Ninth Circuit

UNITED STATES COURTS

2002 ANNUAL REPORT
The Office of Circuit Executive would like to acknowledge the 

following for their contributions to the 2002 Annual Report:

Chief Judge Mary M. Schroeder

Clerk of Court Cathy Catterson

Chief Pretrial Services Officer Tim McTighe

Chief Probation Officer Sue Sorum 

Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Clerk Nancy Dickerson

Inside front cover: Cover image is from the ceremonial courtroom of the

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Ninth Circuit Overview 

Foreword, Chief Judge Mary M. Schroeder

An Overview of the Ninth Circuit

The Judicial Council and Administration of the Ninth Circuit

Judicial Council Organizational Chart

Judicial Policy Advisory Groups

Committees of the Ninth Circuit

Ninth Circuit Makes Strides in Managing Capital Habeas Cases

Public Information and Community Outreach Committee

Judicial Wellness Committee Focuses on Judges’ Health and Well Being

Transitions

New Judges in 2002

Deceased Judges

Space and Security

Ninth Circuit Committee Tackles Space and Security Issues

Courthouse Construction Projects

The Ninth Circuit in 2002

Summary of the Court of Appeals

Courts Adjust to Large Pro Se Caseload

Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference

International Relations

Alternative Dispute Resolution

Pretrial Services Carries Highest Caseload in Nation

Courts Rely on Probation Officers

Border Courts Lead Way in Federal Public Defender Cases

Statistical Overview

Appellate Filings Reach Historic High

District Court Filings on Upswing

Bankruptcy Filings Rise

Bankruptcy Appeals Up

Cases Terminated by Magistrate Judges 

Court Interpreter Usage / Juror Utilization Statistics

District Caseloads

3

7

8

9

10

12

14

16

18

22

24

27

32

35

37

40

44

45

48

52

56

59

63

66

67

68

69

Annual Report 2002 1
2 Ninth Circuit United States Courts

THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT

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

A. Wallace Tashima, Circuit Judge Sidney R. Thomas. Back row: Senior District Judge Robert J. Bryan, Chief Bankruptcy Judge Edward D.

Jellen, Chief District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel, Circuit Judge William A. Fletcher, Senior Circuit Judge Betty Binns Fletcher, Magistrate

Judge Virginia A. Mathis, Senior District Judge Jack D. Shanstrom, Chief District Judge David A. Ezra

The Mission of the Judicial Council of the

Ninth Circuit is to support the effective and

expeditious administration of justice and the

safeguarding of fairness in the administration

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

will promote the fair and prompt resolution of

disputes, ensure the effective discharge of

court business, prevent any form of invidious

discrimination, and enhance public understanding of, and confidence in, the judiciary.

MISSION STATEMENT

United States Courts for the Ninth Circuit

JUDICIAL COUNCIL
FOREWORD FORWARD

FOREWORD 

Chief Judge Mary M. Schroeder

Annual Report 2002 3

Each year, the federal courts of the Ninth Circuit can be counted

upon to decide any number of high-profile cases. While 2002

was no exception, it ultimately may be remembered not for

several big cases, but for thousands of smaller ones involving wouldbe immigrants to the United States. The Ninth Circuit Court of

Appeals typically deals with several hundred immigration appeals

every year. But in 2002, the

court was swamped with such

appeals, resulting in an unprecedented increase in case filings

and coloring virtually all of

the court’s annual statistics.

For the calendar year, the Court of Appeals received 12,388 appeals,

an increase of more than 23 percent from 2001, which, itself, was

a record year for case filings. The vast majority of the additional

appeals involved Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS)

matters. INS-related filings numbered 3,672 in 2002, an increase

of 302 percent from the prior year. The sudden influx skewed

national totals. While the Ninth Circuit accounted for nearly 21

percent of the national appellate filings for 2002, it had almost 57

percent of INS cases and 51 percent of the administrative agency

appeals filed last year.

Behind this dramatic change was a Department of Justice directive

to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) of the INS to clear a

backlog of pending appeals. Through expedited reviews, the BIA

began terminating cases at a rapid rate, most frequently by denial

of residency. Almost as quickly as the BIA closed these cases, they

were appealed to the Ninth Circuit. On average, the Court of

Appeals received 70 petitions for review of BIA decisions each

week in 2002. 

Nearly all of the petitions for review included motions to stay deportation. Under existing Ninth Circuit case law, a temporary stay is

automatically granted and a schedule set for timely agency response.

However, in an indication that these cases may be with us for some

time, the court has received numerous agency motions for extension

of time to respond to orders, file briefs, and prepare the records.

To provide flexibility to deal with so many cases, the court has

adopted a general order that establishes a streamlined notification

system and provides for oral extensions of the time limits set forth

in the existing rules. Further amendments to the order may be

made as warranted.
4 Ninth Circuit United States Courts

All told, the court met for a total of 441 panel days

in 2002. The court granted en banc review in 17

cases, hearing oral arguments in 16 and issuing

written opinions in 14.

The court’s burgeoning caseload was handled by an

active appellate bench of 24 judges (with four

vacancies), augmented by 21 senior circuit judges

and, sitting by designation, both district judges from

within the circuit and circuit judges from other

circuits. Senior circuit judges continued to make a

major contribution to court operations, sitting on

more than one-fifth of the circuit panels, serving on

circuit committees and task forces, and representing

the circuit on national judicial committees.

The infusion of INS cases caused administrative

appeals to increase by 256 percent from the prior

year. Administrative appeals ranked first among

sources of appeals with more than 31 percent of

the total. Private prisoner petitions ranked second

with almost 19 percent, followed by private civil

appeals with over 17 percent. The Central District

of California, the busiest judicial district in the

nation, continued to generate the largest number

of appeals for the court, 2,272 cases or 18.3 percent

of the total filings.

The Court of Appeals once again was faced with a

growing number of pro se cases, in which at least

one party is self-represented. In 2002, pro se

cases numbered 5,070, amounting to 41 percent

of all filings. The largest categories of pro se cases

were private prisoner petitions (1,900 cases) and

administrative appeals (1,200 cases), the latter

again reflecting the large increase in INS cases.

In 2002, the Supreme Court reviewed 23 cases

decided by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in

2002 or earlier. The Supreme Court issued written

opinions in 20 of these cases, affirming five and

reversing or vacating 15. The Supreme Court’s reversal rate for the 2001-02 term (when most of the

Ninth Circuit cases were reviewed) was 76 percent

for all circuits and 78 percent for the Ninth Circuit.

District and Bankruptcy Courts

Continuing population growth and increasing law

enforcement activity in two states bordering Mexico

have made the federal courts of the Ninth Circuit the

busiest in the nation. In 2002, district courts in the

circuit accounted for 18 percent of the total federal

court caseload. Total case filings in the district courts

were 57,241, up 2 percent from the prior year.

Due in part to a new crackdown on illegal firearms

and a change in reporting procedures, criminal filings

in the district courts rose 9 percent in 2002, slightly

higher than the national increase of 8 percent. The

top two categories of criminal offenses were violations

of immigration and drug laws, which accounted for

35 and 23 percent, respectively, of the total criminal

cases. The District of Arizona and the Southern

District of California, which include segments of

the United States-Mexico border, reported the

greatest numbers of immigration and drug offenses.

Senior district judges made a major contribution to

the work of the district courts. Senior judges presided

over trials, motions and law calendars, and other

proceedings; accepted designations as visiting

judges in other districts; carried out administrative

assignments; and served on a wide variety of judicial

committees. District courts also relied heavily on the

work of just over 100 magistrate judges, who terminated more than 17,000 civil cases and oversaw

disposition of some 18,000 cases involving misdemeanor and petty offenses.

FOREWORD
FOREWORD

Annual Report 2002 5

Bankruptcy courts in the Ninth Circuit experienced

a 2.2 percent rise in filings in 2002 to 282,594

cases. The increase was less than half of what was

reported nationally in 2002, which set a record for

the most bankruptcy filings in history. The largest

number of filings came under Chapter 7 of the

Bankruptcy Code, totaling 229,465 (business and

non-business) and comprising 81.2 of all bankruptcy

cases in the circuit. A total of 51,075 Chapter 13

cases (business and non-business) were filed in the

Ninth Circuit, amounting to 18.1 percent of the

total cases filed.

New Judges and Judgeships

Among all federal judicial circuits, the Ninth Circuit

ranked second in the number of judicial vacancies

filled in 2002. For the year, the United States

Senate confirmed 10 nominees for district court

judgeships in the Ninth Circuit and one nominee

for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The new

circuit judge was Richard R. Clifton of Honolulu,

who was confirmed in July and began hearing

cases in August. Judge Clifton is only the second

judge from Hawaii to serve on the Court of Appeals

since Hawaii became a state in 1959. He follows

in the footsteps of Senior Circuit Judge Herbert Y.

C. Choy, the first judge from Hawaii to serve on the

Court of Appeals, who took senior status in 1984.

The Ninth Circuit ended the year with four vacant

judgeships among its district courts. In addition,

seven new judgeships created by the 21st Century

Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization

Act, which became law in December, are authorized

to go into effect in July 2003. Five of the new

judgeships are permanent positions for the Southern

District of California, whose judges currently carry the

heaviest caseload in the country. Two are temporary

judgeships, one each for the District of Arizona

and the Central District of California, both of which

also are impacted by large caseloads. Looking

ahead to 2003, Congress is expected to consider a

new judgeship bill that would provide Ninth Circuit

Court of Appeals with five permanent and two temporary judgeships. In addition, nine of the circuit’s

15 district courts would receive a combined 21

new judgeships.

In the bankruptcy courts, two new judges were

appointed in 2002, one each in the districts of

Central California and Hawaii, and 15 judges were

reappointed. In addition, nine recalled judges assisted

in seven of our bankruptcy courts. There have been

no new bankruptcy judgeships since 1992, despite

the 59 percent increase in the caseload of bankruptcy

judges since then. The Judicial Conference of the

United States has recommended that 36 new bankruptcy judgeships be created, including two new

permanent judgeships in Nevada.

Continuing population growth and increasing law enforcement activity in the states bordering Mexico have made the

federal courts of the Ninth Circuit the busiest in the nation.
FOREWORD

6 Ninth Circuit United States Courts

New Courthouses

Constructions continued apace on new courthouses in Seattle and

Fresno. Both of these projects are reported on time and within budget.

Design work is progressing for new courthouses in San Diego and

Eugene, Ore. And we continue to seek innovative ways to provide

funding for the circuit’s current top priority, a new courthouse in

downtown Los Angeles.

Judicial Initiative

In 2001, my first as chief judge, I announced initiatives involving

community outreach and judicial wellness. I am pleased to report

major advances in both areas in 2002. Our Public Information and

Community Outreach Committee has begun holding media workshops

in which judges and journalists interact and share viewpoints. This

dialogue is critical to ensuring that the public understands and has

confidence in the judicial system. Our Judicial Wellness Committee

sponsored a retirement planning conference for judges eligible to take

senior status, will begin publishing a quarterly wellness newsletter

in 2003, and continues to promote use of a confidential telephone

referral service for judges, their families and chambers staff.

I also am happy to say that our 2002 Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference

in San Diego set a new standard for thoughtful, informative programs

that help judges prepare for new challenges in the law. Organized

around the theme The New America: Borders and Beyond, the conference looked ahead to the conduct of law in the post-September 11th

world. Leaders in the fields of law, government and science were present to share their views on national security and civil rights; citizenship;

commerce and culture in a bi-national metropolitan area; and the

legal complexities of cutting edge science. Congratulations go out to

everyone involved in planning for the event.

Judges and courts of the Ninth Circuit had much to report in 2002.

I hope you will take time to browse this Annual Report for more

information on these and other topics.
Annual Report 2002 7

NINTH CIRCUIT OVERVIEW

The Ninth Circuit includes the

Districts of Alaska, Arizona,

Central California, Eastern

California, Northern California,

Southern California, Hawaii, Idaho,

Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Eastern

Washington, Western Washington, the

U.S. Territory of Guam and the

Commonwealth of the Northern

Mariana Islands. Established in 1866,

the Ninth Circuit began the development of the federal judicial system for

the western United States. Today, it is

the largest and busiest of the nation’s

13 federal circuits.

Judges serving on the circuit and district courts are known as Article III

judges, a reference to the article in the

United States Constitution establishing

the federal judiciary. Article III judges

are nominated by the President, confirmed by Congress and serve for life.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

has been authorized 28 judgeships and

ended the year with four vacancies.

District courts ended the year with 101

authorized judgeships, five of which

were vacant at year’s end. 

Federal courts also rely on senior circuit

and senior district judges. These are

Article III judges who are eligible for

retirement but have chosen to continue

working with a reduced caseload. In

2002, 21 senior circuit judges sat on

appellate panels, served on circuit and

national judicial committees, and handled a variety of administrative matters.

In the district courts, 49 senior judges

heard cases, presided over procedural

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

In addition to Article III judges, the

Ninth Circuit has a number of Article I

judges, who serve as magistrate judges

in the district courts or as bankruptcy

judges in the bankruptcy courts.

Bankruptcy judges are appointed by

the Court of Appeals for a term of 14

years, while magistrate judges are

appointed by the district courts and

hold their positions for eight years.

During 2002, there were 66 bankruptcy

judges, including 10 retired bankruptcy

judges who rendered assistance; and 86

full-time magistrate judges, 14 part-time

magistrate judges and eight retired

magistrate judges. 

Overall, the Ninth Circuit courts

experienced increased caseloads in

2002. Unless otherwise noted, statistics in this report cover the calendar

year, beginning January 1 and ending

December 31. Where necessary, fiscal

year statistics, covering the period

October 1, 2001, to September 30,

2002, are used. ❖

Ninth Circuit Overview

The United States Courts for the Ninth Circuit consist

of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, district and

bankruptcy courts in the 15 federal judicial districts

that comprise the circuit, and associated administrative units that provide various court services.
The Judicial Council of the

Ninth Circuit is the governing body of the United States

Courts for the Ninth Circuit. The

Judicial Council’s mission is to support

the effective and expeditious administration of justice and the safeguarding

of fairness in the administration of

the courts. 

To do so, 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)]. Its 13

members are looked upon as a “judicial

board of directors” that provides policy

guidance and leadership. The Judicial

Council meets quarterly to review issues

and resolve problems facing the courts,

occasionally arranging additional meetings to address immediate concerns.

The Council performs the responsibilities delegated by the Judicial Conference

of the United States, such as administering policies and procedures for senior

judge staffing and pay. Similar to its

national counterpart, the Judicial

Conference of the United States, the

Judicial Council for the Ninth Circuit

operates through the work of its committees. The Office of the Circuit

Executive provides staff support to the

Judicial Council and supports its

administrative responsibilities.

By statute, the circuit executive is the

administrative assistant to the chief

judge of the circuit and secretary to

the Judicial Council. The circuit executive and his staff assist in identifying

circuit-wide needs, conducting studies,

proactively developing and implementing policies, providing training, public

information, and human resources

support, coordinating building and

automation projects, and advising the

council on procedural and ethical matters. The Office of the Circuit Executive

provides management and technical

assistance to all the courts within the

circuit, supports Judicial Council

committees, and administers the annual

Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference.

Day-to-day management of the courts’

caseload rests with the Court of Appeals

and each of the district and bankruptcy

courts. Under the direction of the individual courts’ chief judge and clerk of

court, the clerks’ offices process new

cases and appeals, handle docketing

functions, respond to procedural questions from the public and bar, and

provide adequate judicial staff resources.

The clerk of court for the Court of

Appeals also supervises the work of the

Circuit Mediation Office and the Office

of the Staff Attorneys, which includes

the research, motions, case management

and pro se units. The Office of the

Appellate Commissioner, also located

in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Clerk’s Office, reviews Criminal Justice

Act vouchers for cases that come before

the Court of Appeals. 

The Ninth Circuit courts also rely on

several important court-related agencies

to ensure the fair administration of justice. Under the oversight of the district

courts, Probation and Pretrial Services

offices are responsible for supervision

of criminal defendants and background

investigations and reports. The circuit’s

Federal Public Defenders offices represent indigent defendants unable to

afford private counsel. A public defender

office is located in each Ninth Circuit

district, with the exception of the Northern Mariana Islands, which relies on a

Criminal Justice Act panel of attorneys.

The Ninth Circuit Library provides

services to all of the courts under the

direction of a circuit-wide committee.

The main library is maintained in San

Francisco with at least one branch

library in each judicial district. These

libraries carry out numerous research

projects and respond to information

inquiries by judges, chambers, and

court staff. ❖

8 Ninth Circuit United States Courts

NINTH CIRCUIT OVERVIEW

The Judicial Council and Administration of the Ninth Circuit
Annual Report 2002 9

NINTH CIRCUIT OVERVIEW

Office of the Circuit Executive

Ninth Circuit

Judicial 

Conference

Executive

Committee

Budget & Finance

Program

Resolutions

Activities

Advisory Board

Lawyer Rep

Coordinating

Committee

Judicial Officer

Organizations

Conference of

Chief District

Judges

Conference of

Chief Bankruptcy

Judges

• Education 

Committee

Magistrate Judges

Executive Board

• Education 

Committee

Liaison 

Committees

District Clerks

Bankruptcy Clerks

Chief Probation

Officers

Pretrial Services

Officers

Advisory & 

Standing

Committees

Alternative Dispute

Resolution

Article III Judges

Education

Automation

Capital Case

Court-Council

Committee on

Bankrupcty Judge

Appointments

Fairness

Federal Public

Defenders 

Judicial Wellness

Jury Instructions 

Jury Trial

Improvement

Library

Pacific Islands

Public Information

& Community

Outreach

Space & Security

Task Forces

CJA Oversight

Self-Represented

Litigants

The Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit

Executive Committee

Chief Judge

Mary M. Schroeder
10 Ninth Circuit United States Courts

NINTH CIRCUIT OVERVIEW

I

n governing the federal courts of

the western United States, the

Judicial Council of the Ninth

Circuit relies on three associations of

judicial officers: the Conference of

Chief District Judges, the Conference

of Chief Bankruptcy Judges and the

Magistrate Judges Executive Board.

These associations provide vital input

to the Judicial Council on policy

matters and serve as a conduit of information to the judges of the circuit. As

a matter of policy, the Judicial Council

consults with these judicial officer

groups before taking a position on any

major issues concerning the courts of

the circuit.

Conference of Chief District Judges 

The Conference of Chief District

Judges provides input to the Judicial

Council regarding the administration

of justice in each of the circuit’s 15 district courts. The Conference, which is

comprised of the chief district judge 

of each district, meets twice a year. The

Conference traditionally invites the

circuit’s Lawyer Representatives Coordinating Committee to one meeting

and the district clerks to the other.

In 2002, the Conference of Chief District

Judges addressed such issues as jury

reform, court security, the administrative

organization of probation and pretrial

offices, library funding, electronic case filing, and community outreach initiatives.

For 2002, Chief District Judge James

K. Singleton of the District of Alaska

chaired the conference. His term ended

in September, when Chief District

Judge William Shubb of the Eastern

District of California became the new

chair. Judge Shubb will serve through 

May 2003, when his term as chief

judge concludes.

Conference of Chief Bankruptcy

Judges

The Conference of Chief Bankruptcy

Judges advises the Judicial Council on

the administration of the bankruptcy

courts within the circuit. It consists of

the chief bankruptcy judges of each district and the presiding judge of the

Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP).

At their meetings, the judges receive

updates from the chief judge of the

circuit, from a representative of the

Conference of Chief District Judges,

and from a representative of the

Bankruptcy Division of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. 

In 2002, the Conference addressed

staffing levels in the bankruptcy courts,

the bankruptcy judgeship formula,

security concerns, attorney discipline

procedures, and bankruptcy judge

reappointment procedures, including

proposals for mid-term evaluations.

The Conference meets twice yearly,

once in conjunction with the circuit’s

bankruptcy clerks and the clerk of the

Bankruptcy Appellate Panel and once 

in conjunction with the Lawyer

Representatives Coordinating

Committee. Chief Bankruptcy Judge

Geraldine Mund of the Central 

District of California chaired the

Conference until September 2002,

when Chief Bankruptcy Judge Edward

Jellen of the Northern District of

California became the new chair. 

Magistrate Judges Executive Board

The Magistrate Judges Executive Board

provides a channel of communication

between the Judicial Council and the circuit’s 86 full-time and 14 part-time magistrate judges. As part of its duties, the

board conducts an annual orientation for

new magistrate judges and sponsors

courses on effective use of the circuit’s

Intranet web sites and e-mail system.

In 2002, the Magistrate Judges Executive

Board looked at several issues affecting

Ninth Circuit magistrate judges,

including effective case management,

alternative dispute resolution guidelines,

and pay grades of pro se law clerks. The

board also met with judges of the Court

of Appeals to gain feedback on the work

of the magistrate judges. 

Judge Elizabeth Laporte of the

Northern District of California served

as chairperson of the Board in 2002.

Her term ended in September, when

Judge Virginia Mathis of the District 

of Arizona became the new chair. The

chairperson serves a two-year term and

acts as an observer member of the

Judicial Council. ❖

Judicial Policy Advisory Groups

The Conference of Chief District Judges meets in Anchorage in August 2002. Left to right,

front row: Chief District Judges Van Sickle (WAE), McKibben (Nevada), Patel (CAN), Chief

Circuit Judge Schroeder, Chief District Judges Huff (CAS), and Shubb (CAE). Back row:

District Judge Pro (Nevada), Chief District Judges McNamee (AZ), Haggerty (ORE), Singleton

(AK), District Judge Shanstrom (Montana), and Chief District Judge Coughenour (WAW).
Annual Report 2002 11

COMMITTEES OF 

THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURTS

Committees play an important role in

the administration of Ninth Circuit

courts. Three of these committees

are highlighted here.

Jury Instructions Committee. Left to right: Magistrate Judge John

Jelderks, District Judge Howard Matz, District Judge George King

and District Judge Jeffery Miller.
12 Ninth Circuit United States Courts

NINTH CIRCUIT COMMITTEES 

Managing and budgeting federal

capital habeas corpus cases can prove

to be challenging. Even attorneys

experienced in capital habeas litigation may find it difficult to predict

specific amounts of time for particular tasks because of the highly unique

nature of the individual cases. The

automated case management/budgeting software will ease the difficulty

of this task by providing standardized

categories of commonly performed

activities in each of the different

phases of the case. 

One of the most promising features

of the automated budgeting program

is its ability to collect data that can

be utilized in the development of

benchmarks for the different tasks.

Utilizing these standards, the Oversight Committee will be able to

provide data to the Judicial Council

on a range of time considered reasonable for each category in each phase

of a “normal” federal capital habeas

corpus case. These benchmarks will

assist the attorneys in developing a

more realistic case budget and will

help the presiding judge review the

budget for reasonableness. 

In addition to making it easier for

attorneys to budget cases, the

program will integrate a timekeeping

spreadsheet with the task of completing CJA vouchers. Both procedures

are required in order for attorneys to

receive compensation. Automating

this process will result in the elimination of duplicative input, saving

attorneys and court staff considerable

time while reducing input and

mathematical errors.

S

even of the nine states in the Ninth Circuit have death penalty laws, resulting

in literally hundreds of capital habeas corpus petitions to the federal district

courts and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 

These cases, which challenge imposition of the death penalty based on alleged violations

of constitutional rights, are lengthy, complex and costly. Recognizing that capital habeas

corpus cases require substantial judicial resources, court staff, and tax payer dollars,

the Ninth Circuit has implemented measures to contain costs through ongoing case

management and budget practices. The Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit has

delegated responsibility for overseeing this effort to the circuit’s Criminal Justice Act

(CJA) Capital Habeas Oversight Committee.

The CJA Capital Habeas Oversight Committee includes several district judges, a

Federal Public Defender, a private CJA panel attorney, a CJA supervising attorney, 

a death penalty staff attorney, a financial administrator and Office of the Circuit

Executive staff, all of whom possess extensive experience with capital habeas matters.

The committee conducts quarterly reviews of all budgeted capital habeas corpus

cases, making recommendations aimed at producing better case management and

reducing costs where feasible and appropriate. This case-by-case review also has helped

formulate a CJA Capital Habeas Corpus Costs Policy that has been adopted by the

Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit. The policy is an evolving set of guidelines

designed to assist those involved in capital habeas corpus cases, including judges,

attorneys, and court staff.

In 2002, the circuit was developing two tools to assist those people working on capital

habeas corpus cases. The Office of the Circuit Executive, in conjunction with the Oversight Committee, drafted a Budgeting and Case Management in Capital Habeas Corpus

Cases guide. The guide is designed as an introduction to the subject for judges and staff

unfamiliar with managing capital habeas corpus cases. Based on the litigation practices

in the California districts, the guide describes each of the five phases of a relatively complete plan for managing and budgeting a federal capital habeas corpus case. It offers

general guidance as well as specific recommendations on everything from assembling

the record to final briefing. The manual will be finalized and distributed in 2003 and

should be a valuable asset to both judges and attorneys.

Another project begun in 2002 is an automated case management/budgeting program

that will assist the presiding judge, court staff, and attorneys who are providing representation to capital habeas petitioners. In response to both a Judicial Conference

of the United States mandate and federal legislation directed solely at the Ninth Circuit,

the Judicial Council has mandated that all capital habeas corpus cases in the Ninth

Circuit be budgeted. This means that all private CJA panel attorneys representing

federal capital habeas corpus petitioners in the Ninth Circuit must provide estimates of

the number of hours and amount of expenses needed to adequately represent their clients.

Ninth Circuit Makes Strides in Managing Capital Habeas Cases
Annual Report 2002 13

NINTH CIRCUIT COMMITTEES 

The automated program will allow both

the attorneys and court staff to continually monitor the progress of a case and

expenditures throughout each phase as

well as the case as a whole. It will also

allow the circuit to easily gather valuable

statistical data. The information accumulated from the resulting analysis of

the data will be used to refine the capital

habeas corpus budgeting procedure

thereby enhancing the effectiveness

of the entire case management and

budgeting process.

The automated program is based on

Microsoft Excel spreadsheet software. 

It was designed, developed and tested

by Clyde Anderson, financial manager

for the U.S. District Court for the

District of Idaho. Mr. Anderson’s colleague, Gary Stallones, is credited with

inspiring the design and assisting in

developing the program’s statistical functions. Suzi Butler, the district’s training

specialist and capital case coordinator,

played a crucial role in coordinating

with attorneys as well as court staff. 

Ms. Butler helped test the program and

developed training. The project could

not have been developed without the

support of District Court Clerk Cameron

Burke, who allowed his staff to take time

from their regular duties to assist the circuit in this valuable endeavor.

To implement use of the new program

throughout the circuit, the Office of

the Circuit Executive will provide

training for the CJA panel attorneys

who work on these cases and for the

court personnel who work with the

judges and attorneys. The training

program will begin in early 2003 in

California’s four judicial districts and

will continue until all of the districts

in the circuit with death penalty cases

have received training.

As an additional resource in the area of

capital habeas corpus cases, the Office

of the Circuit Executive completed

the 2002 edition of the Ninth Circuit

Capital Punishment Handbook. This

reference tool is available on the Internet

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

Under the leadership of Chief Judge

Schroeder and the Judicial Council,

the circuit is continuing its diligence

in regard to capital habeas corpus cases,

not only to manage costs, but also to

make all aspects of capital habeas corpus

matters as efficient and straightforward

as possible for all parties involved. ❖

Death Penalty Cases As of Dec. 31, 2002

Inmates on Pending in State Pending in Federal Pending in U.S. Court Executions Since

State Death Row Supreme Court District Court of Appeals, 9th Cir. 1976

Arizona 124 38 59 9 22

California 613 406 164* 27 10

Idaho 22 31 16 3 1

Montana 6 3 2 1 2

Nevada 87 18 33 1 9

Oregon 30 12 0 0 2

Washington 12 8 3 1 4

Total 894 516 277 42 50

* Northern District, California 37

Southern District, California 2

Eastern District, California 42

Central District, California 83

Table 1.0

The Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit has delegated

responsibility for overseeing this effort to the circuit’s

Criminal Justice Act (CJA) Capital Habeas Oversight

Committee.
14 Ninth Circuit United States Courts

NINTH CIRCUIT COMMITTEES 

The Ninth Circuit has helped

lead the way in developing

projects and programs that

improve public understanding of and

confidence in the nation’s judicial system. 

In federal courts throughout the West,

judges and court staff are involved in

educating the public about the courts

and the important role they play in a

democratic society. Helping coordinate

these numerous and varied efforts is the

circuit’s Public Information and Community Outreach (PICO) Committee.

Established in 2000 by the Judicial

Council of the Ninth Circuit, the PICO

Committee is the outgrowth of a recommendation from the circuit’s lawyer

representatives, who urged that courts

do more to reach out to the public.

Committee appointments were made

by then-Chief Judge Procter Hug, Jr.,

who selected a mix of circuit, district

and bankruptcy judges, along with

attorneys, clerks and media relations

professionals. (Judge Hug was, himself, later appointed to the committee

after stepping down as chief judge.)

District Judge Alicemarie H. Stotler

of the Central District of California

was tapped to chair the new group,

which began meeting in early 2001.

The mission statement subsequently

adopted by the committee set two

goals: facilitating better relations

between the courts and news media,

and promoting existing community

outreach programs that help educate

the public about the courts. Working

through the Office of the Circuit

Executive, the committee is developing

a media relations handbook to assist

court staff that interact with the news

media, and a resource guide to community outreach programs sponsored

by state and federal courts within the

Ninth Circuit. The resource guide will

provide information about how to

organize programs and events and offer

other assistance to judges and court staff.

Media Relations

The emphasis on media relations stems

from the recognition that many citizens

are unfamiliar with the federal courts.

They rely on the media for information

about the courts, and base their opinions of the courts on what they have

read in the newspaper or seen on television. Since the media serves to inform

the general public about the work of

the courts, it makes sense for courts to

assist the media, where feasible and

appropriate, to ensure accurate and

fair reporting. 

Toward this end, the PICO Committee

has begun a series of media workshops

in which judges and court staff can

interact and share views with reporters

and editors. The first of these was held

in November in Seattle for judges and

Public Information and Community Outreach Committee 

Arizona Chief District Judge Stephen McNamee welcomes students to Open Doors to Federal Courts at the Phoenix courthouse. The program teaches

high school students about the importance of jury service. 
Annual Report 2002 15

NINTH CIRCUIT COMMITTEES 

court staff from Washington’s two district and bankruptcy courts. Journalists

from virtually all of Seattle’s major

media outlets attended. The ensuing

discussion covered a wide range of

topics, including the media’s growing

reliance on electronic access to court

records and its frustration with a policy

that permits online access to documents in civil cases but not criminal

cases. For their part, some judges were

frank in expressing why they practice

media avoidance and their frustration

at seeing their rulings misunderstood

and inaccurately reported.

Building on the success of the Seattle

program, the PICO Committee is

planning media workshops in 2003

for the Ninth Circuit’s Conference 

of Chief Bankruptcy Judges and Conference of Chief District Judges.

Invitations will be extended to journalists from nationally known media

outlets along with reporters from local

publications. The committee also is

planning to stage workshops in most 

of the circuit’s judicial districts, providing

opportunities for judges to meet and

interact with local journalists. Committee

members would help facilitate discussion by sharing their knowledge of

media practices in other districts, and 

by providing speakers, resource materials

and exhibits.

Community Outreach

On the community outreach side, the

committee has acted as a clearinghouse

for information and ideas. With assistance from the Office of the Circuit

Executive, the committee promotes and

publicizes educational outreach programs

sponsored by district and bankruptcy

courts in the circuit. These programs

include Law Day and Open Doors to

the Federal Courts, both of which focus

on high school students, and the Citizens

Law Academy, which educates community leaders about the law. Some Law

Day programs, such as the one held

in Los Angeles by the Central District

of California, are very large, involving

hundreds of students who visit courthouses to participate in mock proceedings that explain judicial processes.

Open Doors to the Federal Courts, a

national program organized by the

Administrative Office of the United

States Courts, also brings students into

the courthouses to explore important

legal concepts. While relatively new,

the Open Doors program is growing

rapidly and involved numerous courts

in the Ninth Circuit last year. The

Citizens Law Academy is co-sponsored

by the District of Idaho and has reached

several hundred citizens in the Boise

area over the last three years.

Other notable community outreach

programs include the Montana Project,

sponsored by the District of Montana,

which works with schools and the local

media to generate greater awareness

among young people about mandatory

sentencing for federal drug offenders,

and Children at Risk, a program developed in San Diego that teaches middle

school children about the judicial

process using a videotape-based teaching

curriculum. The Montana Project

involved judges, court clerks, the U.S.

attorney, Community Defender Office

and federal probation and pretrial officers. The program was expected to

culminate with a series of newspaper

articles in early 2003. The Office of

the Circuit Executive has acquired

distribution rights for Children at Risk

and is promoting its use among federal

courts throughout the Ninth Circuit. 

The PICO Committee promotes

community outreach efforts through

a quarterly news memo sent to judges,

clerks and other court unit staffs, 

and through an Internet web site –

www.ce9.uscourts.gov/pico — that

provides a wide range of information

and materials about community outreach efforts. The committee also is

pursuing partnerships with other

groups and organizations, such as

the Ninth Judicial Circuit Historical

Society, which also has developed

educational programs. 
The Ninth Circuit is the first

federal circuit to devote

resources to promoting the

physical and mental well being of

judges. The Ninth Circuit’s Judicial

Wellness Committee undertakes projects and programs that address health

issues affecting judges. It has established

a confidential telephone referral service

for judges, their families and chambers

staff; sponsored a retirement planning

conference for judges eligible to take

senior status; and has begun publication

of a quarterly wellness newsletter.

The committee has its origins in the

Judicial Disability Task Force, which

was established in 1999 by then-Chief

Judge Procter Hug, Jr. to look into the

circuit’s disability procedures and

practices. In its final report issued in

May 2000, the task force recommended

a number of education initiatives and

the creation of a 24-hour telephone

counseling service. The task force also

recommended preventive health training

programs for judges and their spouses,

and disseminating information on such

topics as disability retirement.

To carry out these recommendations,

Judge Hug appointed the Judicial

Disability Committee in October

2000. The committee shifted its focus

to the broader concept of wellness,

which includes not only attention to

existing disabilities but prevention of

future ones. In keeping with this shift

in emphasis, the committee was

renamed the Judicial Wellness Committee in December 2001. Circuit

Judge Susan P. Graber chairs the

committee, whose members include

Senior Circuit Judge Arthur L. Alarcón,

Chief District Judge Philip M. Pro,

District Judge Christina A. Snyder,

Senior District Judge James M.

Fitzgerald, Chief Bankruptcy Judge 

Jim D. Pappas, Magistrate Judge J.

Kelley Arnold, Circuit Executive

Gregory B. Walters, and Assistant

Circuit Executive Robin Donoghue.

Private Assistance Line Service

To provide 24-hour telephone counseling, the committee established the

Private Assistance Line Service, or

PALS. The committee contracted with

Richard Carlton, an independent mental

health professional, to provide counseling. PALS is now available 24 hours a

day, seven days a week to assist federal

judges, their families, and staff with

questions relating to a judge’s well

being. By resolution of the Judicial

Council, all communications and

records of communications with PALS

and professional service providers are

confidential.

Other Educational Efforts

Disability retirement for Article III

judges is governed by the Judicial

Councils Reform and Judicial Conduct

and Disability Act of 1980, 28 U.S.C.

§ 372. Article III judges who become

unable to effectively discharge the

duties of judicial office by reason of

a permanent mental or physical condition may be eligible for retirement

from active judicial duty. The Judicial

Wellness Committee has published

and disseminated a brochure outlining

the steps for taking voluntary disability retirement and providing phone

numbers for national health and

disability organizations. 

In October 2002, the committee held

a pre-retirement orientation conference

for Article III judges who were within

three years of eligibility to take senior

status. The three-day session for judges

and their spouses included benefits and

a financial planning component, and

featured a panel of senior judges sharing

their experiences. In connection with

the program, the committee published

a handbook on Ninth Circuit Senior

Status Policies and distributed it to

program attendees, all senior judges,

and chief district judges. The committee

is exploring hosting a similar program

for bankruptcy and magistrate judges

who may be nearing retirement.

For the July 2002 Ninth Circuit Judicial

Conference, the Judicial Wellness Committee worked with the Conference

Executive Committee to include wellness experts, who discussed healthy diets

and exercise activities. One of the panel

topics presented at the conference was

“The Rewards of Time: How To Age

But Not Grow Old.”

Going forward, the committee launched

a quarterly Wellness Newsletter for

judges and clerks. The committee continues to work with the Conference

Executive Committee to include

wellness programs and activities at the

annual circuit conference. ❖

Wellness

Committee Chair

Circuit Judge

Susan P. Graber

16 Ninth Circuit United States Courts

NINTH CIRCUIT COMMITTEES 

Judicial Wellness Committee Focuses on 

Judges’ Health and Well Being
JUDGES’ BIOGRAPHIES

Annual Report 2002 17

New Judges

Deceased Judges

TRANSITIONS
18 Ninth Circuit United States Courts

TRANSITIONS

Circuit Judge

Judge Richard R. Clifton was appointed

to the Court of Appeals on July 18,

2002. Prior to his appointment, he

engaged in private practice as a partner 

at Cades, Schutte, Fleming & Wright,

Honolulu, 1982 to 2002, and as an associate from 1977 to 1982. Judge Clifton

received his A.B. from Princeton

University in 1972 and his juris doctorate from Yale Law

School in 1975. He served as a law clerk to Circuit Judge

Herbert Y. C. Choy, 1975 to 1976, and was an adjunct

professor at the University of Hawaii Richardson School of

Law, 1978 to 1980, and 1983 to 1989. He maintains his

chambers in Honolulu.

District Judges

Judge Percy Anderson, of the Central

District of California, was appointed a

district judge on April 25, 2002. Prior

to his appointment, he engaged in private practice at Sonnenschien, Nath &

Rosenthal in Chicago, 1985 to 2002.

Judge Anderson served as an assistant

United States attorney for the Central

District of California from 1979 to 1985. He worked as a

consultant for Legal Services Corporation in Los Angeles,

1978 to 1979. Judge Anderson received his A.B. from the

University of California at Los Angeles in 1970 and his

juris doctorate from the University of California at Los

Angeles School of Law in 1975. He maintains his chambers

in Los Angeles. 

Judge Ralph R. Beistline, of the District

of Alaska, was appointed a district judge

on March 12, 2002. Prior to his appointment to the federal bench, Judge

Beistline served as a Superior Court

judge for the State of Alaska, 1992

to 2002. He engaged in private practice

at Hughes, Thorsness, Gantz, Powell &

Brudin in Fairbanks, Alaska, 1975 to 1992, becoming a partner

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

of Alaska in 1972 and his juris doctorate from the University

of Puget Sound School of Law in 1974. Following law school,

he clerked for Superior Court of Alaska Judges Warren Wm.

Taylor, Gerald Van Hoomisen and Everett Hepp, 1974 to

1975. He maintains his chambers in Anchorage.

Judge David C. Bury, of the District of

Arizona, was appointed a district judge

on March 15, 2002. Prior to his appointment, he engaged in private practice from

1971 to 2002. Previously, he worked as

an associate at Robertson & Fickett, P.C.,

1967 to 1971. He was inducted into the

American College of Trial Lawyers in

1985. Judge Bury received his B.S. from Oklahoma State

University in 1964 and his juris doctorate from the University

of Arizona College of Law in 1967. He maintains his

chambers in Tucson.

New Judges in 2002
Annual Report 2002 19

TRANSITIONS

Judge Morrison C. England, Jr., of the

Eastern District of California, was

appointed a district judge on August 1,

2002. Prior to his appointment to the

federal bench, Judge England served as 

a Superior Court judge for the State of

California, 1996 to 2002. He engaged

in private practice as a partner in the firm

of Quattrin, Johnson, Campora & England, 1988 to 1996

and as a partner at Quattrin, Clemons & England, 1983 to

1988, in Sacramento. Judge England received his B.A. from

the University of the Pacific in 1977 and his juris doctorate

from the University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law

in 1983. He maintains his chambers in Sacramento.

Judge Cindy K. Jorgenson, of the District

of Arizona, was appointed a district judge

on February 26, 2002. Prior to her

appointment to the federal bench, Judge

Jorgenson served as a Superior Court

judge for the State of Arizona, 1996 to

2002. She served as an assistant United

States attorney for the District of Arizona,

1986 to 1996 and as a deputy county attorney of the Pima

County Attorney’s Office, 1977 to 1986. Judge Jorgenson

received her B.S. from the University of Arizona in 1974 and

her juris doctorate from the University of Arizona College of

Law in 1977. She maintains her chambers in Tucson.

Judge Robert G. Klausner, of the Central

District of California, was appointed a

district judge on November 14, 2002.

Prior to his appointment to the federal

bench, Judge Klausner served as a

Superior Court judge for the State of

California, 1985 to 2002. Judge

Klausner served as a judge at the

Pasadena Municipal Court, 1980 to 1985, and also as a

court commissioner, 1974 to 1980. He was the Los Angeles

county deputy district attorney, 1969 to 1974. Judge

Klausner received his B.A. in 1963 and his B.S. in 1964

from the University of Notre Dame and his juris doctorate

from Loyola Law School in 1967. Judge Klausner maintains

his chambers in Los Angeles.

Judge Ronald B. Leighton, of the Western

District of Washington, was appointed

a district judge on November 14, 2002.

Prior to his appointment, he engaged

in private practice as a partner at Gordon,

Thomas, Honeywell, Malanca, Peterson

& Daheim, 1976 to 2002. Judge

Leighton received his B.A. from

Whitworth College in 1973 and his juris doctorate from

the University of California, Hastings College of Law in

1976. Judge Leighton maintains his chambers in Tacoma.

Judge James C. Mahan, of the District of

Nevada, was appointed a district judge

on January 25, 2002. Prior to his

appointment, Judge Mahan served as a

district judge for the Eighth Judicial

District Court for the State of Nevada,

1999 to 2002. Previously, he engaged in

private practice as a senior partner at

Mahan & Ellis, Las Vegas, 1982 to 1999, as an attorney at

John Petter Lee, Ltd., 1975 to 1982, and as an associate at Lee

& Beasey, Ltd., 1973 to 1975. Judge Mahan received his B.A.

from the University of Charleston in 1965 and his juris doctorate from the Vanderbilt University Law School, Nashville,

in 1973. Judge Mahan maintains his chambers in Las Vegas.
20 Ninth Circuit United States Courts

TRANSITIONS

Judge Frederick J. Martone, of the

District of Arizona, began active service as a U.S. district judge on January

30, 2002. Prior to his appointment 

to the federal bench, Judge Martone

served as a justice of the Arizona State

Supreme Court from 1992 to 2001,

and as a judge for the Superior Court

of Arizona in Maricopa County, from 1985 to 1992. He

engaged in private practice at the law firm of Jennings,

Strouss and Salmon in Phoenix, from 1973 to 1985. Judge

Martone graduated from Holy Cross College in Worcester,

Mass., in 1965, and served as an officer in the United

States Air Force from 1965 to 1969. He graduated from

Notre Dame Law School in 1972 and received an LL.M.

from Harvard Law School in 1975. Following law school,

Judge Martone clerked for Justice Edward F. Hennessey of

the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in Boston.

He maintains his chambers in Phoenix.

Judge John F. Walter, of the Central

District of California, was appointed a

district judge on April 25, 2002. Prior to

taking the bench, Judge Walter engaged

in private practice as a partner at Walter,

Finestone & Richter, Los Angeles, 1976

to 2002. Previously, he served as an associate at the law firm of Kindel & Anderson, Los Angeles, 1969 to 1970, as an assistant United States

Attorney for the Central District of California, 1970 to 1972,

and again as an associate at Kindel & Anderson, 1972 to -

1976. Judge Walter received his B.A. from Loyola Univer-sity

in 1966 and his juris doctorate from Loyola University School

of Law in 1969. He maintains his chambers in Los Angeles.

Judge Jeffrey S. White, of the Northern

District of California, was appointed a

district judge on November 14, 2002.

Prior to his appointment, Judge White

engaged in private practice as a partner

at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, 1980

to 2002, and previously as an associate,

1970 to 1980. Judge White worked as

a trial attorney for the United States Department of Justice,

Criminal Division, 1977 to 1978, and as an assistant United

States attorney for the District of Maryland, 1971 to 1977.

Judge White received his B.A. from Queens College of City

University of New York in 1967 and his juris doctorate

from State University of New York in 1970. He maintains

his chambers in San Francisco.

Bankruptcy Judges

Judge Peter H. Carroll, of the Central

District of California, was appointed a

bankruptcy judge on August 1, 2002.

Prior to his appointment, Judge Carroll

served as an assistant United States

trustee for the Eastern District of

California, 1994 to 2002. Judge Carroll

was a senior attorney of the United States

Department of Justice, Office of the United States Trustee

in San Francisco, 1993 to 1994. Previously, he engaged in

private practice as a shareholder at Brite & Drought in San

Antonio, Texas, 1989 to 1993; as a partner, 1984 to 1988;

and as an associate, 1978 to 1983. Judge Carroll received

his B.A. from the University of California at Berkeley in 1974

and his J.D. from St. Mary’s University School of Law in

1978. He maintains his chambers in Riverside. 

New Judges in 2002 continued
Annual Report 2002 21

TRANSITIONS

Judge Robert J. Faris, of the District of

Hawaii, was appointed a bankruptcy

judge on February 14, 2002 and was

elevated to chief bankruptcy judge on

February 22. Prior to his appointment,

Judge Faris engaged in private practice as

shareholder, director, and vice president

at Gelber, Gelber, Ingersoll, Klevansky &

Faris in Honolulu, 1983 to 2002. Judge Faris received his B.A.

from Reed College in Portland in 1980 and his juris doctorate

from the University of California Boalt Hall School of Law

in 1983. He maintains his chambers in Honolulu.

Magistrate Judges

Judge Paul L. Abrams, of the Central

District of California, was appointed a

magistrate judge on January 9, 2002.

Prior to his appointment, he served as

a deputy federal public defender in Los

Angeles, 1987 to 1993, and as a supervising deputy from 1993 to 2001. Judge

Abrams was the director of the San

Fernando Valley office of Bet Tzedek Legal Services, 1985

to 1987, and a litigation associate at Jeffer, Mangels, Butler

and Marmaro in Los Angeles, 1983 to 1985. Judge Abrams

received is B.A. from the University of California at Berkeley

in 1979 and his juris doctorate from the University of

California Boalt Hall School of Law in 1983. He maintains

his chambers in Los Angeles.

Judge Howard R. Lloyd, of the Northern

District of California, was appointed a

magistrate judge on June 4, 2002. Prior

to his appointment, Judge Lloyd worked

as an independent alternative dispute

resolution provider, specializing in

employment, trade secret, and commercial claims, 1999 to 2002. Judge Lloyd

served as a settlement judge pro tem for the California state

court and engaged in private practice at Hoge, Fenton, Jones

and Appel, San Jose, 1969 to 1999. Judge Lloyd received

his B.A. from the College of William and Mary in 1963 and

his juris doctorate from the University of Michigan in 1968.

He maintains his chambers in San Jose.

Judge Carolyn S. Ostby, of the District

of Montana, was appointed a magistrate

judge on February 25, 2002. Prior to

taking the bench, Judge Ostby engaged

in private practice at Crowley Law Firm,

Billings, 1981 to 2001. Judge Ostby

received her B.A. from Macalester

College, St. Paul, Minnesota, 1972, and

her juris doctorate from the University of Montana School

of Law in 1977. She maintains her chambers in Great Falls.

Judge Suzanne H. Segal, of the Central

District of California was appointed a

magistrate judge on July 31, 2002. Prior

to taking the bench, Judge Segal served

as an assistant United States attorney in

Los Angeles, 1990 to 2002. Previously,

she served as chief of Civil Appeals for

the United States Attorney’s Office, 1999

to 2002, and engaged in private practice as an associate at

Dewey, Ballantine, Los Angeles, 1987 to 1990. Judge Segal

received her B.A. from Claremont McKenna College,

Claremont, Calif., in 1982 and her juris doctorate from

Cornell Law School in 1987. She maintains her chambers in

Los Angeles. ❖
Judge William L. Dwyer (1929-2002)

was appointed a district judge to the

Western District of Washington on

November 5, 1987. Prior to his appointment, Judge Dwyer engaged in private

practice at Culp & Dwyer, now Culp,

Dwyer, Guterson & Grader, 1957 to

1987. Judge Dwyer received his B.S. from

the University of Washington in 1951 and his LL.B. from

New York University School of Law in 1953. He passed away

on February 12. Judge Dwyer is survived by his wife, Vasiliki,

their three children and five grandchildren.

Judge William A. Ingram (1924-2002)

was appointed a district judge to the

Northern District of California on July

23, 1976. Prior to his appointment to

the federal bench, Judge Ingram served

as a Superior Court judge, Santa Clara,

California, 1971 to 1976. Previously,

he was a Municipal Court judge for the

Mountain View Judicial District, California, 1969 to 1971.

He engaged in private practice at Rankin, O’Neal, Luckhard

& Center in San Jose, 1955 to 1969 and at Littler, Coakley,

Lauritzen & Ferdon in San Francisco, 1951 to 1955. Judge

Ingram received his B.A. from Stanford University in 1947

and his LL.B. from the University of Louisville School of

Law in 1950. He passed away on May 26. Judge Ingram 

is survived by his wife, Barbara, and three children.

Judge Robert C. Mooreman (1927-2002)

was appointed a bankruptcy judge to

the District of Arizona on June 28, 1981.

Following passage of the Amended

Bankruptcy Code, he was reappointed

in 1986 to a 14-year term. From 1984

to 1994, he served as chief bankruptcy

judge. He began his career as law

clerk to Arizona Supreme Court Justice M.T. Phelps, then

served as an assistant attorney general for the State of Arizona.

Prior to his judicial appointment, he was in private practice in

Phoenix. Judge Mooreman received his A.A. from Phoenix

College in 1952 and his J.D. from the University of Arizona

College of Law in 1956. He passed away on July 8. Judge

Mooreman is survived by his wife, Bonnie, and a daughter.

Judge Monte Reece (1945-2002) was

appointed a part-time magistrate judge

to the Eastern District of California on

August 19, 1983. Judge Reece engaged

in private practice in South Lake Tahoe,

1974 to 1984, and was an instructor

at Lake Tahoe Community College,

1983 to 1985. Judge Reece attended

Louisiana State University and received his LL.B. from the

Western State University College of Law in 1974. He passed

away on July 31. Judge Reece is survived by his wife, Melanie,

and five children.

Judge Laughlin E. Waters, Sr. (1914-

2002) was appointed a district judge

to the Central District of California

on May 11, 1976. Prior to his appointment, Judge Waters engaged in private

practice in Los Angeles, 1961 to 1976.

Previously, he served as a United States

attorney for the Southern District of

California, 1953 to 1961. He was a member of the California

State Legislature, 1947 to 1953, and served as deputy attorney

general for the State of California, 1946 to 1947. Judge Waters

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

Angeles in 1939 and his juris doctorate from the University

of Southern California School of Law in 1947. He passed

away on June 3. Judge Waters is survived by his wife, Voula,

and five children.

Judge Eugene A. Wright (1913-2002)

was appointed to the United States Court

of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on

September 12, 1969. Prior to his appointment, he served as vice president and

senior trust officer at Pacific National

Bank in Seattle, 1966 to 1969. Previously,

he served as a Superior Court judge, King

County, Washington, 1954 to 1966, and as a Municipal Court

judge pro tem, Seattle, 1948 to 1952. He engaged in private

practice in Seattle, 1946 to 1954, and 1937 to 1941. Judge

Wright received his A.B. from the University of Washington in

1935 and his juris doctorate from the University of Washington

School of Law in 1937. He passed away on September 3. Judge

Wright is survived by his wife, Esther, and two children. ❖

22 Ninth Circuit United States Courts

TRANSITIONS

In Memoriam
Annual Report 2002 23

SPACE AND SECURITY

Ninth Circuit Committee Tackles 

Space and Security Issues

Courthouse Contruction 

Projects in 2002

U.S. District Court Seattle
SPACE AND SECURITY

24 Ninth Circuit United States Courts

Over the years, rising caseloads

have required new judges and

courtrooms, resulting in

cramped, inefficient courthouses that

cannot accommodate any further expansion of judicial operations. The trend

has continued into the new century. In

2002, seven new judgeships were authorized for the circuit, five of them for the

Southern District of California. In 2003,

Congress will consider a new judgeship

bill that could provide seven new

judgeships for the Court of Appeals

and 21 new judgeships in the circuit’s

district courts.

Older courthouses also pose serious

security concerns as judges, jurors, prisoners and witnesses frequently mix in

open corridors. And they lack the infrastructure for advanced technology,

such as complex computer networks

and sophisticated electronic evidence

presentation systems for courtrooms.

Courthouse Construction

In 2002, the Ninth Circuit had courthouses under construction in Seattle, serving the Western District of Washington,

and Fresno, serving the Eastern District of

California. The Seattle courthouse is the

larger of the two projects, involving a 23-

story, 614,867-square-foot structure. The

Fresno courthouse will be 11 stories tall

and provide 430,000 square feet of space.

Keeping up with space needs in the Ninth Circuit, which claims some of the busiest courts in

the nation, can be a daunting task. Judges and court staff serving on the Ninth Circuit Space

and Security Committee are responsible for coordinating courthouse construction projects and

addressing security needs in most court facilities. The committee carries out these tasks in

cooperation with the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, the General Services

Administration and the U.S. Marshals Service.

Ninth Circuit Committee Tackles Space and Security Issues

Space and Security Committee of the Ninth Circuit

Senior Circuit Judge Melvin Brunetti, chair

Chief District Judge Stephen McNamee (Arizona)

District Judge Jeremy Fogel (N. District, Calif.)

District Judge Margaret Morrow (C. District, Calif.)

District Judge Edward Shea (E. District,Wash.)

District Judge Dickran Tevrizian (C. District, Calif.)

Bankruptcy Judge Charles Case (Arizona)

Bankruptcy Judge George Nielsen (Arizona)

District Court Clerk Cameron Burke (Idaho)

District Court Clerk Lance Wilson (Nevada) 

Chief District Judge Marilyn Patel speaks at a memorial held September 11 in San Francisco

in honor of those who died at the World Trade Center. Federal Courts in Anchorage, Honolulu,

and Spokane also held 9/11 memorials.
Also during the year, design work

proceeded for new courthouses in

San Diego, serving the Southern

District of California; Los Angeles,

serving the Central District of

California, and Eugene, Ore., serving 

a portion of the District of Oregon.

Design work was under way for a

new courthouse in leased space in 

El Centro, serving the most eastern

sections of the Southern District of

California, and planning is under way

for a new courthouse and federal

building in San Jose, serving the

Silicon Valley area of the Northern

District of California.

In addition, renovations and additions

took place on other court facilities

throughout the circuit. Congress

approved funding for fiscal year 2002

for repairs and alterations to three

courthouses in the Ninth Circuit:

$26.9 million for the Foley Federal

Building in Las Vegas, $16.6 million

for the Pioneer Courthouse in Portland,

and $13.1 million for the Edward J.

Schwartz Federal Building and Courthouse in San Diego.

The Challenge Posed by 

September 11th

A new challenge for the Ninth Circuit’s

Space and Security Committee emerged

following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Security issues at

federal courts immediately became a

top concern. Congress responded with

$129 million in emergency supplemental funding in Fiscal Year 2002.

The funding is being used to increase

the number of Court Security Officers

(CSOs) assigned to district courts by

10 percent, and to hire 106 new seniorlevel deputy U.S. marshals to provide

security to judges, coordinate district

court security planning, and oversee CSOs.

The Ninth Circuit Space and Facilities

Committee has been working with

every district in the circuit to establish

building security committees and designated emergency contacts for every

courthouse and other facilities occupied

primarily by court units. The designated

contact person, who often will be the

chief district judge, will be responsible

for coordinating response and evacuation guidelines for judges and court staff

in the event of an emergency. Recognizing that each circuit bears a unique

responsibility to coordinate plans within

its own region, the Administrative

Office of the U.S. Courts also made

plans to create emergency preparedness

coordinator positions in selected circuit

executive offices.

Meanwhile, staff and judges at individual courts in the Ninth Circuit joined

their colleagues in federal courts across

the country in developing Occupant

Emergency Programs (OEPs) and

Continuity of Operations Plans

(COOPs). OEPs were designed to

establish procedures during emergencies

that would safeguard lives and property,

while COOPs ensured that essential

functions and activities resume as

quickly and safely as possible.

Mailroom Security

The bio-terrorism incidents that followed the September 11th attacks,

involving anthrax-contaminated letters

sent through the U.S. Postal Service,

posed another major security problem

for the judiciary. Traces of the deadly

disease were found in the mail facility

at the United States Supreme Court

in Washington, D.C., causing the

court to relocate its operations for a

period of time. In January, the

Annual Report 2002 25

SPACE AND SECURITY

The Space and Security Committee – Front row: District Judge Edward Shea (WAE), Chairman

Senior Circuit Judge Melvin Brunetti, Circuit Executive Gregory Walters, District Judge

Margaret Morrow (CAC). Back row: Assistant Circuit Executive Susan Kim, Bankruptcy Judge

George Nielsen (AZ), Bankruptcy Judge Charles Case (AZ), District Judge Jeremy Fogel (CAN),

District Court Clerk Cameron Burke (Idaho), District Judge Dickran Tevrizian (CAC), Ross

Eisenman, Administrative Office, Chief District Judge Stephen McNamee (AZ). Missing:

District Court Clerk Lance Wilson (Nevada).
26 Ninth Circuit United States Courts

SPACE AND SECURITY

By the mid-1980s, the judges and jurors in the federal

courthouse in Seattle were in desperate need of a new

building. Space in the 50-year-old courthouse had become

so cramped that the district’s bankruptcy court was forced

to move into leased space in another building. The Western

District of Washington’s dream of a new courthouse came

closer to fruition in 2002, as construction progressed on a

new 23-story federal courthouse.

The building, which is being built on a 2.7-acre site in

downtown Seattle, was designed by the architectural firm of

NBBJ. The courthouse design utilizes glass and concrete

pillars to create a sense of openness and take advantage of

natural light. The exterior courtyard for the plaza was

designed to encourage public use and will include a landscaped plaza and reflecting pool.

Scheduled for completion in 2004, the 614,857-squarefoot building will house 627 employees of the courts,

including judges and court staff, in addition to various

court-related agencies. A 120-space secure, parking garage

is being constructed underneath the building. The courthouse will initially contain 18 courtrooms – 12 district

courtrooms, one special proceedings courtroom, and five

bankruptcy courtrooms, but has been designed to allow

expansion to a total of 25 courtrooms as part of the 30-year

expansion plan.

In addition to the courtrooms and associated offices, the

building will contain a main detention cell block for prisoners awaiting trial, courtroom holding cells, and secure

passageways for moving prisoners to and from the building.

Administrative Office contracted with

an architectural firm to study seven

existing federal courthouse mail facilities and their practices and to use the

results to develop procedures, standards

and infrastructure for safe mail handling.

In July, the U.S. Judicial Conference

approved recommendations regarding

mail handling procedures and construction of centralized mailrooms in

courthouses.

Looking to the future, the Ninth Circuit

Space and Security Committee recognizes that security at federal courthouses

has taken on a whole new meaning in

the aftermath of September 11th events.

The committee will continue to work

with the Administrative Office, the

U.S. Marshals service and district courts

throughout the circuit to ensure that

the courthouses are safe for the judges,

attorneys and staff as well as for citizens

who conduct business there. ❖

Construction Progresses on Seattle Courthouse Space and Security...continued
Annual Report 2002 27

SPACE AND SECURITY

Fresno

Federal Building and Courthouse

Square footage: 430,000

Estimated completion date: 2005

Architects: Moore, Ruble, & Yudell

Courthouses Under Construction
28 Ninth Circuit United States Courts

SPACE AND SECURITY

Courthouses Under Construction continued

Seattle

U.S. District Court

Square footage: 614,867

Estimated completion

date: 2004

Architects: NBBJ

Courthouses in the Planning Stage

San Jose

U.S. District Courthouse and Federal Building

Square footage: 404,361

Estimated completion date: 2010
Annual Report 2002 29

SPACE AND SECURITY

Courthouses in Design Stage

El Centro (lease)

Magistrate Courthouse

Square footage: 42,000

Estimated completion date: 2004

Eugene

U.S. District Court and Federal Building

Square footage: 272,274

Estimated completion date: 2005

Architects: Morphosis

Los Angeles

U.S. District Courthouse

Square footage: 1,279,650

Estimated completion date: 2009

Architects: Perkins & Will

San Diego

U.S. District Courthouse and Federal Building

Square footage: 583,746

Estimated completion date: 2009

Richard Meier and Partners
30 Ninth Circuit United States Courts

SPACE AND SECURITY

Helena, Montana (lease)

Square footage: 60,000 

Completed: August 2002

Courthouses Completed in 2002
Annual Report 2002 31

THE NINTH CIRCUIT IN 2002

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Courts Adjust to Pro Se Caseload

The 2002 Judicial Conference

Reaching Out to Other Nations

Alternative Dispute Resolution Programs

Pretrial Services

U.S. Probation Offices

Federal Public Defender Offices

Courtroom One, U.S. Court of Appeals, San Francisco
32 Ninth Circuit United States Courts

THE NINTH CIRCUIT IN 2002

Long the busiest of the nation’s 13 federal circuit courts,

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, saw an unprecedented increase in case filings in 2002. For the year,

12,388 cases were filed, up 23.2 percent from 2001, which

was, itself, a record-setting year. The upsurge resulted from a

flood of new filings involving the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). The Board of Immigration Appeals of

the INS was directed to clear a large backlog of immigration

cases, and the agency’s use of expedited reviews generated a

wave of new appeals. From 913 cases in 2001, INS filings in

the Ninth Circuit jumped to 3,672 in 2002, an increase of

302 percent. INS filings also accounted for a dramatic increase

in administrative agency appeals, which rose to 3,899 in 2002,

an increase of 256 percent from the prior year.

The INS factor also skewed national totals. While the Ninth

Circuit had 20.9 percent of the national appellate filings

for 2002, it had 56.8 percent of INS cases and 50.6 percent 

of the administrative agency appeals filed last year. 

Among the 15 judicial districts in the circuit, the Central

District of California generated the largest number of appeals

with 2,272 cases, or 18.3 percent of the total. Centered in

Los Angeles, the Central District of California serves a

population of 18 million people and has the busiest district

court in the nation.

In 2002, the Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in about

2,500 cases, while another 2,000 cases were decided without

argument. Cases terminated in 2002 totaled 10,346, up 1.2

percent. As of December 31, 2002, there were 11,140 pending

cases before the court, a 22.4 percent increase, and amounting

to 26.1 percent of the national appellate total. This daunting caseload was handled by the Ninth Circuit’s active

appellate bench of 24 judges, augmented by 21 senior circuit

judges and, sitting by special designation, both district judges

from within the circuit and circuit judges from other circuits.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Judges – First row: J. Clifford Wallace, James R. Browning, Mary M. Schroeder, Alfred T. Goodwin, Procter Hug, Jr.

Second row: Stephen Reinhardt, William C. Canby, Jr., Jerome Farris, Betty Binns Fletcher, Harry Pregerson, Dorothy W. Nelson, Robert Boochever,

Robert R. Beezer. Third row: A. Wallace Tashima, Thomas G. Nelson, Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain, Alex Kozinski, Cynthia Holcomb Hall, David R.

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

M. Margaret McKeown, Barry G. Silverman, Susan P. Graber, Kim McLane Wardlaw, Raymond C. Fisher, Marsha S. Berzon, Johnnie B. Rawlinson.

Missing: Herbert Y.C. Choy, Joseph T. Sneed, Otto R. Skopil, Arthur L. Alarcon, Warren J. Ferguson, Melvin Brunetti, John T. Noonan, Jr., Edward

Leavy, Stephen Trott, Ferdinand F. Fernandez, Michael Daly Hawkins, Ronald M. Gould.
Annual Report 2002 33

THE NINTH CIRCUIT IN 2002

Panel Sittings

In addition to its regular sittings in San

Francisco, Pasadena and Seattle, during the year, the court heard cases in

Portland, Honolulu, Alaska (Anchorage

and Fairbanks), Boise, Guam and the

Northern Mariana Islands, Phoenix, and

Tucson. All told, the court met for a

total of 441 panel days in 2002. The

table below breaks out the court’s

calendar as follows:

2002 Panels

San Francisco (every month): 160

panels

Pasadena (every month): 170

panels

Seattle (every month): 65 panels

Portland (March, May, July,

September): 18 panels

Honolulu (May and November):

10 panels

Alaska (August): 5 panels

Boise (November): 5 panels

Guam/Northern Mariana Islands

(February): 2 panels

Phoenix (March): 5 special panels

[en bancs]

Tucson (October): 1 special panel

In 2002, the Court of Appeals began scheduling additional

screening panels to address the growing number of pro se

and prisoner cases. As in prior years, cases assigned to the

screening panels are typically those that would not be set

for oral argument and can be more expeditiously decided.

Members of the court’s Staff Attorneys Office research the

appeals and make monthly presentations to three-judge

panels who sit as screening panels and consider those cases.

The system requires all three judges on the screening panel

to agree that the case is suitable for submission without

argument. If one judge believes oral argument is needed,

the case will be taken off screening and placed on the next

available argument calendar.

In 2002, the Ninth Circuit’s judges agreed to sit on additional screening panels, so that each quarter had four

screening panels rather than the usual three panels per

quarter. These panels decided more than 2,000 submitted

cases, along with approximately 1,300 requests for certificates of appealability and 4,200 substantive motions. The

work completed by the monthly screening panels allows

the more difficult cases to proceed to the oral argument

calendar. For the year, another 2,000 cases were disposed

after oral argument. 

Due to the efficiencies gained through the screening program, the Court of Appeals was able to pare down a backlog

of cases awaiting oral argument. The time has been reduced,

on average, between two to three months around the circuit.

The court continues to work on other methods to improve

the timely disposition of cases. 

The Court of Appeals also relies on a well-developed

mediation program to help reduce its caseload. The mediation

office disposes of about 800 complex civil cases each year. 

Additional Screening Panels Help Court 

Contend with Growing Caseload
34 Ninth Circuit United States Courts

THE NINTH CIRCUIT IN 2002

En Banc Hearings

The Court of Appeals relies on limited

en banc panels to ensure the consistency of law within the Ninth Circuit.

En banc hearings consist of a panel 

of 11 judges who rehear a case previously ruled upon by a three-judge

panel. An en banc panel consists of the

chief judge and 10 circuit judges chosen

at random. Ordinarily, matters will be

reheard en banc only to maintain the

uniformity of the court’s laws or for

matters of exceptional importance. 

In 2002, 1,039 petitions for rehearing

en banc were filed. Of that total, the

court voted to grant rehearing en banc

in 17 cases. En banc panels heard oral

arguments in 16 cases and issued 14

written opinions (totals include some

cases in which rehearing en banc was

granted in 2001). These en banc opinions covered a wide range of issues

including civil rights, constitutional

law, criminal law, capital habeas corpus,

immigration law, and labor law. 

U.S. Supreme Court Review

In calendar year 2002, the Supreme

Court reviewed 23 cases decided by

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 

in 2002 or earlier. These cases, which

constitute less than 1 percent of the

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals workload in a typical year, covered a wide

variety of issues including the Americans

with Disabilities Act, civil rights, the

Employee Retirement Income Security

Act of 1974 (ERISA), habeas corpus,

criminal law, labor and employment,

and property takings. 

The Supreme Court issued written

opinions in 20 Ninth Circuit cases: five

were affirmed, 15 were reversed or

vacated. Two cases resulted in summary

dispositions in which the Supreme

Court vacated and remanded for further

consideration in light of its own recent

decisions. In one case, the Supreme

Court dismissed certiorari without

deciding the case. 

For the Supreme Court’s 2001-02 term

(including cases decided in 2001), there

were a total of 21 cases from the Ninth

Circuit. Eighteen cases resulted in

written opinions. Of those, four were

affirmed and 14 reversed or vacated,

resulting in a reversal rate of 78 percent.

In all, the Supreme Court issued written

opinions in 79 cases from the 13 federal

circuits and state courts for the 2001-02

term. Of those, 19 were affirmed and

60 reversed, resulting in a reversal rate

of 76 percent. ❖

Senior Circuit Judge James R. Browning witnesses the drawing for an upcoming en banc panel.

Summary of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals continued

The Court of Appeals relies on limited en banc panels

to ensure the consistency of law within the Ninth

Circuit. En banc hearings consist of a panel of 11

judges who rehear a case previously ruled upon by 

a three-judge panel.
I

n calendar year 2002, 5,070 pro se cases were filed, amounting to 41 

percent of all filings with the court. Similar upsurges in pro se cases also

occurred in the district and bankruptcy courts of the Ninth Circuit. 

Task Force on Self-Represented Litigants

Pro se litigation poses a significant drain on federal court resources. A selfrepresented litigant is usually unfamiliar with law and procedure, requiring greater

amounts of time and assistance from court staff. To respond to the problem, the

Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit has created a Task Force on Self-Represented

Litigants, consisting of district and magistrate judges, clerks, attorneys and other

legal professionals. The new group will study the impact on court resources and

operations of all actions filed or defended by self-represented litigants. It also has

been asked to make recommendations on ways to improve the administration of

these cases and the possible provision of legal assistance to self-represented litigants.

Beginning in 2003 the task force will:

1. Study and evaluate existing case management practices and assistance to 

litigants in pro se cases;

2. Explore alternative case management 

practices and methods of assisting pro 

se litigants;

3. Publicize such alternative methods and

solicit feedback with respect to them;

4. Aid in the development and monitoring of such programs; and

5. Make recommendations to the Judicial 

Council, the courts of the Ninth 

Circuit and the bar with respect to 

management of pro se cases and 

assistance to self-represented litigants.

Categories of Pro Se Filings 

The largest category of pro se cases filed

in the Court of Appeals was private

prisoner petitions (1,900), followed by

administrative agency appeals (1,200).

Over 90 percent of administrative agency

appeals involved immigration matters.

The court experienced a large increase

in immigration cases in 2002 after the

Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)

of the Immigration and Naturalization

Service was directed to reduce a large

case backlog. More than half of the BIA

cases are appealed to the Ninth Circuit,

and many of those new filing are by

pro se petitioners.

There has also been a marked increase

in the number of pro se filings in original

proceedings since the passage of the

Antiterroism and Effective Death Penalty

Act of 1996 (AEDPA). The law requires

that habeas corpus petitioners first obtain

permission from the Court of Appeals

before filing second or successive habeas

petitions in the district court. In 1996,

Annual Report 2002 35

THE NINTH CIRCUIT IN 2002

Ninth Circuit Courts Adjust to Impact of Large Pro Se Caseload

Pro se cases are cases in which at least one of the

parties is not represented by the legal counsel. The

number of pro se cases filed with the Ninth Circuit

Court of Appeals rose dramatically in the 1990s and

the trend has continued thus far in the new century. 

Pro Se Appeals, Commenced and Terminated by Circuit 

Total Cases Pro Se Total Cases Pro Se at

Circuits Commenced at Filing % Terminated Termination %

All Circuits 59,238 26,864 45% 56,254 26,297 47%

District of Columbia 1,107 357 32% 1,288 395 31%

First Circuit 1,741 370 21% 1,613 401 25%

Second Circuit 5,356 2,042 38% 4,176 1,856 44%

Third Circuit 3,702 1,690 46% 3,751 1,836 49%

Fourth Circuit 4,722 2,581 55% 4,957 2,743 55%

Fifth Circuit 8,821 4,341 49% 8,672 4,309 50%

Sixth Circuit 4,600 2,171 47% 4,586 2,299 50%

Seventh Circuit 3,466 1,656 48% 3,333 1,684 51%

Eighth Circuit 3,228 1,475 46% 3,055 1,495 49%

Ninth Circuit 12,388 5,070 41% 10,346 3,899 38%

Tenth Circuit 2,676 1,200 45% 2,562 1,200 47%

Eleventh Circuit 7,431 3,911 53% 7,915 4,180 53%

Table 2.1
36 Ninth Circuit United States Courts

THE NINTH CIRCUIT IN 2002

prior to the passage of the AEDPA,

there were 66 original habeas-related

proceedings filed in the Court of

Appeals. In 2002, the number of such

filings had grown to 534. The increase

in pro se prisoner cases has required

additional pro se law clerk position 

to be established. From 1996 to 2002,

the number of pro se law clerks nearly

doubled, climbing to 62.5 positions

from 37.5. 

Pro Se Unit of the Office of 

Staff Attorneys

Since 1992, the Ninth Circuit Court

of Appeals has benefited by having a

Pro Se Unit within the Office of the

Staff Attorneys. This unit, which consists of one supervising attorney, three

clerk paralegals and a case coordinator,

is responsible for the initial review

and early management or disposition

of pro se appeals. Early intervention

typically leads to dismissal prior to

briefing of approximately 500 appeals.

The unit also provides general assistance in unusual or difficult pro se

cases. The more complex or novel

pro se appeals are referred to the pro

se case coordinator, who sometimes

acts as pro bono counsel. When appropriate, the coordinator also assists the

pro se litigant in finding pro bono

legal representation. In that event, the

coordinator locates counsel by working

with private attorneys in each district.

Pro bono attorneys are entitled to seek

reimbursement for certain specified

costs of the appeal and are guaranteed

oral arguments.

Other Initiatives on Pro Se Cases

Staff from the Court of Appeals staff

working with the Office of the Circuit

Executive published a revised edition

of the Pro Se Handbook for District

Courts in 2002. The handbook addresses

issues that arise in the processing of

pro se civil and habeas corpus actions

in district or circuit court. It was distributed to circuit and district court staff

to help them more efficiently process

pro se cases.

The Office of the Circuit Executive

also sponsored a Pro Se Law Clerk

Conference in 2002. Held in Portland,

the conference focused on the exchange

of ideas and information among clerks

and others attendees who regularly

deal with prisoner pro se cases. One

of the panels focused on developments

in prisoner civil rights and habeas

corpus law, including the issue of

exhaustion of administrative remedies.

Another topic of panel discussion was

new strategies for management and

disposition of prisoner cases, including

the role of pro se law clerks, chambers

law clerks, magistrate judges, and

district judges. ❖

Ninth Circuit Courts Adjust to Impact of Large Pro Se Caseload continued

Approximately 120 clerks attended the Pro Se Law Clerk Conference held in Portland.
Annual Report 2002 37

THE NINTH CIRCUIT IN 2002

J

udges of the United States Courts

for the Ninth Circuit meet annually at the Ninth Circuit Judicial

Conference. This yearly gathering

is organized pursuant to Title 28 of the

U.S. Code, which authorizes the chief

judge to summon the judges of the circuit “for the purpose of considering the

business of the courts and advising

means of improving the administration

of justice within the circuit.” In the

Ninth Circuit, invitations also are

extended to lawyer representatives,

United States attorneys, federal public

defenders, clerks of court and probation

and pretrial officers.

For many years now, the judicial conference also has helped judges prepare for

new challenges in the law. In 2002, the

conference looked ahead to the conduct

of law in the post-September 11th world,

to issues of citizenship and immigration,

and to the legal complexities of cutting

edge science. Organized around the

theme The New America: Borders and

Beyond, the conference was held in San

Diego and hosted by the Southern

District of California, one of the circuit’s

two border courts. 

Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Mary M.

Schroeder presided over the opening

session and a quarterly meeting of the

Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit,

the governing body of the circuit. Other

judicial business conducted during the

conference included various meetings

of circuit, district, bankruptcy and magistrate judges. The conference opened

with a presentation of awards to winners

of a high school essay/oratory contest

entitled, “What My American

Citizenship Means to Me.” It was followed by a naturalization ceremony in

which 27 immigrants from all corners

of the globe were sworn in as U.S.

citizens. Conference Chair District

Judge Michael R. Hogan of Oregon

presided over the ceremony, which

was preceded by a keynote address by

Assistant Attorney General Viet Dinh

on The New Meaning of Citizenship. 

National Security and Civil

Liberties

A program entitled National Security

and Civil Liberties: Protecting and

Preserving Our Freedoms in Times of

Crisis focused on legal aspects of the

nation’s response to the threat of terrorism following the September 11th

attacks. Professor Mary Dudziak, of

the University of Southern California

Law School, opened the program with

a perspective about the lessons learned

from history concerning the balance

between national security interests

and civil liberties in times of war.

Circuit Judge A. Wallace Tashima and

Rose Ochi, Esq., vice president of the

Los Angeles Police Commission, participated in a discussion moderated by

Program Chair Circuit Judge Raymond 

C. Fisher. Judge Tashima and Ms. Ochi

talked about their experiences as

Japanese Americans during World War

II and how they and their families

were forced from their homes and

confined in internment camps. Judge

Tashima and Ms. Ochi shared their

recollections of that period and,

together with Ms. Dudziak, talked

of the lessons that should be learned

from that era.

The program continued with a panel

presentation moderated by Kathleen

Sullivan, dean of Stanford Law

School, dealing with a hypothetical

situation arising out of the aftermath

of September 11th. The high-powered

panel included Warren Christopher,

former Secretary of State; Nadine

Strossen, president of the American

Civil Liberties Union; Assistant

Attorney General Viet Dinh, Professor

Dudziak, and William Webster, former

director of the Central Intelligence

Agency and the Federal Bureau of

Investigation, and former federal

circuit judge.

Judicial Conference Addresses Important Issues of the 21st Century

Ms. Rose Ochi, Esq., vice president of the Los Angeles Police Commission, and Circuit Judge

Wallace Tashima participate in a panel discussion on national security and civil liberties.
38 Ninth Circuit United States Courts

THE NINTH CIRCUIT IN 2002

Immigration

Immigration, a subject especially relevant to the courts of the Ninth Circuit,

was explored in depth on the third day

of the conference. The General Session

opened with a documentary film highlighting the history of legal issues arising

out of illegal immigration into the

United States from Mexico. It was

followed by a panel discussing various

aspects of a bi-national metropolitan

region, such as San Diego/Tijuana, 

the world’s largest. Opportunities for

social and economic integration of this

region were highlighted by panelists

Rodulfo Figueroa, Mexico’s consul

general in San Diego, attorney Victor

Miramontes of American City Vista;

Alan Bersin, superintendent of the San

Diego Unified School District and former U.S. Attorney for the Southern

District of California; and attorney

John McNeece of Luce Forward

Hamilton & Scripps.

Stem Cells and Cloning

The final program of the conference

featured a scientific program very

much in keeping with the 21st century

theme. The General Session opened

with a panel discussion on Stem Cells

and Cloning: Issues Coming to Our

Courtrooms. Panelists discussed ethical,

legal and social issues arising from

cloning and the emerging field of stem

cell research. The panel was moderated

by Senior District Judge Robert Jones

of Oregon and included top researchers

Dr. David Gollaher, Ph.D., of the

California Health Care Institute;

Henry Greely, professor of Law and

Genetics at Stanford University

Law School; and Dr. Haydeh Payami,

Ph.D., professor of Genetics and

Neurology at the University of Oregon

Health Sciences.

Conversation with the Justice

The last formal event of the conference

has traditionally involved a conversation with a justice of the United States

Supreme Court. Justice John Paul

Stevens was in attendance in 2002

and, along with Solicitor General

Theodore Olson, participated in the

Conversation with the Justice and the

Solicitor General. They were interviewed

by a panel that included District

Judge Susan Illston of the Northern

District of California, and attorneys

Paul Friedman, who chaired the

conference program committee,

and Robert Torres, who chaired the

circuit’s Lawyer Representatives

Coordinating Committee. The discussion covered important issues

addressed by the federal courts in 2002.

Special Awards

Several special awards were presented at

the 2002 Judicial Conference, including:

•An American Inns of Court 

Award, given to Senior District 

Judge William Enright of the 

Southern District of California;

• The Director of the Administrative 

Office’s Award for Outstanding 

Leadership, given to Sherri 

Carter, district executive and 

clerk of court for the Central 

District of California;

• The Director’s Award for 

Excellence in Court Operations, 

given to Adria Santa Anna and 

Jennifer Sunshine, senior probation 

Judicial Conference Addresses Important Issues of the 21st Century continued

In 2002, the conference looked ahead to the conduct

of law in the post-September 11th world, to issues of

citizenship and immigration, and to the legal complexities of cutting edge science. 

Solicitor General Theodore Olson, left, and U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens.
Annual Report 2002 39

THE NINTH CIRCUIT IN 2002

officers for the District of 

Arizona, and to Stacy Verkayk, 

automation and technology 

manager for the District of 

Arizona bankruptcy court; and 

• The Robert F. Peckham Award 

for Excellence in Alternative 

Dispute Resolution, given to 

Mimi Arfin, program director, 

and Howard Herman, program 

counsel, of the alternative dispute resolution program of the 

Northern District of California.

Conference Resolutions

Each year, judges and lawyers attending

the conference vote on resolutions put

forth by the Resolutions Committee of

the Conference Executive Committee.

Resolutions receiving majority approval

from the judges and lawyers in attendance included: 

•Continuation and enhancement of 

ADR and ADR education programs.

This calls upon the Standing 

Committee on ADR to develop 

educational materials, including 

samples of court documents and 

forms, and to report on the experience

of district court ADR programs that 

provide for early intervention.

•Appointment of a task force on videoconferencing. This recommends that 

a task force be created to study current

video conferencing practices in the 

circuit, and recommend procedures for

using videoconferencing during all 

phases of the litigation process.

•Confidential attorney assistance and 

intervention programs. This encourages establishing a confidential 

process to identify attorneys at risk 

from substance abuse and mental 

illness, and supports local bar association efforts to rehabilitate those 

attorneys so they may practice law 

in a safe and competent manner.

•CJA panel attorney compensation.

This supports funding of Criminal 

Justice Act panel attorneys at the 

rate of $150 per hour with annual 

cost-of-living adjustments, as recommended by the Judicial Conference 

of the United States.

Soon after the 2002 Judicial Conference

ended, the Conference Executive

Committee began planning the 2003

conference, to be held in Kaua ́i,

Hawai ́i. Topics for the general sessions

include corporate and professional

ethics and responsibility, the oceans,

health issues, and a special enactment

commemorating the 200th anniversary

of the Marbury v. Madison decision.

Opening Ceremony: The Presentation of the

Colors by the United States Marine Corps Band.
40 Ninth Circuit United States Courts

THE NINTH CIRCUIT IN 2002

As the nations of the world interact with ever greater frequency on cultural,

economic and political matters, federal judges are finding themselves in

great demand as experts on the rule of law in a democratic society. In 2002,

judges from the Ninth Circuit welcomed foreign legal dignitaries to their courts and

traveled abroad to educate their counterparts in other countries about the judicial

system of the United States. This interaction serves two important goals:

•Helping judicial and legal officers in other countries understand aspects of U.S. 

legal institutions that they may wish to adapt to circumstances in their country; 

•Helping the United States learn from reform efforts under way in other countries.

Circuit Hosts Judges from Around the Globe

Jurists from many parts of the world have visited the Ninth Circuit to learn about the

rule of law in U.S. courts. Federal courts in the Northern District of California and the

Western District of Washington have hosted South Korean judges as part of a program

sponsored by the South Korea Supreme Court. The young Korean judges spend a year

in the United States as visiting scholars at local universities. Visits to the federal courts

help them to learn about the U.S. justice system first hand.

Several Ninth Circuit courts also participated in the Open World Program in 2002.

Authorized by Congress in 1999, the Open World Program brings emerging judicial

leaders from Russia to the United States to forge better relations between the two nations.

Russian judges and their interpreters observed court hearings, toured federal and state

courthouses and participated in discussions with judges and attorneys.

Ninth Circuit Reaches Out to Many Nations

Judges from several High Courts of Pakistan visited the Ninth Circuit in October. Circuit Executive

Gregory Walters, center, hosted the judges, who were participating in a study tour on judicial

administration.
Annual Report 2002 41

THE NINTH CIRCUIT IN 2002

Abuja, Nigeria

District Judge James Ware (N.D. Calif.)

District Judge Ronald Whyte (N.D. Calif.)

Conference on Intellectual Property Law

January 21-26, 2002

China

District Judge Ron Lew (C.D. Calif.)

Supreme Court Justice

Sandra Day O’Connor

Rule of Law Program

September 2002

China, Hong Kong, Macao & Taiwan 

Senior Circuit Judge J. Clifford Wallace

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia

Asia Foundation Program

September 1-17, 2002

Ecuador

Bankruptcy Judge Samuel Bufford

Consultation on Bankruptcy Law

May 6-9, 2002

Ecuador

District Judge Irma Gonzalez (S.D. Calif.)

Alternative Dispute Resolution Program

September 8-14, 2002

Indonesia

District Judge Helen Gillmore (Hawaii)

Ethics in Government Conference

May 31-June 7, 2002

Jerusalem, Israel

Senior Circuit Judge J. Clifford Wallace

Hon. Fern Smith, director, FJC

International Forum for Training

of the Judiciary

March 17-21, 2002

Johannesburg, South Africa

Senior Circuit Judge J. Clifford Wallace

Symposium on Environmental Law &

Sustainable Development

August 18-25, 2002

Moscow & St. Petersburg

District Judge Lloyd George (Nevada)

Meeting with Judicial Department &

Academy of Justice Representatives

April 5-19, 2002

Philippines

District Judge Ron Lew (C.D. Calif.)

Program on Criminal Court Management

August 9-10, 2002

Rwanda

District Judge James Ware (N.D. Calif.)

Conference on Judicial Reform

March 7-17, 2002

Strasbourg, France

District Judge Lloyd George (Nevada)

International Conference for

Representatives of Courts of Appeals

May 22-24, 2002

Vienna, Cairo, Israel, Singapore,

Malaysia, & Algiers

Senior Circuit Judge J. Clifford Wallace

Rule of Law Program

March 7-April 19, 2002

● Ninth Circuit Judges Participating in International Programs in 2002*

* The above list includes only travel coordinated by the U.S. Committee on International Judicial Relations. 

Individual judges and courts may have participated in other programs on their own.

St. Petersburg

Moscow

Strasbourg

Vienna

Jerusalem, Israel 

Nigeria

Rwanda

Johannesburg

Cairo

Algiers Taiwan

China

Philippines

Singapore

Malaysia

Indonesia

Hong Kong

Macao

Ecuador
In August, the District of Idaho, one

of many courts to become involved

in the program, hosted judges from

Moscow and four other regions of

Russia. The weeklong visit culminated

in a public forum, where

Russian and American

judges participated in 

a discussion on their

respective legal systems

and answered questions

from the audience. While

visiting, the Russian

judges also learned about

civil and criminal case

management, the role of

juries, alternative dispute

resolution, and the U.S.

bankruptcy courts.

Another country that took an interest

in America’s legal system in 2002 was

Thailand. In February, four judges

and three court officials from the

Southeast Asian nation spent a week

in the Los Angeles area, learning

about the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for

the Central District of California.

The visitors received an orientation

to bankruptcy law and court proceedings from Chief Bankruptcy Judge

Barry Russell and Bankruptcy Judge

Samuel Bufford. The judges from

Thailand and their staff observed

bankruptcy proceedings, heard a lecture by Law Professor Ken Klee of

the University of California at Los

Angeles, met with the United States

Trustee for the Central District of

California, and attended a program

sponsored by the Commercial Law

and Bankruptcy Section of the Los

Angeles County Bar Association.

Judge Russell, who is in charge of

the district’s bankruptcy mediation

system (the largest in the country),

also briefed the delegation from

Thailand on mediation. 

In September, the Court of Appeals

welcomed a delegation of judges and

legal staff from the Supreme Court

of Bangladesh. The judges from

Bangladesh met with Senior Circuit

Judge Clifford Wallace, Chief Circuit

Mediator David Lombardi and Clerk

of Court Cathy Catterson to learn

about case management and mediation. 

Reaching Out to Other Countries

In addition to hosting foreign visitors,

the Ninth Circuit also sent its own

judges abroad to explain the rule of

law to jurists around the globe. Most 

of these trips were made at the request

of and underwritten by the host country, public and private organizations

that sponsor international exchange

programs, or government agencies,

such as the U.S. Agency for International Development. 

The Judicial Conference of the United

States has established a Committee on

International Judicial Relations to

coordinate the federal judiciary’s

international outreach. The Ninth

Circuit has two representatives on the

committee, Circuit Judge Clifford

Wallace and District Judge Ronald

Lew of the Central District of

California. In September, Judge

Wallace accompanied Associate Justice

Antonin Scalia of the United States

Supreme Court on a trip to Taiwan,

China, Hong Kong and Macao. The

Asia Foundation, a nonprofit cultural

exchange organization based in San

Francisco, sponsored their trip. 

During the same month, Judge Lew

accompanied Associate Supreme Court

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor to China,

where she had been asked to meet with

judicial representatives. While there,

they discussed rule of law issues with

many of China’s judicial leaders.

Judge Wallace, who has served on the

International Judicial Relations

Committee since 1996, believes there

are many benefits to exchanging

information about the rule of law

with other countries.

In 2002, judges from the Ninth Circuit welcomed 

foreign legal dignitaries to their courts and traveled

abroad to educate their counterparts in other countries

about the judicial system of the United States.

Senior Circuit Judge J. Clifford Wallace, left, welcomes

judges from Bangladesh and gives a presentation on the

Court of Appeals case management process.

42 Ninth Circuit United States Courts

THE NINTH CIRCUIT IN 2002

Ninth Circuit Reaches Out to Many Nations continued
Annual Report 2002 43

THE NINTH CIRCUIT IN 2002

“In my travels, I have learned that we have done a very good job in the United States,”

said Judge Wallace. “But we also need to have humility and recognize that other

countries have done a good job too and that there are many things we can learn

from them.”

Judges who are interested in assisting with international programs can register in

an online database maintained by the International Judicial Relations Committee.

The database provides background information about judges, such as expertise in

particular legal and administrative issues. The committee uses the information to

select the most appropriate candidates for projects it helps to advance. 

As jurists versed in intellectual property law, District Judges James Ware and Ronald

Whyte of the Northern District of California were invited to speak at a conference in

Nigeria in January. Their trip was sponsored by the U.S. Department of Commerce.

District Judge Helen Gillmore of the District of Hawaii was asked to speak at an Ethics

in Government conference in Indonesia in May. Her trip was sponsored by the

U.S. Department of Justice. And in September, District Judge Irma Gonzalez of

the Southern District of California traveled to Ecuador to participate in an educational program on alternative dispute resolution. The U.S. Department of State

sponsored her trip. 

In the 21st century, the judiciary expects to see an ever increasing demand from

developing countries for information on the American judicial system. Ninth

Circuit judges will continue to use their vast expertise to help these countries

toward the goal of establishment and expansion of the rule of law and the administration of justice throughout the world. ❖

District Judge Ronald Lew, right, with President Jiang Zemin of the People’s Republic of China

at the Yingtai in Zhongnanhai, the site of the Chinese central government.
44 Ninth Circuit United States Courts

THE NINTH CIRCUIT IN 2002

Alternative Dispute Resolution

(ADR), now an integral part 

of federal court services in the

Ninth Circuit, gained further recognition in 2002 with the creation of a new

award for innovation and achievement

in the ADR field.

The Robert F. Peckham Award for

Excellence in Alternative Dispute

Resolution was established by the

Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit,

acting on a recommendation by the 

circuit’s Standing Committee on ADR.

Named for the late Judge Robert F.

Peckham of the Northern District of

California, the award recognizes

“employees who have significantly

advanced the delivery of effective

court-based ADR programs within 

the circuit.” 

The federal Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 1998 (28 U.S.C. § 651 et

seq.) requires that all federal district

courts establish ADR programs for civil

actions, and offer at least one type of

alternative dispute resolution, such as

mediation, arbitration or early neutral

evaluation. It also requires each court

to designate one person to be responsible for administering the court’s

ADR program. 

The Peckham award had its debut presentation in July at the Ninth Circuit

Judicial Conference in San Diego. The

inaugural winners were ADR Program

Director Mimi Arfin and Program

Counsel Howard Herman of the

Northern District of California, which,

thanks to Judge Peckham’s advocacy,

has one of the oldest and most successful ADR programs in the nation. The

pair shared in a $5,000 prize and each

received a crystal memento and plaque.

Ms. Arfin

joined the

Northern

District program in 1991

as deputy

director and

was promoted

to director in

1997, when

Mr. Herman

was brought

on board as

program counsel. Ms. Arfin is credited with adding

mediation to a growing range of ADR

processes, which also include Early

Neutral Evaluation, arbitration and 

settlement conferences. She also helped

conceive and implement the court’s

Multi-Option Program, which offers

litigants an array of choices rather than

a set ADR process. Ms. Arfin and Mr.

Herman now share responsibility for

the Multi-Option Program, which

serves 2,500 cases annually. User

surveys have shown high levels of satisfaction among attorneys and parties

that have used the program.

In addition to its work in establishing

the Peckham award and selecting the

first recipients, the Standing Committee

on ADR pursued several other projects

in 2002. Last April in Seattle, the committee co-sponsored with the American

Bar Association Section a program on

Dispute Resolution. This “mini-conference” on court-based ADR programs

was attended by approximately 140

judges, lawyers, mediators and court

employees from around the country.

Senior Circuit Judge Dorothy Nelson,

who chairs the committee, presided over

the event. The keynote speaker was

Magistrate Judge Wayne Brazil, who

also serves on the committee. Judge

Brazil and another committee member,

Phil Cutler, also were panelists at different breakout sessions that addressed such

topics as ethics and program structure.

Also at the 2002 circuit conference, a

resolution was passed recognizing the

committee’s efforts in the ADR area

and requesting assistance in the form

of educational materials about the

value and implementation of ADR

programs. The committee has begun

compiling the requested information

and hopes to deliver a compendium

of ADR resources in booklet form in

2003. Plans also are being discussed

to make these resources available

online through the Office of the

Circuit Executive.

Finally, in October, the committee

heard extensive presentations on three

flourishing state court ADR programs

in Florida, Minnesota and California.

The committee also developed offers

of startup assistance to specific district

courts in the Ninth Circuit. ❖

2002 Marks Debut of ADR Award for Excellence

Senior Circuit Judge Dorothy Nelson, right, presents the Robert F.

Peckham award to Howard Herman, left, and Mimi Arfin.
Pretrial services officers working

in the 15 judicial districts that

comprise the Ninth Circuit

carried the heaviest caseload nationally

with 23,780 case activations in 2002,

accounting for 26 percent of all activations nationwide. Case activations in the

circuit were up 10.5 percent over 2001.

Not surprisingly, the border districts of

Arizona (7,260) and Southern California

(5,358) led the circuit in the greatest

number of case activations, with the

Central District of California (2,883),

and the Western District of Washington

(1,692) following. All pretrial services

offices in the circuit realized an increase

in workload except for the District of

Alaska, the District of Guam, and the

Southern District of California, which

despite its large number of case activations, showed a decline from the

prior year.

Pretrial services officers play a significant

role in court operations. Officers carry

out in-depth bail investigation reports

and are responsible for supervising

defendants who are released prior to

court appearances. Their goal is to

reduce the number of unnecessary

detentions, while at the same time

reasonably ensuring the safety of the

community and future court appearances of defendants. Unnecessary

detentions are expensive and unfair to

those defendants who do not pose a risk

to the community and who are unlikely

to fail to appear. In the Ninth Circuit,

Pretrial Services officers have achieved

these goals, while maintaining low levels

of non-appearance and re-arrests. 

Pretrial Services Cases Activated in Ninth Circuit Courts, 2001-2002

Calendar Year Change

Caseload Measure 2001 2002 2001-2002

Reports 21,135 23,358 10.5%

Interviews 7,671 8,381 9.3%

Cases Activated 21,514 23,780 10.5%

Table 2.2

Pretrial Services Interviews and Types of Bail, 2002

Defendant Contact Written Reports

Not Refused Postbail Total Cases Activated Change

District Interviewed Interviewed Interview Prebail & Other 2001 2002 2001-2002

Alaska 139 58 27 214 0 268 224 -16.4%

Arizona 1,687 5,522 51 6,977 185 5,844 7,260 24.2%

C. Calif. 2,435 189 259 2,795 25 2,625 2,883 9.8%

E. Calif. 327 107 701 1,115 18 912 1,135 24.5%

N. Calif. 441 790 2 737 419 1,118 1,233 10.3%

S. Calif. 557 34 4,767 4,243 1,112 5,913 5,358 -9.4%

Hawaii 370 138 5 508 1 385 513 33.2%

Idaho 367 6 1 367 3 297 374 25.9%

Montana 289 150 8 418 16 416 447 7.5%

Nevada 596 65 391 1,028 23 845 1,052 24.5%

Oregon 388 48 499 897 6 873 935 7.1%

E. Wash. 240 205 95 249 225 392 540 37.8%

W. Wash. 452 1,073 167 1,680 3 1,416 1,692 19.5%

Guam 58 27 4 63 1 172 89 -48.3%

N. Mariana Is. 35 10 0 29 1 38 45 18.4%

Circuit Total 8,381 8,422 6,977 21,320 2,038 21,514 23,780 10.5%

National Total 64,539 15,482 11,392 80,046 7,844 86,477 91,413 5.7%

Circuit % of

National 13.0% 54.4% 61.2% 26.6% 26.0% 24.9% 26.0% *

Annual Report 2002 45

THE NINTH CIRCUIT IN 2002

Ninth Circuit Pretrial Services Carries Highest Caseload in Nation

Table 2.3
Their success is due in part to utilizing a

variety of resources, including substance

abuse and mental health counseling,

residential treatment programs, and electronic and global satellite monitoring

services, whereby a defendant’s movements may be tracked. 

Pretrial Bail Investigations and

Supervised Defendants

In 2002, pretrial services in the Ninth

Circuit completed 21,320 reports before

there was a bail hearing, and 2,038 postbail and other reports, a significant

increase over the total of 19,557 prebail

reports and 1,578 postbail and other

reports submitted in 2001. Detention was

recommended in 61.5 percent of all cases,

down from 64.2 percent in 2001.

During 2002, a total of 6,345 defendants

were released from custody in the Ninth

Circuit to pretrial services supervision, a

5.3 percent increase from those released

in 2001. (See Table 2.4 for details by

district and type of supervision.) 

Nonappearance and Re-arrest Rates

A national initiative to help reduce the

use of detention prior to trial began

in 2000 by the Office of Probation and

pretrial services, a division of the

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.

Many districts have achieved lower detention rates as a result of this project. At the

same time, pretrial service offices are

looking at ways to reduce the rates of

defendants failing to appear in court or

who are re-arrested after being released. In

the Ninth Circuit, only 2.6 percent of

defendants released on bail were rearrested, and 1.9 percent failed to appear

in court. The national rate was 3.4 percent for re-arrests and 1.9 percent for

failures to appear.

Supervision and Treatment of

Pretrial Defendants

During calendar year 2002, 6,102 Ninth

Circuit defendants were released under

the supervision of pretrial services provided they comply with certain conditions.

Of these, 2,008, or 32.9 percent were

required to submit to substance abuse

testing, and 1,292, or 18.5 percent, had

conditions for testing and substance abuse

treatment. For fiscal year 2002, $2.3

million was spent on substance abuse

treatment, an increase over the $1.5

million spent during the prior fiscal year.

The amount spent per defendant,

$1,441, was almost identical to that spent

per defendant during the prior fiscal year. 

Under the electronic monitoring program, defendants wear a bracelet. If a

violation is detected by the monitoring

center, pretrial services’ supervision

officers are notified and initiate action.

For the year, 572 defendants, 9.4 percent

of the total, were monitored electronically,

an increase of almost 20 percent over

the prior year. A number of defendants

released subject to electronic monitoring

also are placed under house arrest.

Defendants in this category are restricted

to their residences during specified hours.

There were 396 defendants in the Ninth

Circuit placed under house arrest. Defendants subject to electronic monitoring

and house arrest are considered to be at

more risk of nonappearance and potential

danger to the community.

Mental health treatment was required

as a condition of release for 404 defendants, a slight increase over the prior

year. For mental health treatment in

the Ninth Circuit, excluding substance

abuse testing costs, expenditures were

$182,609 for fiscal year 2002. The 

average cost per defendant was $730,

about 8.4 percent less than the national

average of $797 per defendant.

Violations

Violations of bond conditions do not

necessarily result in revocation of bond

and detention of defendants. Instead, the

court and pretrial services offices attempt

to maintain defendants in the community

whenever possible while responding to

risks presented by defendant behavior. In

response to bond violations, the court will

often order further restrictions to assist in

reducing risk of nonappearance and

danger to the community. For example, if

a defendant is released to the community

then later found to have used illegal

drugs, the defendant’s release may be

modified to require residential treatment

or electronic monitoring.

In 2002, there were a total of 2,421 violations of bond conditions reported for

the Ninth Circuit, an increase of 12.3

percent from 2001. Of these, 1,447

occurred before adjudication, 853 presentence, and 121 postadjudication,

while pending self-surrender to custody. 

Those defendants found to be in violation totaled 1,288, a 14.8 percent

increase over 2001. Of these, 198 had

committed new offenses (7.6 percent

increase), while the remainder were

involved in technical violations (16.2

percent increase).

The court chose not to modify bond conditions and defendants were allowed to

remain in the community in 1,157 of

these violations, while 235 violations

resulted in modification of bond conditions. Bail was revoked and defendants

were detained as a result of 1,029 or 42.5

percent of all violations.

46 Ninth Circuit United States Courts

THE NINTH CIRCUIT IN 2002

Ninth Circuit Pretrial Services Carries Highest Caseload in Nation continued
Pretrial Hearings

The pretrial services workload of judges in the circuit grew by 12.9 percent in

2002. Judges held 54,293 pretrial hearings in 2002. Detention hearings rose

by 17.2 percent, bail review hearings increased by 1.3 percent, and violation

hearings increased by 14 percent. Review at conviction hearings rose 16.8

percent, and review at sentencing hearings grew 12 percent. Declining were

review on appeal hearings, down by 16.7 percent, and judicial order hearings,

down by 10.7 percent. ❖

Pretrial Services Persons Released from Supervision as of December 31, 2002

Total Released Regular *Courtesy Pretrial Change

District to Supervision Supervision Supervision Diversion 2001-2002

Alaska 101 95 2 4 -27.30%

Arizona 1,070 869 183 18 4.90%

C. Calif. 1,672 1,106 551 15 -0.95%

E. Calif. 272 169 101 2 -0.73%

N. Calif. 494 375 99 20 12.30%

S. Calif. 611 510 93 8 -14.20%

Hawaii 257 221 9 27 43.60%

Idaho 128 99 17 12 25.50%

Montana 203 184 15 4 14.80%

Nevada 361 252 94 15 17.20%

Oregon 351 287 41 23 21.50%

E. Wash. 209 162 35 12 68.50%

W. Wash. 525 376 69 80 25.30%

Guam 62 60 0 2 -15.10%

N. Mariana Is. 29 28 0 1 11.50%

Circuit Total 6,345 4,793 1,309 243 5.30%

* Courtesy supervision is supervision of a defendant who has been charged criminally in another district. Regular supervision would involve a defendant who 

both resides and is charged in the same district.

Annual Report 2002 47

THE NINTH CIRCUIT IN 2002

Table 2.4
48 Ninth Circuit United States Courts

THE NINTH CIRCUIT IN 2002

Federal probation officers play a

crucial role in the administration

of justice, providing judges with

the information they need to make

informed sentencing decisions. 

Officers enforce the courts’ orders by

supervising offenders and monitoring

their activities in the community, and

by ensuring that offenders are held

accountable for their actions and

responsible for their obligations.

Officers work with offenders to change

behavior that contributed to their

criminality and intervene to correct

behavior if necessary. Supervision often

entails arranging for court-ordered

services such as substance abuse testing

and treatment, mental health treatment, and employment assistance to

help offenders to function as responsible members of society. Officers also

help ensure public safety by monitoring

the activity of offenders in the community and managing any risk they

may pose to individuals or the public

in general.

In 2002, Ninth Circuit probation

officers continued to see their caseloads rise. The number of persons

under supervision in the circuit

reached 19,940, up 4.9 percent from

the prior year and 22.8 percent from

1997. The national total for persons 

under supervision as of December 31,

2002, was 110,076, a 4.1 percent

increase over 2001. The number of

persons under supervision in the

Ninth Circuit constituted 18.1 percent

of the national total.

The Central District of California continued to report the highest number of

persons under supervision in the Ninth

Circuit with 5,651, an 8 percent

increase over the prior year. The District

of Arizona was second in persons under

supervision with 3,086, an increase of

16.6 percent over the 2001 total, and

the largest percentage increase in the

Ninth Circuit. 

Categories of Offenses

As has been the case throughout the

1990s and continuing in this century,

drug law violations accounted for the

majority of the cases under supervision

by Ninth Circuit probation officers. In

2002, 39.2 percent, or 7,826 cases,

involved persons under supervision for

violation of drug laws. The next largest

category of offenses was fraud with

3,783 persons under supervision, followed by robbery with 1,184 persons

under supervision.

The Central District of California,

which has the largest and busiest district

court in the nation, had 2,247 offenders

under supervision for drug offenses,

1,443 offenders for fraud offenses, and

430 offenders for robbery, which also

was the largest total in the nation.

Noteworthy numbers of drug offenders

under supervision also were reported in

the District of Arizona, which had 1,184

persons, and the Southern District of

California, with 1,124 persons. 

Courts Rely on Probation Officers in Sentencing, Monitoring Offenders

Left to right: Chief Pretrial Services Officer Tim McTighe (WAW), Chief Probation Officer David

Sanders (Nevada), and Chief Probation Officer Craig Fenwick (Idaho).

Table 2.5

Ninth Circuit Federal Probation System: Persons Under Supervision, 2002

Calendar Year Change

Persons Under Supervision 2001 2002 2001-2002

From Courts 5,761 5,658 -1.8%

From Institutions 13,250 14,282 7.8%

Total 19,011 19,940 4.9%
Ninth Circuit Probation System: Persons Under Supervision by District as of December 31, 2002

Referred by United States Courts Referred by Institutions

District Judge Magistrate Judge Supervised Total Cases Change

District Probation Probation Release Other 2001 2002 2001-2002

Alaska 74 30 165 4 259 273 5.4%

Arizona 903 229 1,890 64 2,647 3,086 16.6%

C. Calif. 1,212 123 4,148 168 5,233 5,651 8.0%

E. Calif. 267 236 1,046 61 1,546 1,610 4.1%

N. Calif. 399 245 993 78 1,724 1,715 -0.5%

S. Calif. 244 37 1,665 39 1,975 1,985 0.5%

Hawaii 137 48 440 9 575 634 10.3%

Idaho 102 27 209 6 321 344 7.2%

Montana 196 29 354 9 565 588 4.1%

Nevada 252 41 693 31 1,059 1,017 -4.0%

Oregon 257 39 692 52 1,044 1,040 -0.4%

E. Wash. 79 9 315 4 407 407 0.0%

W. Wash. 192 192 963 48 1,419 1,395 -1.7%

Guam 45 0 100 1 174 146 -16.1%

N. Mariana Is. 14 0 35 0 63 49 -22.2%

Circuit Total 4,373 1,285 13,708 574 19,011 19,940 4.9%

Annual Report 2002 49

THE NINTH CIRCUIT IN 2002

In the fraud category, the Western

District of Washington reported 351

persons under supervision, followed by

the Northern District of California with

346. For robbery, the Northern District

of California had 125 persons under

supervision, followed by the District of

Oregon, which had 121.

Violation Rates

Violation rates nationwide rose to 29.5

percent of the total persons “removed

from supervision,” up 4.5 percent from

the prior year. Most of these, 19.9 percent, were for technical violations, 1.4

percent for minor crimes, and 9 percent

for major crimes. These cases include

those persons who were continued or

reinstated on supervision, as opposed

to being “revoked” and sent back to

prison. The Ninth Circuit was lower

than the national average, with 23

percent of the persons removed from

supervision being removed for violations, down 2 percent from the prior

year. Ninth Circuit districts with the

lowest violation rates were Guam (9

percent), the Northern Mariana Islands

(11 percent), Idaho (13 percent), and

Alaska (16 percent).

The actual revocation rate calculated

in terms of cases closed (revoked due

to violations with the offender being

sent back to prison) was 22.4 percent

nationwide, with the Ninth Circuit at

27.9 percent, an increase of 2.7 percent over the prior year. Other circuits’

rates ranged from 12 percent in the

Third Circuit to 24.6 percent in the

Fifth Circuit. It appears the higher

Ninth Circuit rate was the result of

the huge numbers of immigration

and alien cases in the border districts.

Field and Court Services

There is currently a staff of 8,137 in the

Probation and Pretrial system nationwide. A major part of the work of

probation officers involves preparing

presentence reports. As part of this

process, the probation officer conducts

an investigation, gathering and verifying

information about the offender and the

nature of the offense. The presentence

report aids the court in determining

what sentence to impose. In 2002,

13,016 presentence reports were prepared in the Ninth Circuit, an increase

over the 2001 total of 12,266. The districts showing the largest increases in the

number of presentence reports prepared

were Arizona, Idaho, and Nevada. 

Within the Ninth Circuit, the numbers

of drug and mental health cases continue to grow. Psychotropic medication

Table 2.6
50 Ninth Circuit United States Courts

THE NINTH CIRCUIT IN 2002

Courts Rely on Probation Officers in Sentencing, Monitoring Offenders continued

and residential services are expensive

but necessary components. The trend

of increasing numbers of sex offenders,

including Internet child pornography

and predators, has continued. Probation

officers are receiving more training in

identifying and supervising these types

of cases, and specialized treatment services are being utilized.

After consultation with the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts Chief

Probation and Pretrial Services Advisory

Group, the Criminal Law Committee

of the Judicial Conference of the United

States has approved revised criteria to

assist in identifying offenders who may

qualify for early termination from

supervision. The criteria allow the

probation officer to consider requesting

early termination if the conditions of

supervision have been met, the offender

has successfully reintegrated into the

community, and there is no foreseeable

risk to public safety in general or to any

individual third-party. The decision on

whether to terminate early continues

to rest with the judge. 

Remote Technologies

Various “remote” technologies, so

named because they allow the probation officer to expand supervision

and surveillance beyond the immediate presence of the offender, are 

in use or being considered for use.

Electronic monitoring continues to be

a mainstay of the monitoring program.

The drive-by monitor is a hand-held

device used to remotely detect the

presence of a transmitter worn by a

client. An officer can drive by wherever

an offender is supposed to be (place of

employment, for example) or not

supposed to be (bar, drug house)

and see if the person is inside. 

It is possible for officers to detect

alcohol use remotely. An offender

blows into a mask from which a fuel

cell device detects alcohol in the

breath. The results are transmitted by

telephone to a vendor’s base and

passed along to the probation officer.

The system uses a voice verification

system coupled with sensors in the

mask that detect whether the mask

has been moved after the verification

of identity.

Global positioning satellite tracking is

currently the only device with the

potential to provide real-time continuous offender tracking. In the future,

this may prove to be an effective tool

for more serious offenders and violators.

Table 2.7

Ninth Circuit Probation System Presentence Reports

Presentence Reports Changes

2001 2002 2001-2002

Alaska 198 162 -36

Arizona 3,231 4,088 857

N. Calif. 853 685 -168

E. Calif. 1,052 1,001 -51

C. Calif. 1,670 1,649 21

S. Calif. 2,538 2,140 -398

Hawaii 326 377 51

Idaho 132 242 110

Montana 344 386 42

Nevada 511 690 179

Oregon 465 472 7

E. Wash. 302 378 76

W. Wash. 543 607 64

Guam 101 139 38

Total 12,266 13,016 750

A major part of the work of probation officers involves preparing presentence reports. Prior to preparing the report, the officer conducts a presentence 

investigation, gathering and verifying information about the offender and the offense. The presentence report provides information that enables the court 

to impose a fair sentence that satisfies the punishment, deterrence, and corrective goals of sentencing.
Annual Report 2002 51

THE NINTH CIRCUIT IN 2002

Safety and Defense Programs

The Office of Probation and Parole

Services (OPPS) of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, in

conjunction with the Officer Safety

Working Group (a part of OPPS),

has been developing a comprehensive

officer safety program. Districts will

designate Officer Safety Instructors

who will provide instruction on the

appropriate level of force or restraint.

The “Use of Force Continuum,”

approved in 2002 by the Judicial

Conference of the United States, is a

set of defensive options consisting of

five progressive levels governing an

officer’s response to threatening situations. It is based on a reasonable

assessment of the level of risk they

confront and is also based on the 

premises that (1) officers should avoid

or remove themselves from threatening

situations whenever possible, and (2)

officers should use the least amount of

force necessary to protect themselves

or allow for a safe retreat.

Districts in the Ninth Circuit have

joined other federal and local law

enforcement agencies in developing 

a Joint Terrorism Task Force. The

agencies include the Federal Bureau

of Investigation, and the offices of

U.S. attorneys, county sheriffs, district attorneys, police and highway

patrol. The goal is to establish and

maintain a consistent group of law

enforcement individuals who will

meet regularly in the districts to discuss matters and concerns regarding

domestic terrorism. 

Awards

At the Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference in July 2002, Probation Officers

Adria Santa Anna and Jennifer

Sunshine, both from the District of

Arizona, received the Director’s Award

for Outstanding Leadership from the

Administrative Office of the U.S.

Courts. Ms. Santa Anna and Ms.

Sunshine, who are assigned to an area 

of southern Arizona that encompasses

the Tohono O’odham and Pascua Yaqui

Nations, were recognized for helping to

organize the Tribal/Federal Effective

Sex Offender Task Force. Also known as

ESOM, the task force was formed to

protect Indian children from sexual

abuse by notifying Indian communities

of the release of convicted sex offenders. 

Legislation

H.R. 2215, the 21st Century Department of Justice Reauthorization Act,

was enacted in 2002 and mandates

the revocation of probation and supervised release after more than three

positive drug tests in one year. Other

provisions include the extension of

the life of the Parole Commission for

another three years and the creation

of federal and state reentry demonstration projects. ❖

District of Arizona Probation Officers Jennifer Sunshine, left, and Adria Santa Anna, right,

received the Director’s Award for Outstanding Leadership. Middle: Arizona Chief Probation

Officer Magdeline Jensen.
Federal public defenders and

community defenders in the

Ninth Circuit saw their aggregate caseload increase by 3.2 percent

in fiscal year 2002 with district courts

in the border states of California and

Arizona leading the way in new cases. 

Public defenders in Arizona carried

the largest caseload, with 5,878 new

cases, while the Southern District 

of California followed closely behind

with 5,756 new cases.

The circuit total of 24,780 new cases

was a 35 percent increase over FY 1997,

when public defenders opened 18,345

new cases. The Ninth Circuit accounted

for 31.2 percent of all new defender

cases in the nation in 2002.

Federal public defenders serve a vital

role in preserving the rule of law in

the American justice system. Congress

created the Office of the Federal

Public Defender to fulfill the constitutional requirement that indigents

charged with federal crimes be provided

with professional legal representation

at no cost. Congress funds public

defender and community defender

offices through the Defender Services

Division of the Administrative Office

of the United States Courts.

Subsection (g) of the Criminal Justice

Act provides an option for establishment of either a federal public defender

organization or a community defender

organization in a district in which at

least 200 persons annually require the

appointment of counsel. 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 the Ninth Circuit, there are 10

federal public defender offices and

three community defender organizations, one of which serves two districts.

The Ninth Circuit has more defender

organizations than any other circuit.

Pending and Closed Cases

The pending caseload of Ninth Circuit

public and community defenders rose

1.4 percent in FY 2002 to 7,669 cases.

At the same time, federal defenders

managed to close more cases than the

year before – increasing the number of

closed cases by 1.2 percent to 24,634.

Arizona, California Lead in

Caseloads

In the Ninth Circuit, the District of

Arizona reported 5,878 new cases represented by public defenders in FY 2002.

This was a 6.6 percent increase over FY

2001 and the largest increase in the

circuit. The majority of criminal cases

in Arizona were immigration related,

comprising 58 percent of the total.

Drug-related cases made up the second

largest category, with 21 percent.

The Southern District of California

ranked second in the circuit for new

cases opened by public defenders.

The community defender organization that provides service to the San

Diego-based district court reported

5,756 new cases, down slightly from

the year before. Immigration cases

made up nearly half (47 percent) of

criminal filings in the Southern

52 Ninth Circuit United States Courts

THE NINTH CIRCUIT IN 2002

Border Courts Lead Way in New Defender Cases

Federal Public Defenders

Cases Opened, Closed, and Pending, Fiscal Year Ending 9/30/02

25,000

20,000

15,000

1,000

5,000

0

1997 2002

Opened Cases Closed Cases Pending Cases

3.2% 1.2% 1.4%

Change 2001-2002

18,345

24,780

18,075

24,634

5,734

7,669
Annual Report 2002 53

THE NINTH CIRCUIT IN 2002

* Community Defender Organizations (East Washington and Idaho are combined into 

one organization.) Northern Mariana Islands is not served by a defender organization. 

(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.)

Opened Closed Pending

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

0

Federal Defender Organizations: Summary of Representations, by District, During the12-Month Period Ending

September 30, 2002 Alaska Arizona

C. Calif.

E. Calif.

N. Calif.

*S. Calif.

Guam

Hawaii

*Idaho

*Montana

Nevada

Oregon

*E. Wash.

W. Wash.

District

249276

65

125136

64

697

645

487

188192

105

403393

199

1,320

1,273

601

1,365

1,292

856

687687

219

2,0712,068

459

5,756

5,831

1,243

3,278

3,186

1,303

1,896

1,864

692

867910

523

5,8785,881

853

National Opened Cases

79,001

Ninth Circuit Opened Cases

24,780

(31%)
54 Ninth Circuit United States Courts

THE NINTH CIRCUIT IN 2002

By statute, the

judges of the Court

of Appeals select

and appoint federal

public defenders.

The Ninth Circuit

Committee on

Federal Public

Defenders is comprised of a circuit

judge from each

administrative

division of the

circuit. Each

member serves a

three-year term.

In 2002, members 

of the committee

were Circuit Judges Barry Silverman,

chairperson, Stephen Reinhardt and

Thomas Nelson, and District Judge Judith

Keep, who sat as a non-voting member.

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.

The committee reappointed two public

defenders in 2002: Ms. Frances Forsman

for the District of Nevada, and Mr. Thomas

Hillier for the Western District of

Washington. Each was confirmed to an

additional four-year term.

The Committee on 

Federal Public Defenders

Frances Forsman

Thomas Hillier

District of California, with drug-related cases (37 percent)

trailing closely behind.

The Central District of California ranked third in the circuit

with 3,278 new defender cases. The district, which includes

Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and San Luis

Obispo counties, serves some 18 million people. Criminal

cases in the district were split more evenly among a wide

range of categories. Fraud made up the largest group, with

28 percent of new filings; followed closely by immigration,

with 25 percent. Fraud cases were primarily related to immigration law violations in connection with false citizenship or

identification documents. The number of fraud cases tends

to reflect the priorities of federal law enforcement agencies

rather than an indication of the prevalence of specific types

of fraud. The growth in fraud and immigration filings

occurred during a time of dramatic increases in the number

of border patrol agents and in filings of immigration law

violations in the district courts. ❖

Border Courts Lead...continued
Annual Report 2002 55

STATISTICAL OVERVIEW
Filings in the Ninth Circuit

Court of Appeals reached a historic high of 12,388 in 2002.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

recorded a 23.2 percent increase in filings, the largest percentage increase of

the 12 regional courts of appeals. Since

1998, filings in the Ninth Circuit Court

of Appeals have grown by 36.4 percent.

This increase in filings significantly

exceeded the national average of a 4.5

percent increase for all courts of appeals.

Filings in the Ninth Circuit Court of

Appeals constituted 20.9 percent of the

national total. By way of comparison

with other circuits, the Fifth Circuit

Court of Appeals had the second highest number of filings with 8,821, a

small increase of 1.9 percent over the

prior year. 

The second highest percentage increase

in filings was 20.1 percent in the

Second Circuit Court of Appeals,

which had a total of 5,356 filings.

Types of Appeals

The surge in filings is the result of a

huge increase in filings of Immigration

and Naturalization Service (INS) cases.

The Board of Immigration Appeals of

the INS was directed to clear a large

backlog of cases, and the agency’s use

of expedited reviews generated a wave

of new appeals. From 913 cases in

2001, INS filings in the Court of

Appeals jumped to 3,672 in 2002, an

increase of 302 percent. Including INS

cases, the total of all administrative

appeals in the Court of Appeals was

3,899, an increase of 256 percent from

the prior year. Administrative appeals

comprised 31.5 percent of total filings

in the Court of Appeals in 2002; in

2001 this category represented only

10.9 percent of all filings. The next

largest category of appeals was private

prisoner petitions (up 14.4 percent),

amounting to 18.7 percent of appeals.

Other than administrative appeals and

private prisoner petitions, all other types

of filings in the Court of Appeals

declined in 2002.

Private civil appeals (down 8.1 percent),

was the third largest category of appeals,

amounting to 17.5 of the total, while

criminal appeals (down 8 percent)

comprised 14.5 percent of the total.

Of the criminal appeals, the largest

category of offenses involved drug

laws (33.5 percent), followed by

immigration laws (23.9 percent). 

Original proceedings, which amounted

to 5.2 percent of filings in the Court

of Appeals, dropped by 26.9 percent,

reversing an upward trend over the

prior five-year period. The increase in

original proceedings began in 1997

following the enactment of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty

Act of 1996, which required habeas

corpus petitioners to first seek permission in the Court of Appeals

before filing a second or successive

petition in the district court. 

There were 5,070 pro se cases filed in

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in

2002, amounting to 41 percent of all

filings. The largest categories of pro se

cases were private prisoner petitions

(1,900) and administrative appeals

(1,200), the latter again reflecting the

large increase in INS case. 

U.S. District Courts as Sources of

Appeals

The Central District of California continued to generate the largest number

of appeals of any district in the nation

with 2,272 cases, or 18.3 percent of

the total filings in the Ninth Circuit

56 Ninth Circuit United States Courts

STATISTICAL OVERVIEW

Appellate Filings Reach Historic High

Table 3.1

Appellate Caseload Profile, 2001-2002

Calendar Year Change

Caseload Measure 2001 2002 2001-2002

Filings 10,054 12,388 23.2%

Terminations 10,227 10,346 1.2%

Pending Cases 9,491 11,140 17.4%

Court of Appeals Filings

14,000

12,000

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

9,081 9,542

12,388

1998 2000 2002
Annual Report 2002 57

Court of Appeals. The Eastern District

of California generated the second

largest number of appeals in the circuit,

accounting for 7.2 percent of all appeals.

Both of these districts showed declines

in the number of cases appealed in 2002

as compared to 2001; appeals from the

Central District of California fell by 3

percent, and from the Eastern District

of California, by 10.5 percent. However, over the last five years, the number

of appeals from the Central District of

California increased by 9.5 percent,

while appeals from the Eastern District

of California increased by 23.2 percent.

Eight of the 15 districts in the circuit

experienced a decline in 2002 in the

number of appeals from their courts.

For example in the Eastern District of

Washington, appeals dropped by 16.7

percent. Similarly, the number of appeals

dropped by 16.1 in the Western District

of Washington and 10.6 percent in the

Northern District of California. 

Districts with increases in the number

of appeals from their courts included

the District of Guam (up 115 percent),

the District of Montana (up 37 percent), and the District of Arizona (up

4.3 percent).

Terminations and Pending Cases 

Case terminations in the Ninth Circuit

(including cases consolidated) rose 1.2

percent to 10,346. Terminations on

procedural grounds or on the merits

increased 1.6 percent, to 9,870 cases,

accounting for 18.4 percent of the

national total. Pending cases rose 17.4

percent to 11,140. 

Median Time Intervals

The Ninth Circuit remained higher

than the national median for the time

from filing in lower court to a final

disposition of a case in appellate court,

reporting a 30.7-month median, compared to the national median of 26

months. The Ninth Circuit fared well

when compared to the national median

time interval from hearing appellate

cases to their final disposition—a 1.5-

month median time compared with the

higher national median of 2.1 months.

This is the period when the cases are

under direct management of the judges.

❖

STATISTICAL OVERVIEW

Source of Appeals and Original Proceedings, 2002

District Appeals % of Total

Alaska 103 0.8%

Arizona 818 6.6%

Central California 2,272 18.3%

Eastern California 891 7.2%

Northern California 765 6.2%

Southern California 581 4.7%

Hawaii 186 1.5%

Idaho 135 1.1%

Montana 241 1.9%

Nevada 490 4.0%

Oregon 495 4.0%

Eastern Washington 175 1.4%

Western Washington 455 3.7%

Guam 28 0.2%

Northern Mariana Islands 15 0.1%

Bankruptcy 197 1.6%

United States Tax Court 66 0.5%

National Labor 14 0.1%

Relations Board

Administrative Agencies 3,819 30.8%

Original Proceedings 642 5.2%

Circuit Total 12,388

Table 3.2
58 Ninth Circuit United States Courts

Appellate Filings Reach Historic High continued

STATISTICAL OVERVIEW

Table 3.5

Filings, Terminations, and Pending Cases by Appeal Type, 2002

Type of Appeal Filings % of Circuit Total *Terminations Pending as of 12/31/02

Civil

U.S. Prisoner Petitions 714 5.8% 697 576

Private Prisoner Petitions 2,320 18.7% 1,875 1,955

Other U.S. Civil 650 5.2% 674 641

Other Private Civil 2,165 17.5% 2,279 2,274

Criminal 1,801 14.5% 1,950 1,939

Other Bankruptcy 197 1.6% 241 199

Administrative Appeals 3,899 31.5% 1,507 3,403

Original Proceedings 642 5.2% 647 153

Circuit Total 12,388 9,870 11,140

National Appellate Total 59,238 53,773 42,604

Ninth Circuit as % of National Total 20.9% 18.4% 26.1%

*Excludes terminations of cases disposed of by consolidation.

Table 3.3

Table 3.4

Median Time Intervals 2001-2002

Number of Months

Ninth Circuit National

By Stage of Appeal 2001 2002 2001 2002

From Notice of Appeal to Filing Last Brief 5.8 5.9 5.3 5.3

From Filing Last Brief to Hearing or Submission 6.4 5.9 3.8 3.6

From Hearing to Final Disposition 1.5 1.5 2.2 2.1

From Submission to Final Disposition 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.5

From Filing of Notice of Appeal to Final Disposition 16.1 14.7 10.9 10.6

From Filing in Lower Court to Final Disposition in Appellate Court 31 30.7 25.8 26

Median Time Intervals in Months for Cases Terminated After Hearing or Submission, By Circuit, 2002

From Filing of From Filing of Last From Hearing to From Submission to From Filing of Lower Court to

Notice of Appeal Brief to Hearing or Final Disposition Final Disposition Appeal to Final Final Disposition

to Filing Last Brief Submission Disposition in Appellate Court

Circuit Cases Months Cases Months Cases Months Cases Months Cases Months Cases Months

D.C. 181 9.0 305 2.8 250 1.9 259 0.6 332 9.8 332 26.1

1st 465 5.5 479 2.0 348 2.6 196 2.0 506 10.6 506 29.5

2nd 1,275 5.4 1,298 3.6 1,099 0.7 834 0.2 1,611 11.0 1,611 31.9

3rd 1,323 5.6 1,379 3.0 478 2.6 1,471 2.0 1,654 11.9 1,654 28.7

4th 1,099 4.6 1,151 2.5 472 2.3 2,128 0.5 2,228 6.9 2,228 19.6

5th 2,465 5.6 2,541 3.3 1,020 1.7 2,999 0.4 3,463 9.7 3,463 21.1

6th 1,650 6.0 1,711 7.9 922 2.4 1,406 1.3 1,967 16.5 1,967 31.3

7th 952 4.9 997 2.4 731 2.5 709 0.3 1,225 9.7 1,225 24.9

8th 1,010 3.6 1,052 3.3 625 2.7 1,188 0.3 1,474 7.8 1,474 21.8

9th 3,391 5.9 3,836 5.9 2,046 1.5 3,273 0.3 4,124 14.7 4,124 30.7

10th 1,068 5.1 1,112 3.7 422 3.5 984 1.3 1,227 11.5 1,227 25.9

11th 2,635 4.3 2,692 2.3 743 2.0 2,753 1.1 3,104 8.5 3,104 23.7

Total Cases 17,514 5.3 18,553 3.6 9,156 2.1 18,200 0.5 22,915 10.6 22,915 26.0
Continuing population

growth and increasing law

enforcement activity in two

states bordering Mexico have made

the federal courts of the Ninth Circuit

the busiest in the nation. In 2002,

district courts in the circuit accounted for 18 percent of the total federal

court caseload. Their criminal and

civil case filings totaled 57,241, up

2.1 percent from the prior year. The

modest upturn followed a 6 percent

drop in filings in 2001. 

Criminal Filings

Criminal filings in district courts of

the circuit climbed 9 percent to 15,704

in 2002, slightly higher than the

national increase of 8 percent. The

greatest number of criminal cases in

the district courts involved immigration, 35 percent, and drug-related

offenses, 23 percent. 

In the Ninth Circuit, the overall

growth in criminal filings was mainly

attributable to increases in cases relating to firearms (up 47 percent), fraud

(up 17 percent), immigration (up 15

percent), and drugs (up 5 percent).

The growth in firearms cases – 1,036

filings in 2002 compared to 706 filings in 2001– stemmed from a new

program, Project Safe Neighborhood,

which was initiated by President Bush

in May 2001. Congress appropriated

$9 million for Project Safe Neighborhood in 2002, enabling the Department

of Justice to hire 94 additional assistant

U.S. attorneys, who were assigned to

coordinate with state and local law

enforcement officials in identifying

and prosecuting violations of federal

firearms laws.

A total of 10 percent of the increase

in criminal filings in U.S. courts was

due to an administrative change for

counting sealed cases (in which the

identity of a defendant is reported

only when the case is unsealed).

Starting in July 2002, sealed cases

were counted when filed, instead of

when unsealed. 

Aligned with the increase in filings,

the total number of defendants in

criminal cases rose 9 percent in 2002

to 19,478. Proceedings were concluded

against 17,973 defendants, an increase

of 7 percent over the year before. Of

these, 15,723 were convicted (a conviction rate of 87 percent), and

13,242 were imprisoned.

The District of Arizona reported the

highest number of criminal cases

commenced (3,962), followed by 

the Southern District of California

(3,501), and the Central District of

California (1,511). 

Annual Report 2002 59

STATISTICAL OVERVIEW

District Court Filings On the Upswing

Table 3.6

District Court Filings: Total Criminal and Civil Cases Filed, Terminated, and Pending 2001-2002

Calendar Year Change

Caseload Measure 2001 2002 2001-2002

Civil Filings 41,649 41,537 -0.3%

Criminal Filings 14,408 15,704 9.0%

Total Filings 56,057 57,241 2.1%

Civil Terminations 43,394 42,935 -1.1%

Criminal Terminations 13,648 14,653 7.4%

Total Terminations 57,042 57,588 1.0%

Pending Civil Cases 42,085 40,687 -3.3%

Pending Criminal Cases 10,445 11,496 10.1%

Total Pending Cases 52,530 52,183 -0.7%

Civil Case Termination Index (in months) 11.64 11.37 -2.3%

Criminal Case Termination Index (in months) 9.18 9.41 2.5%

Overall Case Termination Index 11.05 10.87 -1.6%

Median Months (filing to disposition) Civil 8.2 8.0 -2.4%

Median Months (filing to disposition) Criminal 5.4 5.4 0.0%
District Court Filings continued

60 Ninth Circuit United States Courts

STATISTICAL OVERVIEW

Immigration and drug law violations

predominated the criminal dockets in

Arizona and the Southern District of

California. In Arizona, immigration

made up 43 percent of criminal cases

commenced, while drug law violations accounted for 20 percent. In the

Central District of California, fraud

(26 percent) and firearms cases (8

percent) led the way. 

Four of the 15 districts in the circuit –

Alaska, the Northern District of

California, the Southern District of

California, and Guam – reported a

drop in criminal case filings, with

Alaska experiencing nearly a 30

percent decline. All other districts

reported an increase, with the Eastern

District of Washington and the

Western District of Washington

reporting the greatest increases, 58

percent and 27 percent, respectively.

Civil Filings

In 2002, civil case filings in Ninth

Circuit district courts continued

the downward trend that began in

2001. Civil filings fell by 0.3 percent

to 41,537. 

Of all civil filings, private civil cases

accounted for 76 percent, while cases

in which the United States acted as

plaintiff or defendant comprised 23

percent. Prisoner petitions made up

27 percent of private civil cases and 5

percent of U.S. civil cases.

Social security filings made up the

largest category of United States civil filings, with 30 percent of the total. The

largest categories of private civil cases

were civil rights (20 percent), followed

by contract disputes (14 percent). 

The Central District of California

reported the largest number of civil

cases (12,864) followed by the

Northern District of California

(6,313), and the Eastern District 

of California (4,427).

Of private civil cases filed, the largest

number was opened in the Central

District of California, with 9,474.

Many of the private civil filings in this

district were for habeas corpus (1,767),

contracts (1,706), and civil rights

(1,525). The districts with the next

highest number of private civil cases

were the Northern District of California

(5,234) and the Eastern District of

California (3,423).

Over half of Ninth Circuit districts

reported a drop in civil case filings in

2002, with the Central District of

California reporting the largest decrease

in absolute numbers (down 887 cases

to 12,864 filings). Guam reported the

largest percentage decrease in filings

(down 50 percent from 76 civil filings to 38 in 2002). Seven districts

reported increases, with the Western

District of Washington experiencing

the largest increase (18 percent).

Nationally, civil filings remained on

nearly the same level as the year before,

with only a 1 percent increase.

Case Terminations

District courts in the circuit reported

a slight reduction in the number of civil

cases filed in 2002. This was offset

somewhat by a decline in civil case

terminations during the year. The net

result was a 3.3 percent reduction in the

number of civil cases pending in the

district courts.

The pending criminal caseload in

district courts rose 10.1 percent from

the prior year. This increase paralleled

the 9 percent rise in filings. District

courts kept up with the larger caseload

by increasing criminal case terminations by 7.4 percent.

Case Processing Times

The district courts in the Ninth Circuit

were even more expeditious in processing cases in 2002. The Case

Termination Index, which computes

how long it would take to clear the

pending caseload if the current termination rate remained constant, showed

marked improvement over the prior

year. The index for all cases – civil

and criminal – was reduced to 10.9

months in 2002 from 11.1 months in

2001, an improvement of 2 percent.

The circuit also fared well for median

times from filing to disposition. For civil

cases, median times dropped .2 percent

to 8.0 months from 8.2 months. This

compares favorably to the nationwide

average of 8.6 months.

For criminal cases, the median time

from filing to disposition of criminal

defendants remained at 5.4 months

in 2002 – lower than the national

average of 6.2 months. ❖
Annual Report 2002 61

STATISTICAL OVERVIEW

Table 3.7

Ninth Circuit District Court - Types of Criminal Cases Commenced, 2002 (excludes Transfer Cases)

General Offenses Total

Homicide 0 102 6 1 1 1 2 10 6 7 1 1 2 0 0 140

Robbery 2 15 73 8 22 23 12 6 1 30 37 8 23 0 0 260

Assault 6 51 6 12 15 21 10 30 17 5 5 2 26 2 0 208

Burglary 0 2 0 0 0 1 2 0 10 0 1 0 1 0 0 17

Larceny 14 176 92 46 33 13 41 13 11 20 42 13 183 4 1 702

Embezzlement 6 6 34 15 27 8 13 6 7 22 13 4 24 4 0 189

Fraud 28 233 435 151 108 404 30 17 38 161 56 43 121 14 10 1,849

Weapons & Firearms 22 180 138 52 85 15 50 50 44 191 124 71 42 4 4 1,072

Forgery and Counterfeiting 2 10 105 5 23 6 4 1 3 16 14 19 19 7 0 234

Drug Laws 42 997 143 130 126 1,724 119 41 76 66 157 225 225 92 9 4,172

Traffic 5 18 2 8 37 0 184 0 98 1 0 0 0 0 0 353

Escape 0 26 19 6 11 13 1 0 2 9 15 4 4 0 1 111

Other 7 99 69 49 42 24 23 4 75 42 22 13 13 1 0 483

General Offenses Total 134 1,915 1,122 483 530 2,253 491 178 388 570 487 403 683 128 25 9,790

Special Offenses

Immigration Laws 7 2,118 314 425 144 1,762 8 56 26 176 212 164 27 14 2 5,455

Agricultural Acts 7 11 2 12 2 1 2 5 18 2 0 5 1 0 0 68

Postal Laws 0 0 10 3 6 0 0 0 1 5 0 0 6 0 0 31

Other 14 68 63 28 48 43 15 13 23 15 15 5 37 4 2 393

Special Offenses Total 28 2,197 389 468 200 1,806 25 74 68 198 227 174 71 18 4 5,947

All Offenses Total 162 4,112 1,511 951 730 4,059 516 252 456 768 714 577 754 146 29 15,737 Alaska Arizona C. Calif. E. Calif. N. Calif. S. Calif. Hawaii Idaho Montana Nevada Oregon E. Wash. W. Wash. Guam N. Mariana Is. 
Weighted and Unweighted Filings Per Authorized Judgeship, Criminal Felony Defendants Only, 2002

Unweighted Filings Per Judgeship Weighted Filings Per Judgeship

Authorized 2001 2002 Change

District Judgeships Civil Criminal Total Civil Criminal Weighted Total Weighted Total 2001-2002

Alaska 3 124 63 187 117 102 238 219 -8.0%

Arizona 12 271 368 639 240 452 608 692 13.8%

C. Calif. 27 453 80 533 400 116 484 516 6.6%

E. Calif. 7 607 168 775 479 213 614 692 12.7%

N. Calif. 14 438 60 498 408 93 521 501 -3.8%

S. Calif. 8 317 488 805 332 598 1,068 930 -12.9%

Hawaii 4 208 114 322 232 194 403 426 5.7%

Idaho 2 295 176 471 275 275 504 550 9.1%

Montana 3 217 145 362 200 236 458 436 -4.8%

Nevada 7 342 127 469 332 170 431 502 16.5%

Oregon 6 375 143 518 352 194 543 546 0.6%

E. Wash. 4 174 144 318 141 199 257 340 32.3%

W. Wash. 7 475 98 573 519 155 534 674 26.2%

Circuit Total 104 4,296 2,174 6,470 4,027 2,997 6,663 7,024 5.4%

Circuit Mean *** 330 167 498 310 231 513 540 5.4%

Circuit Median *** 317 143 498 332 194 504 516 2.4%

Note: Case weights are based on the 1987-1993 district court time study conducted by the Federal Judicial Center. This table excludes civil cases arising by

reopening, remand, or transfer to the district by the order of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. Transfers and reopens of felony defendants

are included. This table excludes data for the territorial courts. Beginning October 1, 2001, data are reported for supervised release revocation hearings previously

not presented in this table. 

62 Ninth Circuit United States Courts

STATISTICAL OVERVIEW

Table 3.9

Table 3.8

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and District Court Senior Judge Activity, 2001-2002

Calendar Year Change

Senior Judge Activity 2001 2002 2001-2002

Court of Appeals

Case Hearings 1,643 1,815 10.5%

Submitted on Briefs 1,534 2,066 34.7%

Other Appeals 1,085 754 -30.5%

District Court Trials 423 391 -7.6%

District Court Filings continued
Annual Report 2002 63

STATISTICAL OVERVIEW YEAR IN REVIEW

Bankruptcy courts in the Ninth

Circuit experienced a 2.2 percent rise in filings in 2002 to

282,594 cases. The increase was less

than half of what was reported nationally in 2002, which set a record for the

most bankruptcy filings in history. For

the year, national bankruptcy filings

were 1,577,651, up 5.7 percent from

2001. The Ninth Circuit record for

most bankruptcy occurred in 1998

when filings totaled 323,382.

Contributing to the increase in 2002

was the general slowdown in the

national economy and high levels of

consumer debt. Although bankruptcy

reform legislation did not pass in the

107th Congress, debtors may have

been influenced to file in 2002 by the

possibility of changes in the law that

would be less favorable to them. It is

anticipated that a new bankruptcy

reform bill will be introduced and

considered in the 108th Congress.

Nationwide, no new bankruptcy

judgeships have been created since

1992, despite the 59 percent increase

in the caseload of bankruptcy judges

since then. The Judicial Conference

of the United States has recommended

to leadership in the 108th Congress

that 36 new bankruptcy judgeships

be created in 22 judicial districts,

including two new permanent judgeships in Nevada.

Bankruptcy Cases by Chapter of the

Bankruptcy Code

The largest number of filings was

under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy

Code, totaling 229,465 (business and

non-business) and comprising 81.2 of

all bankruptcy cases in the Ninth

Circuit. Chapter 7 allows individuals

to keep certain exempt property while

the remaining property is sold to pay

creditors. In most Chapter 7 cases,

most property is exempt. In Chapter

7 bankruptcies, the business is liquidated and terminated.

Bankruptcy Filings Rise

Chief Bankruptcy Judge Geraldine Mund (CAC), chair of the Conference of Chief

Bankruptcy Judges, presents a plaque to incoming chair Chief Bankruptcy Judge Edward

Jellen (CAN).

Table 3.10

Business and Non-Business Bankruptcy Cases Commenced, By Chapter of the

Bankruptcy Code, During the Twelve Month Period Ended December 31, 2002

Calendar Year Change

Caseload Measure 2001 2002 2001-2002

Filings

Business Chapter 7 5,451 5,511 1.1%

Business Chapter 11 1,811 1,683 -7.1%

Business Chapter 12 86 91 5.8%

Business Chapter 13 1,742 1,940 11.4%

Non-Business Chapter 7 219,657 223,954 2.0%

Non-Business Chapter 11 192 259 34.9%

Non-Business Chapter 13 47,564 49,135 3.3%

Total 276,516 282,594 2.2%

Terminations 263,528 269,091 2.1%

Pending Cases 211,898 225,401 6.4%
64 Ninth Circuit United States Courts

STATISTICAL OVERVIEW YEAR IN REVIEW

A total of 51,075 Chapter 13 cases

(business and non-business) were

filed in the Ninth Circuit, amounting

to 18.1 percent of the total cases

filed. Under Chapter 13 bankruptcy,

creditors may be repaid in installments,

in full or in part, over three to five

years and debts may not exceed the

statutory amount ($1,077,000 in

2002). Chapter 13 is available for

individuals operating businesses as

sole proprietorships, but not for

partnerships or corporations.

The two smallest categories of bankruptcy cases each amounted to under

1 percent of the total cases filed.

Chapter 11 cases (business and nonbusiness) totaled 1,942 cases and

Chapter 12 cases totaled only 91

cases. Chapter 11 provides for a business to continue operations while formulating a plan to repay its creditors.

Although used less commonly in

non-business filings, it also allows an

individual to use future earnings to

pay off creditors. Chapter 12 only

applies to business filings and provides

family farmers facing bankruptcy a

chance to reorganize their debts and

keep their farms.

Non-Business Filings

Non-business bankruptcy filings in the

Ninth Circuit totaled 273,352 and

comprised 96.7 percent of all bankruptcy cases. Non-business Chapter 7 filings

were the largest single category of bankruptcy filings with 223,954 cases filed in

2002, up 2 percent from the prior year.

Non-business Chapter 7 cases accounted

for 79.2 percent of all filings. 

The second largest category of filings

in the Ninth Circuit was non-business

Chapter 13 cases, with 49,135 filings,

or 17.4 percent of the total. Non-business Chapter 13 filings showed a 3.3

percent increase in 2002. 

Non-business Chapter 11 bankruptcies, which represent only a small

fraction of the total of non-business

bankruptcies in the circuit, increased

to 259 filings in 2002 from 192 filings in 2001. 

Business Filings

Bankruptcy filings by businesses

totaled 9,242 and accounted for 3.3

percent of all bankruptcy cases in the

Ninth Circuit in 2002. The majority

of these business bankruptcies were

filed under Chapter 7, with 5,511

total cases, a slight increase of 1.1

percent from the year before. 

Chapter 13 business filings in 2002,

totaling 1,940, showed an 11.4 percent increase over the 2001 total of

1,742. Business bankruptcies filed

under Chapter 11 in 2002 fell to

1,683 from 1,811 in 2001, a decrease

of 7.1 percent. Completing the business filings were 91 Chapter 12 cases,

an increase of five from the total of

86 filed in 2001.

Districts with Largest Number of

Filings

The Central District of California, the

nation’s largest bankruptcy court, continued to lead the country in bankruptcy filings. For 2002, the Central

District recorded 84,115 filings, which

accounted for 5.3 percent of the

national total. However, the total filings

in the Central District of California

decreased 4.6 percent from the 88,195

bankruptcy filings in 2001. Chapter 7

cases, both business and non-business,

made up the majority of filings in the

Central District.

Bankruptcy Filings Rise continued

Table 3.11

Bankruptcy Judge Reappointments

Judge District Reappointment Date

Alan M. Ahart C.D. CA Reappointed 4/4/02

Peter W. Bowie S.D. CA Reappointed 3/2/02

Mitchel R. Goldberg C.D. CA Reappointed 6/1/02

Arthur M. Greenwald C.D. CA Reappointed 3/9/02

James R. Grube N.D. CA Reappointed 8/12/02

Christopher M. Klein E.D. CA Reappointed 2/9/02

Kathleen T. Lax C.D. CA Reappointed 4/4/02

Marilyn Morgan N.D. CA Reappointed 6/16/02

Randall J. Newsome N.D. CA Reappointed 6/1/02

Elizabeth L. Perris ORE Reappointed 4/1/02

Albert E. Radcliffe ORE Reappointed 2/17/02

Robin L. Riblet C.D. CA Reappointed 3/30/02

Linda B. Riegle NEV Reappointed 1/11/02

Leslie J. Tchaikovsky N.D. CA Reappointed 4/14/02

Vincent P. Zurzolo C.D. CA Reappointed 4/18/02
Annual Report 2002 65

STATISTICAL OVERVIEW YEAR IN REVIEW

The Eastern District of California

had the next largest number of filings

in the Ninth Circuit with 31,497,

but this was a decrease of 2.4 from

2001. The District of Arizona had

the third most filings with 29,716, a

16.6 increase from 2001. Rounding

out the districts with the most filings

was the Western District of Washington, which had 29,030 filings, up 7.6

percent from the previous year and a

record high for that district. 

Districts with Largest Percentage

Increases in Filings

The districts with the largest percentage increases in bankruptcy filings

were Guam (up 31.6 percent with 379

compared to 288 in 2001), Arizona (up

16.6 percent with 29,716 compared to

25,489 in 2001), and Nevada (up 9

percent with 19,736 compared to

18,102 in 2001). 

Terminations and Pending Cases

The circuit experienced a slight increase

in the number of bankruptcy case terminations in 2002. For the year,

269,091 cases were closed, up 2.1 percent from 263,528 cases closed in 2001.

The number of pending cases rose

to 225,401, up 6.4 percent from

the 211,898 cases at the end of 2001.

Recalled Judges

To address the shortage of judges,

Ninth Circuit bankruptcy courts continue to rely on recalled judges to

relieve the active bankruptcy judges.

During 2002, nine recalled bankruptcy

judges in seven districts assisted the

66 active bankruptcy judges. 

Appointments

During the year, the Court of Appeals

appointed two bankruptcy judges and

reappointed 15 bankruptcy judges

(see accompanying table). The newcomers were Bankruptcy Judge Peter

H. Carroll, appointed to the Central

District of California on August 1,

2002, to fill a vacancy created by the

retirement of Bankruptcy Judge

Lynne Riddle; and Chief Bankruptcy

Judge Robert J. Faris, appointed to

the District of Hawaii on February

14, 2002, to fill a vacancy created by

the retirement of Chief Bankruptcy

Judge Lloyd King. 

New Judgeships

In Congress, legislation authorizing

additional bankruptcy judgeships was

introduced but ultimately failed to win

passage in either the House or Senate.

The House Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 

2001 (H.R. 333) would have authorized

23 new temporary judgeships, while

the Senate Bankruptcy Reform Act of

2001 (S. 220) would have authorized

28 new temporary judgeships and

extended four existing temporary

judgeships. H.R. 333 eventually made

its way to a conference committee,

which filed a conference report in July

2002. When a House resolution to

take up the conference report failed in

November, a revised version of the bill,

H.R. 5745, was introduced and passed

by the House. H.R. 5745 deleted the

bankruptcy judgeship provision and a

controversial provision regarding the

discharge of debts associated with violation of a law ensuring access to abortion

clinics. The Senate declined to take up

this bill prior to adjournment. ❖

Beth Wiggins, of the Federal Judicial Center, discusses the bankruptcy judgeship formula at

the Conference of Chief Bankruptcy Judges and Clerks meeting in December. Also pictured

are Chief Bankruptcy Judges Geraldine Mund, left, and Edward Jellen. 
66 Ninth Circuit United States Courts

STATISTICAL OVERVIEW YEAR IN REVIEW

Bankruptcy Appeals Increase

The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel

All district courts within the

Ninth Circuit have issued 

general orders providing for

the automatic referral of bankruptcy

appeals to the Bankruptcy Appellate

Panel (BAP) for disposition. However,

if any party files a timely election to

have the appeal heard by a district

court, the appeal is transferred according to the consent rule. In 2002, BAP

handled 58 percent of all bankruptcy

appeals, while 42 percent were heard 

in district courts.

New Filings

The number of new bankruptcy appeals filed circuit-wide

increased by 6.4 percent over the prior year, from 844 in 2001

to 904 in 2002. This reversed a downward trend that began in

1997, when appeals totaled 1,234. 

Of the 2002 bankruptcy appeals filed, 527 were referred to

BAP, while 377 proceeded to the district courts (see table). Of

the 527 appeals handled by BAP, 213 appeals (40 percent) had

a pro se litigant as either an appellant or an appellee.

Dispositions

The BAP disposed of 495 appeals. Of those, 163 appeals were

merits terminations. Oral argument was held in 152 appeals,

and 11 appeals were submitted on briefs. Of the 163 decisions, 42 were published opinions. The reversal rate was 21.5

percent. The median time for an appeal decided on the merits

was 9.3 months. The remaining 332 appeals were terminated

on procedural grounds, such as for lack of prosecution, lack of

jurisdiction, consolidation, or based on voluntary dismissal.

The BAP ended the period with 264 appeals pending.

Appeals to the Ninth Circuit

During 2002, 197 bankruptcy appeals were filed at the Court

of Appeals for second-level appellate review. Of these, 85 were

appeals of decisions by the BAP and 112 from decisions of the

district courts. Thus, for the 495 appeals which proceeded and

were disposed of by the BAP, 83 percent were fully resolved

with only about 17 percent seeking second-level review. ❖

Judges of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel. Seated: Judge Elizabeth L. Perris, Chief

Judge John E. Ryan, Judge Philip H. Brandt. Standing: Judge James M. Marlar, Judge

Christopher M. Klein, Judge Dennis Montali.

Table 3.12

New Bankruptcy Appeal Filings 2002

Bankruptcy District

District Appellate Panel Court Total

Alaska 5 14 19

Arizona 57 56 113

C. Calif. 224 111 335

E. Calif. 41 21 62

N. Calif. 72 43 115

S. Calif. 50 14 64

Hawaii 3 11 14

Idaho 10 7 17

Montana 3 20 23

Nevada 19 28 47

Oregon 10 13 23

E. Wash. 11 7 18

W. Wash. 22 32 54

Totals 527 (58%) 377 (42%) 904 
Annual Report 2002 67

STATISTICAL OVERVIEW

Magistrate Judges

Table 3.13

Ninth Circuit Misdemeanor Defendants Disposed Of and Civil Cases Terminated by U.S. Magistrate Judges, Fiscal Year

2001-2002

Civil Cases Terminated Pursuant to Section 636 (c) Misdemeanor, Petty Offense Defendants Disposed

Change Change

District 2001 2002 2001-2002 2001 2002 2001-2002

Alaska 1 4 300.0% 126 286 127.0%

Arizona 207 168 -18.8% 6,806 7,675 12.8%

C. Calif. 667 765 14.7% 1,514 1,041 -31.2%

E. Calif. 390 333 -14.6% 2,375 2,144 -9.7%

N. Calif. 458 552 20.5% 1,158 1,164 0.5%

S. Calif. 43 43 0.0% 868 734 -15.4%

Hawaii 39 25 -35.9% 761 585 -23.1%

Idaho 84 203 141.7% 37 53 43.2%

Montana 191 136 -28.8% 363 277 -23.7%

Nevada 32 22 -31.3% 734 760 3.5%

Oregon 195 226 15.9% 632 565 -10.6%

E. Wash. 109 141 29.4% 124 134 8.1%

W. Wash. 83 87 4.8% 2,079 2,958 42.3%

Circuit Total 2,499 2,705 8.2% 17,577 18,376 4.5%

The Magistrate Judges Executive Board meets at the Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference in San Diego.

Left to right: Magistrate Judges Lonny Suko (Eastern District of Washington), Virginia Mathis (Arizona),

Committtee Chair Elizabeth Laporte (Northern District of California), Arthur Nakazato (Central District

of California), and Harry Branson (Alaska).
Juror Utilization 2001-2002

Petit Juror Utilization Rate

Grand Juries Petit Juries % Not Serving, Selected, or Challenged (NSSC)* Change

District Empaneled, 2002 Selected, 2002 2001 2002 2001-2002

Alaska 2 23 33.60% 41.50% 23.5%

Arizona 11 103 45.30% 39.10% -13.7%

C. Calif. 39 207 57.30% 52.60% -8.2%

E. Calif. 14 67 44.90% 42.20% -6.0%

N. Calif. 15 92 46.30% 46.00% -0.6%

S. Calif. 11 113 43.50% 46.30% 6.4%

Hawaii 5 17 30.80% 38.00% 23.4%

Idaho 9 27 14.90% 23.50% 57.7%

Montana 3 53 29.20% 36.30% 24.3%

Nevada 4 81 39.50% 35.10% -11.1%

Oregon 6 54 10.70% 18.50% 72.9%

E. Wash. 3 20 35.60% 25.10% -29.5%

W. Wash. 6 46 35.60% 31.70% -11.0%

Guam 1 3 66.00% 33.80% -48.8%

N. Mariana Is. 3 5 30.50% 37.00% 21.3%

Circuit Total 132 911 *** *** ***

Circuit Average 9 61 37.60% 36.45% -3.1%

National Average 9 75 34.30% 39.60% 15.5%

*The U.S. Judicial Conference has established a standard of 30 percent NSSC to evaluate a district’s jury management.

68 Ninth Circuit United States Courts

STATISTICAL OVERVIEW

Table 3.15

Court Interpreters / Juror Utilization

Court Interpreters: Language by District Usage, Fiscal Year 2002

Number of Interpreter Uses*

Language Total

Arabic 0 22 211 42 54 41 0 0 0 0 15 0 5 4 9 403

Armenian 0 0 83 158 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 246

Cantonese 0 1 63 8 222 7 0 4 0 0 38 0 4 0 42 389

Farsi 0 2 26 0 8 12 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 52

Japanese 0 0 30 5 12 2 2 25 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 78

Korean 20 0 137 0 36 10 29 26 0 0 0 2 25 6 118 409

Mandarin 0 23 140 0 186 18 33 62 0 0 6 43 1 0 13 525

Navajo 0 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65

Russian 0 12 199 12 47 32 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 16 322

Sign 0 3 9 16 7 8 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 46

Spanish 57 34,347 5,833 2,868 1,820 17,469 2 180 294 40 1,211 1 1,520 929 491 67,062

Tagalog 1 0 64 1 24 2 5 1 0 0 0 3 4 0 2 107

Vietnamese 0 1 84 42 101 1 0 35 1 0 3 0 6 0 117 391

**All Other 0 6 14 1 2 6 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 32

Total 78 34,482 6,893 3,153 2,520 17,608 75 334 297 40 1,282 51 1,565 939 810 70,127

*Interpreter uses are calculated per event. These numbers do not indicate multiple interpreters, when in the same language, nor do 

they illustrate the translation services for documents, individual orientations, group orientaton workshops, or telephone interpreting.

**Languages not used more than 50 times are included in this category. Alaska Arizona CAC CAE CAN CAS Guam

Hawaii IdahoMontanaNevadaN. Mariana Is.Oregon WAEWAW

Table 3.14
Annual Report 2002 69

DISTRICT CASELOADS

District Caseloads 

Alaska

Oregon

Nevada

Idaho

Montana

Arizona

Eastern

Washington

Western

Washington

Northern

California

Hawaii

N. Mariana

Islands

Guam

Eastern

California

Central

California

Southern

California
70 Ninth Circuit United States Courts

DISTRICT CASELOADS

Table 3.16

Table 3.17

District of Alaska

Calendar Year Change Per Judgeship Unweighted

Caseload Measure 2001 2002 2001-2002 2002

District Court

Filings 660 537 -18.6% 179

Terminations 828 642 -22.5% 214

Pending 640 535 -16.4% 178

Bankruptcy Court

Filings 1,473 1,479 0.4% 740

Terminations 1,275 1,386 8.7% 693

Pending 1,501 1,594 6.2% 797

Authorized Judgeships

District 3

Senior 3

Bankruptcy 2

Magistrate

Full time 2

Part-time 4

Authorized places of holding court: Anchorage, Fairbanks,

Juneau, Ketchikan, Kodiak, Nome

District of Arizona

Calendar Year Change Per Judgeship Unweighted

Caseload Measure 2001 2002 2001-2002 2002

District Court

Filings 6,581 7,339 11.5% 612

Terminations 6,302 6,964 10.5% 580

Pending 5,493 5,868 6.8% 489

Bankruptcy Court

Filings 25,489 29,716 16.6% 3,302

Terminations 22,577 25,597 13.4% 2,844

Pending 27,258 31,377 15.1% 3,486

Authorized Judgeships

District 12

Senior 7

Bankruptcy 9

Magistrate

Full time 12

Part-time 0

Authorized places of holding court: Flagstaff, Phoenix,

Prescott, Tucson, Yuma

District Caseloads
Annual Report 2002 71

DISTRICT CASELOADS

Table 3.18

Table 3.19

Central District of California

Calendar Year Change Per Judgeship Unweighted

Caseload Measure 2001 2002 2001-2002 2002

District Court

Filings 15,143 14,410 -4.8% 534

Terminations 17,627 16,139 -8.4% 598

Pending 15,942 14,213 -10.8% 526

Bankruptcy Court

Filings 88,195 84,115 -4.6% 4,005

Terminations 85,151 85,315 0.2% 4,063

Pending 46,603 45,403 -2.6% 2,162

Authorized Judgeships

District 27

Senior 10

Bankruptcy 21

Magistrate

Full time 20

Part-time 2

Authorized places of holding court: Los Angeles,

Riverside, Santa Ana

Eastern District of California

Calendar Year Change Per Judgeship Unweighted

Caseload Measure 2001 2002 2001-2002 2002

District Court

Filings 4,800 5,390 12.3% 770

Terminations 5,036 5,052 0.3% 722

Pending 5,659 5,997 6.0% 857

Bankruptcy Court

Filings 32,259 31,497 -2.4% 3,937

Terminations 32,490 31,315 -3.6% 3,914

Pending 21,278 21,460 0.9% 2,683

Authorized Judgeships

District 7

Senior 3

Bankruptcy 8

Magistrate

Full time 8

Part-time 3

Authorized places of holding court: Fresno, Redding,

Sacramento
72 Ninth Circuit United States Courts

DISTRICT CASELOADS

Table 3.20

Table 3.21

District Caseloads

Southern District of California

Calendar Year Change Per Judgeship Unweighted

Caseload Measure 2001 2002 2001-2002 2002

District Court

Filings 6,468 6,360 -1.7% 795

Terminations 6,279 6,457 2.8% 807

Pending 3,494 3,397 -2.8% 425

Bankruptcy Court

Filings 13,367 12,890 -3.6% 3,223

Terminations 14,053 14,574 3.7% 3,644

Pending 11,829 10,145 -14.2% 2,536

Authorized Judgeships

District 8

Senior 5

Bankruptcy 4

Magistrate

Full time 10

Part-time 0

Authorized places of holding court: El Centro, San Diego

Northern District of California

Calendar Year Change Per Judgeship Unweighted

Caseload Measure 2001 2002 2001-2002 2002

District Court

Filings 7,632 7,051 -7.6% 504

Terminations 6,191 7,371 19.1% 527

Pending 8,061 7,741 -4.0% 553

Bankruptcy Court

Filings 19,838 21,405 7.9% 2,378

Terminations 20,919 22,119 5.7% 2,458

Pending 23,639 22,925 -3.0% 2,547

Authorized Judgeships

District 14

Senior 4

Bankruptcy 9

Magistrate

Full time 10

Part-time 1

Authorized places of holding court: Eureka, Monterey,

Oakland, San Francisco, San Jose, Santa Rosa
Annual Report 2002 73

DISTRICT CASELOADS YEAR IN REVIEW

Table 3.22

Table 3.23

District of Guam

Calendar Year Change Per Judgeship Unweighted

Caseload Measure 2001 2002 2001-2002 2002

District Court

Filings 233 186 -20.2% 186

Terminations 178 179 0.6% 179

Pending 234 241 3.0% 241

Bankruptcy Court

Filings 288 379 31.6% 379

Terminations 321 367 14.3% 367

Pending 219 231 5.5% 231

Authorized Judgeships

District 1

Senior 0

Bankruptcy 0

Magistrate

Full time 0

Part-time 0

Authorized places of holding court: Hagatna

The Guam district judge also handles all bankruptcy cases.

District of Hawaii

Calendar Year Change Per Judgeship Unweighted

Caseload Measure 2001 2002 2001-2002 2002

District Court

Filings 1,313 1,364 3.9% 341

Terminations 1,353 1,290 -4.7% 323

Pending 1,491 1,565 5.0% 391

Bankruptcy Court

Filings 5,039 4,485 -11.0% 4,485

Terminations 4,745 4,725 -0.4% 4,725

Pending 2,883 2,643 -8.3% 2,643

Authorized Judgeships

District 4

Senior 2

Bankruptcy 1

Magistrate

Full time 3

Part-time 2

Authorized places of holding court: Honolulu
74 Ninth Circuit United States Courts

DISTRICT CASELOADS

Table 3.24

Table 3.25

District Caseloads 

District of Idaho

Calendar Year Change Per Judgeship Unweighted

Caseload Measure 2001 2002 2001-2002 2002

District Court

Filings 852 847 -0.6% 424

Terminations 839 846 0.8% 423

Pending 890 891 0.1% 446

Bankruptcy Court

Filings 8,265 8,913 7.8% 4,457

Terminations 8,512 8,274 -2.8% 4,137

Pending 7,175 7,814 8.9% 3,907

Authorized Judgeships

District 2

Senior 0

Bankruptcy 2

Magistrate

Full time 2

Part-time 0

Authorized places of holding court: Boise, Coer d’Alene,

Moscow, Pocatello

District of Montana

Calendar Year Change Per Judgeship Unweighted

Caseload Measure 2001 2002 2001-2002 2002

District Court

Filings 1,172 1,146 -2.2% 382

Terminations 1,124 1,160 3.2% 387

Pending 1,167 1,153 -1.2% 384

Bankruptcy Court

Filings 4,002 4,062 1.5% 4,062

Terminations 3,564 3,828 7.4% 3,828

Pending 3,234 3,468 7.2% 3,463

Authorized Judgeships

District 3

Senior 2

Bankruptcy 1

Magistrate

Full time 3

Part-time 1

Authorized places of holding court: Billings, Butte, Great

Falls, Helena, Kalispell, Missoula
Annual Report 2002 75

DISTRICT CASELOADS

Table 3.26

Table 3.27

District of Nevada

Calendar Year Change Per Judgeship Unweighted

Caseload Measure 2001 2002 2001-2002 2002

District Court

Filings 2,857 3,261 14.1% 466

Terminations 2,750 3,074 11.8% 439

Pending 2,984 3,171 6.3% 453

Bankruptcy Court

Filings 18,102 19,736 9.0% 4,934

Terminations 14,302 9,339 -34.7% 2,335

Pending 23,532 33,929 44.2% 8,482

Authorized Judgeships

District 7

Senior 2

Bankruptcy 4

Magistrate

Full time 5

Part-time 0

Authorized places of holding court: Carson City, Elko, Ely,

Las Vegas, Lovelock, Reno

District of Northern Mariana Islands

Calendar Year Change Per Judgeship Unweighted

Caseload Measure 2001 2002 2001-2002 2002

District Court

Filings 76 84 10.5% 84

Terminations 79 65 -17.7% 65

Pending 53 72 35.8% 72

Bankruptcy Court

Filings 26 25 -3.8% 25

Terminations 35 23 -34.3% 23

Pending 28 30 7.1% 30

Authorized Judgeships

District 1

Senior 0

Bankruptcy 0

Magistrate

Full time 0

Part-time 0

Authorized places of holding court: Saipan

The Northern Mariana Islands district judge also handles all bankruptcy cases.
76 Ninth Circuit United States Courts

DISTRICT CASELOADS

Table 3.28

Table 3.29

District Caseloads

District of Oregon

Calendar Year Change Per Judgeship Unweighted

Caseload Measure 2001 2002 2001-2002 2002

District Court

Filings 3,202 3,102 -3.1% 517

Terminations 3,120 2,805 -10.1% 468

Pending 2,868 3,165 10.4% 528

Bankruptcy Court

Filings 23,038 24,649 7.0% 3,521

Terminations 21,558 23,826 10.5% 3,404

Pending 15,021 15,844 5.5% 2,263

Authorized Judgeships

District 6

Senior 5

Bankruptcy 7

Magistrate

Full time 6

Part-time 1

Authorized places of holding court: Coquille, Eugene,

Klamath Falls, Medford, Pendleton, Portland

Eastern District of Washington

Calendar Year Change Per Judgeship Unweighted

Caseload Measure 2001 2002 2001-2002 2002

District Court

Filings 1,068 1,339 25.4% 335

Terminations 1,101 1,181 7.3% 295

Pending 809 967 19.5% 242

Bankruptcy Court

Filings 10,149 10,213 0.6% 3,404

Terminations 8,960 9,638 7.6% 3,213

Pending 7,946 8,521 7.2% 2,840

Authorized Judgeships

District 4

Senior 2

Bankruptcy 3

Magistrate

Full time 2

Part-time 0

Authorized places of holding court: Richland, Spokane,

Walla Walla, Yakima
Annual Report 2002 77

DISTRICT CASELOADS

Table 3.30

Western District of Washington

Calendar Year Change Per Judgeship Unweighted

Caseload Measure 2001 2002 2001-2002 2002

District Court

Filings 4,000 4,825 20.6% 689

Terminations 4,235 4,363 3.0% 623

Pending 2,745 3,207 16.8% 458

Bankruptcy Court

Filings 26,986 29,030 7.6% 5,806

Terminations 25,066 28,765 14.8% 5,753

Pending 19,752 20,017 1.3% 4,003

Authorized Judgeships

District 7

Senior 4

Bankruptcy 5

Magistrate

Full time 4

Part-time 2

Authorized places of holding court: Bellingham, Seattle,

Tacoma
Office of the Circuit Executive

Gregory B. Walters, Circuit Executive

P.O. Box 193939

San Francisco, CA 94119-3939

ph: (415) 556-2000

http://www.ce9.uscourts.gov