 2 7 36.1 49.5 37.1

NMI 2 3 41.1 52.3 27.3

Circuit Total 105 838 *** ***

Circuit Average 7 56 37.2 43.0 15.6

National Average 8 63 36.8 37.9 3.0

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

selection day are not included. 

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

the conducting of voir dire but were not selected or challenged. Also includes jurors, not 

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

in the actual voir dire.

18 Juror Utilization, 2007-2008

Juror Utilization
64 Annual Report 2008

Languages AK AZ

C. 

Calif.

E. 

Calif.

N. 

Calif.

S. 

Calif. HI ID MT NV OR

E. 

Wash.

W. 

Wash. GU NMI Total

Arabic 0 6 58 6 10 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 89

Armenian 0 0 126 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 153

Cantonese 0 2 97 63 94 6 0 3 0 0 67 0 0 0 5 337

Farsi 0 1 144 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 159

Japanese 0 0 17 0 0 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23

Korean 0 2 114 1 57 4 66 20 1 0 1 0 1 3 25 295

Mandarin 0 8 155 1 53 40 26 6 0 0 9 0 0 0 19 317

Navajo (Certified) 0 61 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 61

Navajo 

(Non-Certified) 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21

Russian 0 0 31 19 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 12 80

Sign (American) 3 0 5 20 1 24 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 2 6 67

Sign (Mexican) 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

Spanish Staff 71 41,454 1,554 1,134 406 19,562 0 0 0 0 863 0 0 0 0 65,044

Spanish (Certified) 5 2,487 4,634 1,330 1,101 766 0 14 81 1 51 0 1,204 514 559 12,747

Spanish 

(Non-Certified) 0 36 0 12 0 0 1 139 348 101 232 0 124 187 31 1,211

Tagalog 2 0 28 8 14 1 1 8 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 66

Vietnamese 2 0 201 95 73 26 2 1 0 0 0 0 11 16 137 564

All Others 1 567 115 85 56 60 4 21 0 4 26 0 4 28 72 1,043

Subtotal 84 44,645 7,279 2,799 1,890 20,504 100 217 430 106 1,258 0 1,345 755 869 82,281

Document 

Translations 0 3278 146 77 1 162 0 0 0 0 25 0 4 301 1 3995

Individual 

Orientation 0 14 50 92 0 18 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 178

Orientation 

Workshop 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 6

Telephone 

Interpreting 79 8 15 1 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 109

Trial Days (Multiple) 4 101 87 101 5 141 0 0 19 4 61 0 11 0 16 550

Trial Days (One) 3 13 46 8 2 27 18 53 374 3 3 0 8 32 6 596

Grand Total 170 48,064 7,623 3,078 1,898 20,856 118 270 824 113 1,352 0 1,368 1,089 892 87,715

Court Interpreters

6 Interpreter Usage by Court Unit for District Courts

Period: 12 Months Ending September 30, 2008 19
District Caseloads

4

1

2

3

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

10 Montana

1 Alaska

8 Hawaii

15 Western 

Washington

14 Eastern

Washington

9 Idaho

11 Nevada

13 Oregon

5 Northern

California

3 Central

California

6 Southern

California

4 Eastern

California

2 Arizona

7 Guam

12 N. Mariana 

Islands

Ninth Circuit
66 Annual Report 2008

Authorized Judgeships

**District 28

***Bankruptcy 24

Magistrate

Full time 23

Part-time 1

Caseload Measure2007 2008

Change

2007-2008

Per Judgeship

Unweighted 2008

District Court

Filings 13,617 14,444 6.1% 516

Terminations 12,900 14,088 9.2% 503

*Pending 12,314 12,670 2.9% 453

Bankruptcy Court

Filings 34,028 65,856 93.5% 2,744

Terminations 29,330 40,414 37.8% 1,684

*Pending 26,019 51,461 97.8% 2,144

Authorized Judgeships

**District 13

Bankruptcy 7

Magistrate

Full time 13

Part-time 1

Caseload Measure2007 2008

Change

2007-2008

Per Judgeship

Unweighted 2008

District Court

Filings 7,656 6,529 -14.7% 502

Terminations 8,258 7,124 -13.7% 548

*Pending 5,497 4,902 -10.8% 377

Bankruptcy Court

Filings 10,920 19,532 78.9% 2,790

Terminations 13,579 15,011 10.5% 2,144

*Pending 17,774 22,295 25.4% 3,185

Authorized Judgeships

District 3

Bankruptcy 2

Magistrate

Full time 2

Part-time 4

Caseload Measure2007 2008

Change

2007-2008

Per Judgeship

Unweighted 2008

District Court

Filings 522 540 3.4% 180

Terminations 502 563 12.2% 188

*Pending 576 553 -4.0% 184

Bankruptcy Court

Filings 697 891 27.8% 446

Terminations 780 816 4.6% 408

*Pending 1,057 1,082 2.4% 541

Authorized places of holding court:

Anchorage, Fairbanks, Juneau, 

Ketchikan, Nome

1

*Total pending cases revised for 2007.

DISTRICT of ALASKA

DISTRICT of ARIZONA

Authorized places of holding court:

Flagstaff, Phoenix, Prescott, Tucson, 

Yuma

2

*Total pending cases revised for 2007.

**Includes one authorized temporary judgeship.

Authorized places of holding court: 

Los Angeles, Riverside, Santa Ana

3

*Total pending cases revised for 2007.

**Includes one authorized temporary judgeship.

***Includes three authorized temporary judgeships.

CENTRAL DISTRICT of CALIFORNIA

District Caseloads
The Work of the Courts 67

Caseload Measure2007 2008

Change

2007-2008

Per Judgeship

Unweighted 2008

District Court

Filings 5,420 5,914 9.1% 986

Terminations 4,948 5,591 13.0% 932

*Pending 8,037 8,360 4.0% 1,393

Bankruptcy Court

Filings 18,052 32,154 78.1% 4,593

Terminations 15,130 27,141 79.4% 3,877

*Pending 16,380 21,393 30.6% 3,056

Authorized Judgeships

District 6

**Bankruptcy 7

Magistrate

Full time 10

Part-time 0

Caseload Measure2007 2008

Change

2007-2008

Per Judgeship

Unweighted 2008

District Court

Filings 7,404 6,694 -9.6% 478

Terminations 6,633 6,910 4.2% 494

*Pending 8,256 9,040 9.5% 646

Bankruptcy Court

Filings 12,599 21,196 68.2% 2,355

Terminations 11,264 17,060 51.5% 1,896

*Pending 18,370 22,506 22.5% 2,501

Authorized Judgeships

District 14

**Bankruptcy 9

Magistrate

Full time 10

Part-time 1

Caseload Measure2007 2008

Change

2007-2008

Per Judgeship

Unweighted 2008

District Court

Filings 6,197 7,330 18.3% 564

Terminations 6,673 7,475 12.0% 575

*Pending 4,783 4,638 -3.0% 357

Bankruptcy Court

Filings 7,936 14,017 76.6% 3,504

Terminations 7,089 11,913 68.0% 2,978

*Pending 6,358 8,462 33.1% 2,116

Authorized Judgeships

District 13

**Bankruptcy 4

Magistrate

Full time 10

Part-time 0

Authorized places of holding court: 

Bakersfield, Fresno, Redding, 

Sacramento, South Lake Tahoe, 

Yosemite

4

*Total pending cases revised for 2007.

**Includes one authorized temporary judgeship.

EASTERN DISTRICT of CALIFORNIA

Authorized places of holding court: 

Eureka, Oakland, Salinas, San 

Francisco, San Jose, Santa Rosa

5

*Total pending cases revised for 2007.

NORTHERN DISTRICT of CALIFORNIA

Authorized places of holding court: 

El Centro, San Diego

6

*Total pending cases revised for 2007.

SOUTHERN DISTRICT of CALIFORNIA
68 Annual Report 2008

Caseload Measure2007 2008

Change

2007-2008

Per Judgeship

Unweighted 2008

District Court

Filings 152 102 -32.9% 102

Terminations 139 117 -15.8% 117

*Pending 158 143 -9.5% 143

Bankruptcy Court

Filings 133 151 13.5% 385

Terminations 207 127 -38.6% 271

*Pending 116 140 20.7% 327

Authorized Judgeships

District 1

Bankruptcy 0

Magistrate

Full time 1

Part-time 0

Caseload Measure2007 2008

Change

2007-2008

Per Judgeship

Unweighted 2008

District Court

Filings 1,067 1,159 8.6% 290

Terminations 1,217 1,253 3.0% 313

*Pending 1,075 981 -8.7% 245

Bankruptcy Court

Filings 1,386 2,087 50.6% 2,087

Terminations 1,539 1,760 14.4% 1,760

*Pending 1,295 1,622 25.3% 1,622

Authorized Judgeships

**District 4

Bankruptcy 1

Magistrate

Full time 3

Part-time 1

Caseload Measure2007 2008

Change

2007-2008

Per Judgeship

Unweighted 2008

District Court

Filings 811 867 6.9% 434

Terminations 837 817 -2.4% 409

*Pending 827 877 6.0% 439

Bankruptcy Court

Filings 3,838 5,300 38.1% 2,650

Terminations 4,855 4,546 -6.4% 2,273

*Pending 4,817 5,571 15.7% 2,786

Authorized Judgeships

District 2

Bankruptcy 2

Magistrate

Full time 2

Part-time 0

Authorized places of holding court:

Hagatna

7

The Guam district judge also handles all bankruptcy cases.

*Total pending cases revised for 2007.

DISTRICT of GUAM

DISTRICT of HAWAII

Authorized places of holding court:

Honolulu

8

*Total pending cases revised for 2007.

**Includes one authorized temporary judgeship.

Authorized places of holding court: 

Boise, Coeur d’Alene, Moscow, 

Pocatello

9

*Total pending cases revised for 2007.

DISTRICT of IDAHO

District Caseloads
The Work of the Courts 69

Caseload Measure2007 2008

Change

2007-2008

Per Judgeship

Unweighted 2008

District Court

Filings 1,056 986 -6.6% 329

Terminations 1,101 1,168 6.1% 389

*Pending 1,126 944 -16.2% 315

Bankruptcy Court

Filings 1,879 1,968 4.7% 1,968

Terminations 2,406 2,487 3.4% 2,487

*Pending 3,112 2,593 -16.7% 2,593

Authorized Judgeships

District 3

Bankruptcy 1

Magistrate

Full time 3

Part-time 1

Caseload Measure2007 2008

Change

2007-2008

Per Judgeship

Unweighted 2008

District Court

Filings 2,836 3,064 8.0% 438

Terminations 2,845 2,783 -2.2% 398

*Pending 3,345 3,626 8.4% 518

Bankruptcy Court

Filings 10,953 18,716 70.9% 4,679

Terminations 12,017 10,499 -12.6% 2,625

*Pending 15,222 23,439 54.0% 5,860

Authorized Judgeships

District 7

**Bankruptcy 4

Magistrate

Full time 6

Part-time 0

Caseload Measure2007 2008

Change

2007-2008

Per Judgeship

Unweighted 2008

District Court

Filings 61 74 21.3% 74

Terminations 77 52 -32.5% 52

*Pending 58 80 37.9% 80

Bankruptcy Court

Filings 17 12 -29.4% 32

Terminations 24 8 -66.7% 12

*Pending 21 25 19.0% 49

Authorized Judgeships

District 1

Bankruptcy 0

Magistrate

Full time 0

Part-time 0

Authorized places of holding court:

Billings, Butte, Great Falls, Helena, 

Missoula

10

*Total pending cases revised for 2007.

DISTRICT of MONTANA

DISTRICT of NEVADA

Authorized places of holding court:

Carson City, Elko, Ely, Las Vegas, 

Lovelock, Reno

11

*Total pending cases revised for 2007.

**Includes one authorized temporary judgeship.

Authorized places of holding court: 

Saipan

12

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

*Total pending cases revised for 2007.

DISTRICT of NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS
70 Annual Report 2008

Caseload Measure2007 2008

Change

2007-2008

Per Judgeship

Unweighted 2008

District Court

Filings 3,140 2,867 -8.7% 478

Terminations 3,080 3,050 -1.0% 508

*Pending 3,177 3,081 -3.0% 514

Bankruptcy Court

Filings 9,386 12,802 36.4% 2,560

Terminations 10,940 11,704 7.0% 2,341

*Pending 13,751 14,849 8.0% 2,970

Authorized Judgeships

District 6

Bankruptcy 5

Magistrate

Full time 6

Part-time 1

Caseload Measure2007 2008

Change

2007-2008

Per Judgeship

Unweighted 2008

District Court

Filings 1,002 1,059 5.7% 265

Terminations 945 1,086 14.9% 272

*Pending 889 862 -3.0% 216

Bankruptcy Court

Filings 4,344 5,583 28.5% 2,792

Terminations 4,990 5,536 10.9% 2,768

*Pending 5,315 5,362 0.9% 2,681

Authorized Judgeships

District 4

Bankruptcy 2

Magistrate

Full time 2

Part-time 0

Caseload Measure2007 2008

Change

2007-2008

Per Judgeship

Unweighted 2008

District Court

Filings 4,152 3,748 -9.7% 535

Terminations 4,138 4,000 -3.3% 571

*Pending 3,533 3,281 -7.1% 469

Bankruptcy Court

Filings 11,224 16,252 44.8% 3,250

Terminations 11,566 13,739 18.8% 2,748

*Pending 14,027 16,540 17.9% 3,308

Authorized Judgeships

District 7

Bankruptcy 5

Magistrate

Full time 5

Part-time 2

Authorized places of holding court:

Coquille, Eugene, Klamath Falls, 

Medford, Pendleton, Portland

13

*Total pending cases revised for 2007.

DISTRICT of OREGON

EASTERN DISTRICT of WASHINGTON

Authorized places of holding court:

Richland, Spokane, Walla Walla, 

Yakima

14

*Total pending cases revised for 2007.

Authorized places of holding court: 

Bellingham, Seattle, Tacoma

15

*Total pending cases revised for 2007.

WESTERN DISTRICT of WASHINGTON

District Caseloads
The Office of the Circuit Executive would like to thank the following for their assistance in 

researching and capturing the photographs of the Richard H. Chambers United States Courthouse in 

Pasadena used throughout the 2008 Ninth Circuit Annual Report:

Kathryn A. Way, Satellite Librarian

Richard H. Chambers U.S. Courthouse

Ninth Circuit Law Library, Pasadena

Edward Hosey, Deputy Circuit Librarian

James R. Browning U.S. Courthouse

Ninth Circuit Library, San Francisco

Rebecca Karberg, Historic Preservation Intern

General Services Administration, San Francisco
Office of the Circuit Executive

Cathy A. Catterson, Circuit & Court of Appeals Executive

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

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

http://www.ce9.uscourts.gov