2014 ANNUAL REPORT

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
The Office of the Circuit Executive would like to acknowledge the following for their contributions 

to the 2014 Ninth Circuit Annual Report:

Chief Judge Sidney R. Thomas

Cathy A. Catterson, Circuit and Court of Appeals Executive, Ninth Circuit

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

Susan M. Spraul, Clerk, Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel

Felix S. Mata, Chief Probation Officer, District of Hawaii

David L. Martin, Chief Pretrial Services Officer, District of Arizona

The cover image is taken from video of an oral argument before a three-judge panel. In the photo above, Assistant 

Information Systems Manager Kwame Copeland, right, and Courtroom Technology Specialist Matthew Bullimore 

monitor live video streaming from a control room in the James R. Browning U.S. Courthouse in San Francisco, 

California. More information about video streaming can be found on page 20. 
judicial council

of the ninth circuit

Voting members of the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit are Chief Judge Sidney R. Thomas, Senior Circuit 

Judge J. Clifford Wallace, Circuit Judge Richard A. Paez, Circuit Judge Richard C. Tallman, Circuit Judge 

Consuelo M. Callahan, Circuit Judge Mary H. Murguia, Chief District Judge Raner C. Collins, Chief District 

Judge George H. King, Chief District Judge B. Lynn Winmill, Senior District Judge Susan Y. Illston, Senior 

District Judge Anthony W. Ishii

Observer members of the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit are Chief District Judge Susan Oki Mollway, 

District Judge Anna J. Brown, District Judge Robert S. Lasnik, Chief Bankruptcy Judge Frank R. Alley, III, Chief 

Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Smith, District Court Clerk Terry Nafisi, Bankruptcy Court Clerk Wayne E. 

Blackwelder, Chief Probation Officer Felix S. Mata and Chief Pretrial Services Officer David L. Martin.

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
table of contents

SPACE & SECURITY

48 Courthouse Dedication Honors Memory 

of Slain Judge

51 Remembering the Loma Prieta Earthquake

52 Courthouses Under Construction

THE WORK OF THE COURTS

54 Court of Appeals Reduces Backlog and 

Processing Time

58 District Courts See Significant Decline

in Criminal Filings

62 Bankruptcy Filings Continue Steep Decline 

64 Parties Turn to BAP to Resolve Half of All

Bankruptcy Appeals

66 Magistrate Judges Work Invaluable to Ninth Circuit

68 Caseloads Decline for Most Federal Public 

Defender Offices

70 Probation Officers Workload Increase

73 Pretrial Services Officers Use Various Methods 

to Improve Supervision

76 Juror Utilization

77 Court Interpreters

78 District Caseloads

NINTH CIRCUIT OVERVIEW

1 Foreword

3 Ninth Circuit Overview

4 Judicial Council, Advisory Groups and Administration

JUDICIAL TRANSITIONS

8 New Judges

15 Senior Judges

16 In Memoriam

NINTH CIRCUIT HIGHLIGHTS

20 Live Video Streaming Now the Norm

for Appellate Arguments

21 New Chief Judge for the Ninth Circuit

22 Circuit Welcomes New Law Clerks 

23 Nevada’s New Chief Judge Is Woman of ‘Firsts’

24 Few Vacant Seats on the Federal Bench

26 Idaho Celebrates 225th Anniversary of Judiciary Act

27 Small Staff with Big Ideas Produces National 

eVoucher Systems

28 Quackenbush Lecture Series Draws Top Speakers

29 Ninth Circuit Judge Kim Mclane Wardlaw Lectures 

on Judicial Philosophy

30 Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Takes Stock 

at Federal Bar Luncheon

31 Circuit Conference Marks 50th Anniversary 

of Gideon Decision

33 2014 Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference Awards

35 Circuit Conference Recognizes Civics Education

37 Newest Justice Makes a Visit to Portland

38 Ninth Circuit Committee Helps Courts Manage 

Pro Se Litigation

39 2014 Ninth Circuit New Judges Orientation

40 A Busy Year for Pacific Islands Committee 

41 Courts Excel in Community Outreach Efforts

44 Kennedy Library Program

45 Judges Receiving Awards

44 Administrative Changes
1

The 2014 Ninth Circuit Annual Report profiles the federal courts 

serving nine western states and two 

Pacific Island jurisdictions. It provides 

statistical summaries of the work done 

by judges and judiciary staff over the 

last year, and highlights important 

events and trends in our courts. I hope 

you find the information useful and 

welcome your comments.

Although this report is my first as Chief Judge, I have 

worked closely with my predecessors on the challenges 

facing the Judiciary, including budgetary, space, staffing, 

and case management issues. Special credit is due 

to Chief Judge Alex Kozinski for his leadership and 

management of the Circuit. 

Budget sequestration and the government shutdown 

created significant problems throughout the judiciary. 

We were able to survive those difficult periods through 

the hard and creative work of judges and court staff 

throughout the circuit, and I am confident that our 

courts will continue to provide a high level of service to 

litigants and the general public.

I am very pleased to report that Ninth Circuit courts 

ended the year with just two judicial vacancies, the 

fewest in recent memory. The flurry of presidential 

nominations and Senate confirmations in 2014 included 

two new circuit judges, which gave the Ninth Circuit 

Court of Appeals its full complement of judges for the 

first time in more than 20 years. Our new colleagues, 

Judges John B. Owens and Michelle T. Friedland, are 

the 99th and 100th judges to be appointed in the 123-

year history of the court.

Fifteen new district judges were appointed during the 

year, six of them in the District of Arizona and four in 

the Northern District of California. The newcomers 

are a diverse group that includes the first Native 

American woman to serve as a federal judge, Diane J. 

Humetewa of Arizona, a member of the Hopi Tribe. 

Also among the new appointees is Salvador Mendoza, 

Jr., the first Hispanic to serve as an Article III judge in 

the Eastern District of Washington. 

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals appointed or 

reappointed seven bankruptcy judges in 2014. They 

included Bankruptcy Judge Barry Russell, who is the 

longest-serving, full-time bankruptcy judge in the 

nation with nearly 40 years of continuous service to 

the Central District of California. Five new magistrate 

judges were appointed and four reappointed by the 

judges of their respective districts.

The Ninth Circuit continues to be a leader in the use 

of technology to improve operations and make the 

judicial process more accessible to the public. Court 

staff in the District of Nevada developed a new system 

for managing costs for legal representation of indigent 

defendants as required by the Criminal Justice Act. 

Their eVoucher system is now being implemented 

nationally and will be in use by all federal courts by the 

end of 2015. The Ninth Circuit is currently the only 

federal appellate court to provide live high definition 

video streaming of oral arguments. In 2015, virtually 

all of the court’s oral argument cases will be available 

for Internet viewing.

foreword

CHIEF JUDGE 

SIDNEY R. THOMAS
2

In the realm of space and facilities, we made good 

progress in constructing a new courthouse in Los 

Angeles, a long overdue priority project which is 

scheduled for completion in the spring of 2016. In 

northern California, construction was completed on a 

new courthouse in McKinleyville, replacing an aging 

facility in nearby Eureka. In Yuma, Arizona, dedication 

ceremonies were held for the new John M. Roll U.S. 

Courthouse, appropriately named for Chief District 

Judge Roll who was killed in the 2011 mass shooting 

in Tucson. The federal courthouse in Anchorage was 

rededicated as James M. Fitzgerald U.S. Courthouse in 

memory of a renowned jurist who served on both the 

federal and state courts of Alaska.

On the operational side, the Ninth Circuit Court of 

Appeals reduced its pending caseload by 3 percent and 

continued to improve its median time intervals, which 

measure how long it takes for cases decided on the 

merits to proceed through the appellate process. For 

all cases, the median time interval in 2014 was 12.4 

months, down from 13.3 months the prior year. The 

court has reduced the median time interval by 5 months 

over the last four fiscal years. 

Although the Ninth Circuit continues to be the 

nation’s busiest appellate court with 21.9 percent of 

all new appeals nationally, new filings were down 6 

percent from the prior year. Immigration matters and 

appeals brought by inmates in state or federal prisons 

within the circuit constituted two-thirds of the new 

filings, while more than half of all new appeals were 

brought by litigants who were not represented by a 

lawyer. To address the challenges created by pro se 

prisoner litigation, we are planning a comprehensive 

prisoner litigation summit in late 2015. The Court 

of Appeals continues to develop case management 

techniques to address the tremendous volume of 

immigration cases and, in December, met with 

Department of Justice representatives to discuss the 

administration’s new initiatives on immigration and 

their impact on the courts. 

Due largely to a significant drop in new criminal 

cases, district courts in the Ninth Circuit reported 

a 1.1 decrease in new filings overall. In the circuit, 

the District of Arizona and the Southern District of 

California continue to report the greatest numbers of 

criminal defendants as a result of drug smuggling and 

illegal immigration over the U.S.-Mexico border.

Bankruptcy filings in the Ninth Circuit declined for the 

fourth consecutive year. The 15 districts within the 

Ninth Circuit reported 21.8 percent fewer new filings. 

The Central District of California, which continues to 

be the busiest bankruptcy court in the nation, saw new 

filings decrease by 26.9 percent. 

A number of our judges were recognized during 

the year and a full listing of their awards can be 

found elsewhere in the report. One honoree was 

Circuit Judge Consuelo “Connie” M. Callahan, the 

2014 recipient of the prestigious Ninth Circuit 

Professionalism Award from the American Inns of 

Court. A prominent member of the legal community 

in California’s Central Valley for nearly 40 years, 

Judge Callahan has devoted her entire career to 

public service and been a role model for women and 

minorities in the legal profession.

Through its many committees, the Judicial Council 

of the Ninth Circuit continues to be among the most 

active and innovative in advancing the administration 

of justice. This year’s report highlights the work of our 

Pacific Islands Committee, which is expanding judicial 

education opportunities for judges in the northern 

Pacific; the Pro Se Litigation Committee, which 

focuses on the challenges posed by self-represented 

litigants; and the Courts and Community Committee, 

which cosponsored a civics education contest whose 

winners were recognized at our circuit conference.

We invite you to review this report further for more 

information about the work of the courts of the West. 
3

The United States Courts for the Ninth Circuit 

consists of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

Ninth Circuit, the federal trial and bankruptcy 

courts in the 15 judicial districts within the circuit, 

and associated administrative units that provide 

various services to the courts.

Judicial districts within the Ninth Circuit include the 

districts of Alaska, Arizona, Central California, Eastern 

California, Northern California, Southern California, 

Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Eastern 

Washington, Western Washington, the U.S. Territory of 

Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 

Islands. The establishment of the Ninth Circuit in 1866 

began the development of the federal judicial system for 

the western United States. It is the largest and busiest 

federal circuit in the nation.

Judges serving on the circuit and district courts are 

known as Article III judges, a reference to the article 

in the Constitution establishing the federal judiciary. 

Nominated by the president and confirmed by the 

Senate, Article III judges serve lifetime appointments 

upon good behavior. With the confirmations in 2014 

of John B. Owens and Michelle T. Friedland, the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals is now operating with its full 

complement of active judges. Congress expanded the 

Ninth Circuit bench to 28 judgeships in 1984 and added 

the 29th seat in 2009. For most of the year, the district 

courts of the circuit were authorized 112 judgeships, 

two of which were vacant at the end of 2014.

Federal courts also rely on senior circuit and senior 

district judges to assist with their workload. These are 

Article III judges who are eligible to retire but have 

chosen to continue working with reduced caseloads. 

On the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, 16 senior 

circuit judges were at work during the year, sitting 

on motions and merits panels, serving on circuit and 

national judicial committees, and handling a variety of 

administrative matters. In the district courts within 

the circuit, 64 senior judges were at work, hearing 

cases, presiding over procedural matters, serving on 

committees and conducting other business in 2014.

In addition to Article III judges, the federal bench 

includes Article I judges, who serve as magistrate 

judges in the district courts and bankruptcy judges 

in the bankruptcy courts. Bankruptcy judges are 

appointed by judges of the courts of appeals and serve 

terms of 14 years. Magistrate judges are appointed 

by the judges of each district court and hold their 

positions for eight years. Bankruptcy and magistrate 

judges may be reappointed.

In 2014, bankruptcy courts in the Ninth Circuit 

were authorized 68 permanent and five temporary 

judgeships. The district courts were authorized 105 

full-time and 9 part-time magistrate judges, and one 

combined position of part-time magistrate judge/

clerk of court. Several courts also utilized recalled 

bankruptcy and recalled magistrate judges.

 

Overall, the Ninth Circuit courts experienced reduced 

caseloads in 2014. Unless otherwise noted, statistics 

in this report cover fiscal year 2014.

ninth circuit overview

MONTANA

IDAHO

NEVADA

ARIZONA

OREGON

ALASKA

HAWAII

GUAM

NORTHERN

MARIANA 

ISLANDS

SOUTHERN 

CALIFORNIA

CENTRAL 

CALIFORNIA

NORTHERN

CALIFORNIA

EASTERN

CALIFORNIA

WESTERN

WASHINGTON

EASTERN

WASHINGTON
4

The Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit is 

the governing body for federal district and 

bankruptcy courts in nine western states 

and two Pacific island jurisdictions. The judicial 

council’s statutory mission is to support the effective 

and expeditious administration of justice and the 

safeguarding of fairness in the administration of the 

courts. It has statutory authority to “make all necessary 

and appropriate orders for the effective and expeditious 

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

332(d)(1)]. 

The judicial council also has been delegated 

responsibilities by the Judicial Conference of the United 

States, the national governing body for the federal 

courts. These responsibilities include authorizing senior 

judge staffing levels and pay, and managing the judicial 

misconduct complaint process.

The judicial council is chaired by the chief judge of the 

circuit and relies on advisory groups and committees 

to accomplish its governance goals. Chairs of three 

advisory groups attend council meetings as observers 

and sometimes as voting members. Committee chairs 

report to the council as needed.

Circuit Judge Sidney R. Thomas became chief judge 

of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and chair of the 

Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit on December 

1, 2014, succeeding Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, who 

had led the circuit since 2007. Newly appointed in 

2014 as voting members of the judicial council were 

Circuit Judge Consuelo M. Callahan of Sacramento, 

California, and Chief District Judge B. Lynn Winmill 

of the District of Idaho. Newly appointed as observer 

members were Chief District Judge Susan Oki 

Mollway of the District of Hawaii; District Judge 

Anna J. Brown and Chief Bankruptcy Judge Frank 

R. Alley, III, of the District of Oregon; Magistrate 

Judge Deborah M. Smith of the District of Alaska; 

District Court Clerk Terry Nafisi of the Central 

District of California; Bankruptcy Court Clerk Wayne 

Blackwelder of the Eastern District of California; 

Chief Probation Officer Felix S. Mata of the District 

of Hawaii; and Chief Pretrial Services Officer David L. 

Martin of the District of Arizona. 

Under the Rules for Judicial-Conduct and JudicialDisability Proceedings, the Judicial Council of the 

Ninth Circuit considers petitions for review of the chief 

judge’s orders in judicial misconduct complaints. In 

2014, there were 11 petitions for review filed and all 11 

petitions were resolved by the judicial council.

Conference of Chief District Judges

The Conference of Chief District Judges advises the 

Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit regarding the 

administration of justice in the circuit’s 15 district 

courts. The conference, which meets twice a year, is 

comprised of the chief district judges of each district. 

Chief District Judge Ann L. Aiken of the District of 

Oregon served as chair from March 2013 to March 

2014. She was succeeded by Chief District Judge 

Susan Oki Mollway, who will chair the conference until 

March 2015.

Elevated to chief district judge during the year were 

Judges Gloria M. Navarro of the District of Nevada 

and Phyllis J. Hamilton of the Northern District of 

California.

Conference of Chief Bankruptcy Judges

The Conference of Chief Bankruptcy Judges advises 

the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit on the 

administration of the bankruptcy courts within the 

judicial council, 

advisory groups and administration
5

circuit. The conference, which 

also meets twice per year, consists 

of chief bankruptcy judges from 

each district, the chief bankruptcy 

judge of the Ninth Circuit 

Bankruptcy Appellate Panel and 

a recalled bankruptcy judge 

representative. Chief Bankruptcy 

Judge Christopher M. Klein of 

the Eastern District of California 

chaired the conference from 

October 2013 to September 2014. 

He was succeeded by District of 

Oregon’s Chief Bankruptcy Judge 

Frank R. Alley, III, who will chair 

the conference until September 

2015.

Elevated to chief bankruptcy judge 

in 2014 were Judges Daniel P. 

Collins of the District of Arizona, 

Frederick Corbit of the Eastern 

District of Washington, and Brian 

D. Lynch of the Western District of 

Washington.

Magistrate Judges Executive 

Board

The Magistrate Judges Executive 

Board communicates to the 

Judicial Council of the Ninth 

Circuit on behalf of the more 

than 120 full-time, part-time 

and recalled magistrate judges 

serving in the district courts. The 

15-member board meets twice a 

year and holds a session with all 

magistrate judges at the Ninth 

Circuit Judicial Conference. Chief 

Magistrate Judge Deborah M. 

Smith of the District of Alaska 

succeeded Chief Magistrate Judge 

Candy W. Dale of the District of 

Idaho as chair of the board. Her 

term began in August 2014.

ADVISORY & STANDING 

COMMITTEES

• Advisory Board

• Alternative Dispute Resolution

• Capital Case

• CJA Oversight

• Court-Council Committee On

• Bankruptcy Judge Appointments

• Courts and Community

• Federal Public Defenders

• Fairness

• Information Technology

• Jury Instructions

• Jury Trial Improvement

• Ninth Circuit Judges Education

• Pacific Islands

• Pro Se Litigation

• Space & Security

• Wellness

EXECUTIVE 

COMMITTEE

OFFICE OF THE 

CIRCUIT EXECUTIVE

Cathy A. Catterson

Circuit & Court of Appeals Executive

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

• Lawyer Representatives 

Coordinating Committee

JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT

 Chief Judge Sidney R. Thomas

LIAISON COMMITTEES

• District Clerks

• Bankruptcy Clerks

• Chief Probation & Pretrial 

Services Officers

ASSOCIATIONS OF 

JUDICIAL OFFICERS

• Conference of Chief 

District Judges

• Magistrate Judges 

Executive Board

• Conference of Chief 

Bankruptcy Judges

Clerks of Court

Day-to-day management of the courts rests with the chief judges and clerks 

and/or district executives of the court of appeals and each of the district and 

bankruptcy courts of the circuit. The clerks’ offices process new cases and 

appeals, handle docketing functions, respond to procedural questions from 
6

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 litigation 

units. The Office of the Appellate Commissioner, also 

in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Clerk’s Office, 

reviews Criminal Justice Act vouchers for cases that 

come before the court of appeals.

Associated Court Units

Ninth Circuit courts also rely on several important 

court-related agencies to ensure the fair administration 

of justice. The district courts maintain oversight of 

U.S. Probation and Pretrial Services offices. Pretrial 

services officers are responsible for background 

investigations and reports on defendants awaiting trial, 

while probation officers supervise persons convicted of 

federal crimes after their release into the community. 

All but one judicial district in the circuit is served by 

either federal public defender or community defenders, 

who represent indigent defendants unable to afford 

private counsel. Indigent defendants in the District of 

Northern Mariana Islands are represented by private 

attorneys provided by the District of Guam and paid 

through the federal Criminal Justice Act.

Circuit Libraries

The Ninth Circuit Library System assists judges, 

attorneys, court staff and the public through a network 

of 24 law libraries housed in courthouses throughout 

the western states. The primary mission of court 

librarians is to provide research services to judges 

and their staff. Research librarians assist law clerks 

on case-related research by providing guidance and 

recommendations, offering training opportunities, 

and performing direct research on more complex 

topics. Librarians also conduct research to assist court 

executives and judges in the administration of local 

courts and on matters involving committees of the 

Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit and the Judicial 

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

available to the bar and public with the level of access 

determined by local judges.

Office of the Circuit Executive

The Office of the Circuit Executive provides staff 

support to the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit 

and implements the council’s administrative decisions 

and policies. By statute, the circuit executive is the 

administrative assistant to the chief judge of the circuit 

and secretary to the council. The circuit executive 

and her staff assist in identifying circuit-wide needs, 

conducting studies, developing and implementing 

policies, and providing training, public information 

and human resources support. Circuit executive staff 

also coordinates building and automation projects, 

and advises the council on procedural and ethical 

matters. The Office of the Circuit Executive provides 

management and technical assistance to courts within 

the circuit upon request. It also administers the Ninth 

Circuit Judicial Conference.

Lawyer Representatives

Judges of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and of 

each of the 15 district courts of the circuit appoint 

lawyer representatives. Lawyer representatives serve 

as a liaison between the federal bench and bar, fostering 

open communications between judges and lawyers, and 

providing support and advice in the functioning of the 

courts within the circuit. Attorneys serving as lawyer 

representatives work closely with district, bankruptcy 

and magistrate judges in their home districts. They 

participate as members on various committees and help 

plan local district conferences, often serving as speakers 

or facilitators. Lawyer representatives also help plan 

the annual Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference, which is 

convened “for the purpose of considering the business 

of the courts and advising means of improving the 

administration of justice within the circuit,” pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 333. 
JUDICIAL

TRANSITIONS
8

Circuit Judges

Michelle T. Friedland was confirmed 

as a circuit judge for the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

Ninth Circuit on April 28, 2014, and 

received her commission on April 

29, 2014. Prior to her appointment, 

Judge Friedland had been a litigation 

partner in the San Francisco office 

of the law firm of Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP since 

2010. She joined the firm in 2004 and has extensive 

litigation experience at the trial and appellate levels in 

state and federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme 

Court. Prior to practicing law, Judge Friedland 

lectured at Stanford Law School, where she taught 

federal jurisdiction and environmental law from 2002 

to 2004. Before that, she clerked for Justice Sandra 

Day O’Connor of the Supreme Court from 2001 to 

2002 and for Judge David Tatel of the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the D.C. Circuit from 2000 to 2001. 

Judge Friedland received her B.S., with honors, from 

Stanford University in 1995. After studying at Oxford 

University on a Fulbright Scholarship, she attended 

Stanford Law School, where she received her J.D. in 

2000, graduating second in her class. Judge Friedland 

maintains chambers in San Francisco.

 

John B. Owens was confirmed as a 

circuit judge for the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on 

March 31, 2014, and received his 

commission on April 2, 2014. Prior 

to his appointment to the bench, 

Judge Owens had been a litigation 

partner in the Los Angeles office 

of the law firm of Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP since 

2012. Prior to joining the firm, Judge Owens served 

for 11 years as a federal prosecutor, focusing on white 

collar and border crime cases. From 2004 to 2012, he 

worked as an assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern 

District of California in San Diego, where he served as 

chief of the Criminal Division from 2010 to 2011 and as 

deputy chief of the Major Frauds Section from 2008 to 

2010. Judge Owens served as an assistant U.S. attorney 

for the Central District of California in Los Angeles 

from 2001 to 2004. He also worked as a litigation 

associate at the law firm of O’Melveny & Myers LLP 

in Washington, D.C., from 2000 to 2001, and as a trial 

attorney for the U.S. Department of Justice, Office 

of Consumer Litigation, from 1998 to 1999. Judge 

Owens received his B.A. with high distinction in 1993 

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

from Stanford Law School, where he graduated first in 

his class in 1996. After law school, he clerked for Judge 

J. Clifford Wallace of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

Ninth Circuit from 1996 to 1997 and for Justice Ruth 

Bader Ginsburg of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1997 to 

1998. Judge Owens maintains chambers in San Diego.

 

District Judges

Cynthia Ann Bashant was confirmed 

as a U.S. district judge for the 

Southern District of California on 

April 30, 2014, and received her 

commission on May 8, 2014. Prior 

to joining to the federal bench, 

she had served since 2000 as a 

judge of the California (San Diego 

County) Superior Court, handling both criminal and 

juvenile matters. From 2010 to 2013, Judge Bashant 

was presiding judge of the Juvenile Court. Prior to her 

appointment to the bench, Judge Bashant held several 

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

Southern District of California, including assistant U.S. 

attorney from 1989 to 2000; chief of the Border Crimes 

Section from 1997 to 1998; and deputy chief of the 

Narcotics Section from 1995 to 1997. Judge Bashant 

practiced civil litigation in San Diego as an associate 

with Baker & McKenzie from 1988 to 1989 and with 

Macdonald Halsted & Laybourne from 1986 to 1988. 

She was an adjunct professor at Western State University, 

now the Thomas Jefferson School of Law, from 1988 

to 1991. Judge Bashant received her A.B. from Smith 

College in 1982 and her J.D. from the University of 

California, Hastings College of the Law, in 1986. She 

maintains chambers in San Diego.

JUDICIAL TRANSITIONS: NEW JUDGES
9

 Stanley A. Bastian was confirmed as a 

U.S. district judge for the Eastern 

District of Washington on April 30, 

2014, and received his commission on 

May 1, 2014. Prior to his appointment, 

Judge Bastian had been the managing 

partner since 2012 at the law firm of 

Jeffers, Danielson, Sonn & Aylward, 

P.S., in Wenatchee, Washington, where his practice 

focused on civil employment matters. He joined the firm 

as an associate in 1988 and became a shareholder in 1992. 

Prior to that, Judge Bastian worked as an assistant city 

attorney and criminal prosecutor for the Seattle City 

Attorney’s Office from 1985 to 1988. He also worked as 

an associate at the law firm of Bergman & Bauer in Seattle, 

from 1983 to 1984 and as a public defender in Renton, 

Washington, in 1984. Judge Bastian received his B.S. 

from the University of Oregon, Phi Beta Kappa, in 1980, 

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

in 1983. He served as a law clerk to Judge Ward Williams 

of the Washington State Court of Appeals from 1984 to 

1985. Judge Bastian maintains chambers in Yakima.

André Birotte, Jr., was confirmed as 

a U.S. district judge for the Central 

District of California on July 22, 

2014, and received his commission 

on August 8, 2014. Prior to his 

appointment, Judge Birotte had 

served as the U.S. attorney for the 

Central District of California since 

2010. He is the first African-American to serve in that 

post. He also served as an assistant U.S. attorney in 

the Central District from 1995 to 1999. Prior to his 

federal service, Judge Birotte served as the inspector 

general for the Los Angeles Police Commission from 

2003 to 2010 and as an assistant inspector general from 

2001 to 2003. He also engaged in private practice as an 

associate at the Los Angeles law firm of Quinn Emanuel 

Urquhart & Sullivan from 1999 to 2001 and served as 

a deputy public defender for Los Angeles County from 

1991 to 1995. Judge Birotte received his B.S. from 

Tufts University in 1987 and his J.D. from Pepperdine 

University School of Law in 1991. He maintains 

chambers in Los Angeles.

 Richard Boulware was confirmed as a 

U.S. district judge for the District of 

Nevada on June 10, 2014, and 

received his commission the same day. 

Prior to coming onto the federal 

bench, Judge Boulware had served as 

an assistant federal defender in the 

Office of the Federal Public Defender 

for the District of Nevada. He joined the office in 2007 

as a research and writing attorney and served as lead 

attorney for complex white-collar cases since 2010. 

Judge Boulware previously served as a trial attorney at 

the Federal Defenders of New York from 2003 to 2007 

and worked at Covington & Burling in New York in 2003 

and from 2000 to 2002, intermittently. He received his 

A.B. in 1993 from Harvard College, where he graduated 

cum laude, and his J.D. from Columbia Law School in 

2002. He began his legal career as a law clerk to Judge 

Denise Cote of the U.S. District Court for the Southern 

District of New York from 2002 to 2003. Judge 

Boulware maintains chambers in Las Vegas.

Vince Girdhari Chhabria was 

confirmed as a U.S. district judge for 

the Northern District of California 

on March 5, 2014, and received his 

commission on March 7, 2014. Prior 

to his appointment, Judge Chhabria 

had served as the deputy city attorney 

in the Office of the City Attorney for 

the City and County of San Francisco since 2005. He had 

been responsible for government litigation and served 

as co-chief of appellate litigation since 2011. Prior to 

government service, Judge Chhabria worked as a litigation 

associate in the San Francisco law firms of Covington & 

Burling LLP from 2002 to 2004 and Keker & Van Nest 

LLP in 2001. He received his B.A. from the University 

of California, Santa Cruz, in 1991 and his J.D. from UC 

Berkeley School of Law in 1998. After law school, he 

clerked for U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer of the 

Northern District of California from 1998 to 1999; for 

Judge James R. Browning of the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the Ninth Circuit from 1999 to 2000; and for Justice 

Stephen G. Breyer of the U.S. Supreme Court from 2001 

to 2002. He maintains chambers in San Francisco.
10

 James Donato was confirmed as a 

U.S. district judge for the Northern 

District of California on February 

25, 2014, and received his 

commission on February 26, 2014. 

Prior to his appointment, Judge 

Donato had been a litigation partner 

at the San Francisco law firm of 

Shearman & Sterling LLP, where he has worked since 

2009. His practice focused on antitrust and class action 

litigations. Prior to that, he had worked at Cooley LLP, 

from 1996 to 2008, at Morrison & Foerster from 1990 

to 1993. Judge Donato served as deputy city attorney in 

the Office of the City Attorney for the City and County 

of San Francisco from 1993 to 1996. He received his 

B.A., Phi Beta Kappa, from the University of California, 

Berkeley, in 1983; his master’s from Harvard University 

in 1984; and his J.D. in 1988 from Stanford Law School, 

where he was senior editor of the Stanford Law Review. 

Following law school, he clerked for Circuit Judge 

Procter Hug, Jr., of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

Ninth Circuit from 1988 to 1989. He maintains 

chambers in San Francisco.

 Beth Labson Freeman was confirmed 

as a U.S. district judge for the 

Northern District of California on 

February 25, 2014, and received her 

commission on February 26, 2014. 

Prior to her federal appointment, 

Judge Freeman had served as a judge 

of the California (San Mateo 

County) Superior Court since 2001. She was the 

assistant presiding judge in 2009 then presiding judge in 

2011. Prior to her judicial appointment, she had served 

as deputy county counsel for San Mateo County since 

1983. She was also an associate at Lasky, Haas, Cohler 

and Munter in San Francisco from 1981 to 1983 and at 

Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver and Kampelman in 

Washington, D.C., from 1979 to 1981. Judge Freeman 

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

Berkeley, in 1976 and her J.D. from Harvard Law School 

in 1979. She maintains chambers in San Jose.

 Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., was 

confirmed as a U.S. district judge for 

the Northern District of California 

on December 16, 2014, and received 

his commission on December 19, 

2014. Prior to coming onto the 

bench, Judge Gilliam had been a 

partner with the law firm of 

Covington & Burling LLP in San Francisco from 2009 to 

2014 and the law firm of Bingham McCutchen LLP in 

San Francisco from 2006 to 2009. Judge Gilliam served 

as an assistant U.S. attorney in the Northern District of 

California from 1999 to 2006 and was the chief of the 

office’s Securities Fraud Section from 2005 to 2006. 

Earlier in his career, he worked at McCutchen, Doyle, 

Brown & Enersen from 1995 to 1998. Judge Gilliam 

received his B.A., magna cum laude, from Yale University 

in 1991, and his J.D. from Stanford Law School in 1994. 

He served as a law clerk to District Judge Thelton E. 

Henderson of the Northern District from 1994 to 1995. 

Judge Gilliam maintains chambers in San Francisco.

 Diane J. Humetewa was confirmed as 

a U.S. district judge for the District 

of Arizona on May 14, 2014, and 

received her commission on May 16, 

2014. Judge Humetewa, who is a 

member of the Hopi Indian Tribe, is 

the first Native American woman to 

serve as a federal judge. Prior to her 

appointment, Judge Humetewa had served as a special 

advisor on tribal relations to the president of Arizona 

State University since 2011. She also served as special 

counsel in the Office of General Counsel at ASU and as 

a professor of practice at ASU’s Sandra Day O’Connor 

College of Law. Judge Humetewa was of counsel with 

Squire, Sanders & Dempsey LLP in Phoenix and 

Washington, D.C., from 2009 to 2011. She worked in 

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

Arizona from 1996 to 2009, serving as U.S. attorney 

from 2007 to 2009 and as senior litigation counsel from 

2001 to 2007. During her tenure in the U.S. attorney’s 

office, Judge Humetewa served as counsel to the deputy 

JUDICIAL TRANSITIONS: NEW JUDGES
11

attorney general in the Office of Tribal Justice from 

1996 to 1998. She was deputy counsel for the U.S. 

Senate Committee on Indian Affairs from 1993 to 1996. 

Judge Humetewa received her B.S. from Arizona State 

University in 1987 and her J.D. from ASU College of 

Law in 1993. She served as an appellate court judge 

for the Hopi Tribe Appellate Court in Kearns Canyon 

from 2002 to 2007. Judge Humetewa maintains 

chambers in Phoenix.

Steven P. Logan was confirmed as a 

U.S. district judge for the District 

of Arizona on May 14, 2014, and 

received his commission on May 16, 

2014. Prior to his appointment, 

Judge Logan had served as a federal 

magistrate judge in Phoenix since 

2012. He was an immigration judge 

for the Board of Immigration Appeals from 2010 to 2012, 

and an assistant U.S. attorney for the District of Arizona, 

from 2001 to 2010, and for the District of Minnesota, 

from 1999 to 2001. He served as a judge advocate for 

the Marine Corps and was on active duty from 1992 to 

1999. While on reserve duty, Judge Logan was deployed 

to Iraq in 2004 and 2007 and to Afghanistan in 2008. 

Judge Logan received the Bronze Star and Combat Action 

Ribbon for his second tour of duty in Iraq. He holds the 

rank of colonel and currently serves on the Navy-Marine 

Corps Court of Criminal Appeals. Judge Logan received 

his B.S. from the University of Louisville in 1988 and his 

J.D. from the University of Oklahoma, College of Law, in 

1992. He maintains chambers in Phoenix.

 Rosemary Márquez was confirmed as 

a U.S. district judge for the District 

of Arizona on May 14, 2014, and 

received her commission on May 19, 

2014. Prior to her appointment, 

Judge Márquez had been in a private 

practice since 2000 in Tucson. From 

1996 to 2000, she served as an 

assistant federal defender in the Office of the Federal 

Public Defender for the District of Arizona and as an 

assistant legal defender for the Pima County (Arizona) 

Office of the Legal Defender from 1994 to 1996. Judge 

Márquez began her legal career working as a deputy 

county attorney for Pima County Attorney’s Office in 

1994 and as a law clerk in 1993. She received her B.A. 

from the University of Arizona in 1990 and her J.D. 

from the UA, James E. Rogers College of Law, in 1993. 

Judge Márquez maintains chambers in Tucson. 

Salvador Mendoza, Jr., was 

confirmed as a U.S. district judge for 

the Eastern District of Washington 

on June 17, 2014, and received his 

commission on June 19, 2014. Prior 

to his appointment to the federal 

bench, Judge Mendoza had served as 

a judge of the Washington Superior 

Court for Benton and Franklin counties since 2013. 

Before coming onto the bench, he had practiced law 

as a solo practitioner and in various law partnerships 

since 1999. His practice focused on criminal defense. 

Judge Mendoza also previously served as a judge pro 

tempore in various district, municipal, and juvenile 

courts in Benton and Franklin counties. He was a 

deputy prosecuting attorney in the Franklin County 

Prosecutor’s Office, from 1998 to 1999, and an assistant 

attorney general in the Washington State Office of the 

Attorney General, from 1997 to 1998. Judge Mendoza 

served as a lawyer representative to the Ninth Circuit 

Judicial Conference from 2010 to 2013 and was chair 

of the lawyer representatives for the Eastern District 

of Washington from 2012 to 2013. He was a member 

of the Training Coordinating Committee of Tri-Cities 

Criminal Justice Act Attorneys from 2009 to 2013. 

Judge Mendoza served on the Magistrate Selection 

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

District of Washington in Yakima in 2007. He received 

his B.A. from the University of Washington in 1994 and 

his J.D. from the University of California, Los Angeles, 

School of Law in 1997. Judge Mendoza maintains 

chambers in Richland.
12

 Douglas L. Rayes was confirmed as a 

U.S. district judge for the District of 

Arizona on May 15, 2014, and 

received his commission on May 28, 

2014. Prior to his appointment to 

the federal bench, Judge Rayes had 

served since 2000 as judge of the 

Maricopa County (Arizona) Superior 

Court, where he presided over a wide range of civil and 

criminal matters. Prior to coming onto the state bench, 

he engaged in private practice in Scottsdale, Arizona, as a 

partner at the law firms of Tryon, Heller & Rayes from 

1989 to 2000. He also was a partner at the law firms of 

McGroder, Tryon, Heller & Rayes from 1986 to 1989, 

and McGroder, Tryon, Heller, Rayes & Berch from 1984 

to 1986, and an associate at McGroder, Pearlstein, Pepler 

& Tryon from 1982 to 1984. Judge Rayes received his 

B.S.E., summa cum laude, from Arizona State University 

in 1975 and his J.D., cum laude, from ASU College of 

Law in 1978. He maintains chambers in Phoenix.

James Alan Soto was confirmed as a 

U.S. district judge for the District 

of Arizona on May 15, 2014, and 

received his commission on June 9,

2014. Prior to his appointment 

to his federal appointment, Judge 

Soto had served as presiding judge 

of the Santa Cruz County (Arizona) 

Superior Court since 2001. He was previously 

president and a shareholder of Soto, Coogan and 

Martin, P.C., in Nogales, Arizona, from 1992 to 2001, 

and was in private practice in various law partnerships 

and as a sole practitioner from 1975 to 1979. His 

earlier legal experience included civil service as a parttime town attorney in Patagonia, Arizona, from 1975 

to 1992; a part-time deputy city attorney in Nogales 

from 1975 to 1983; and a part-time deputy county 

attorney for the Santa Cruz County in 1979. Judge 

Soto received his B.S. from Arizona State University in 

1971 and his J.D. from ASU College of Law in 1975. 

He served in the Arizona National Guard from 1971 to 

1977. Judge Soto maintains chambers in Tucson.

 John J. Tuchi was confirmed as a 

U.S. district judge for the District of 

Arizona on May 14, 2014, and 

received his commission on May 16, 

2014. Prior to his appointment, 

Judge Tuchi had served as chief 

assistant U.S. attorney in the Office 

of the U.S. Attorney for the District 

of Arizona since 2012. He joined that office in 1998 

and served as the office’s senior litigation counsel and 

tribal liaison from 2009 to 2012; as interim U.S. 

attorney in 2009; and as chief of the Criminal Division 

from 2006 to 2009. Prior to government service, 

Judge Tuchi worked as an associate at the Phoenix law 

firm of Brown & Bain, P.A., from 1995 to 1998. He 

received a B.S. from West Virginia University in 1987; 

an M.S. from the University of Arizona in 1989; and a 

J.D. in 1994 from the ASU College of Law, graduating 

magna cum laude. Following law school, he clerked for 

Circuit Judge William C. Canby of the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from 1994 to 1995. 

Judge Tuchi maintains chambers in Phoenix.

Bankruptcy Judges

Scott H. Gan was appointed as a U.S. 

bankruptcy judge for the District of 

Arizona on September 22, 2014. 

Prior to his appointment to the 

bench, Judge Gan had been a 

shareholder and partner since 1993 

with the law firm of Mesch, Clark 

& Rothschild, P.C., where he was 

chair of the firm’s Appellate Practice Section and a 

member of the firm’s Bankruptcy Section. He joined 

the firm as an associate in 1986. Judge Gan began 

his legal career as an attorney with the Pima County 

(Arizona) Office of the Public Defender and then 

briefly joined a firm that represented claimants before 

the Social Security Administration and the Arizona 

Industrial Commission. He received his B.A. from the 

University of Arizona in 1977 and his J.D. from the 

UA James E. Rogers College of Law in 1980. Judge 

Gan maintains chambers in Tucson.

JUDICIAL TRANSITIONS: NEW JUDGES
13

 Brenda K. Martin was appointed as a 

U.S. bankruptcy judge for the 

District of Arizona on May 1, 2014. 

Prior to her appointment, Judge 

Martin had been a partner since 2005 

at Osborn Maledon, P.A., in Phoenix, 

where she served as the firm’s senior 

partner of the Bankruptcy and 

Reorganization Practice Group. Judge Martin practiced 

law in Phoenix working as an associate then partner at 

Stinson Morrison Hecker, LLP, from 1998 to 2005; as an 

associate at FitzSimon Parker & Lustiger, PLC, from 1997 

to 1998; and as an associate at Johnston Maynard Grant & 

Parker, PLC, from 1990 to 1997. She received her B.A. 

in English and political science at Willamette University 

in 1987 and her J.D. from Arizona State University, 

Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law, in 1990. Judge 

Martin maintains chambers in Phoenix.

 Paul Sala was appointed as a U.S. 

bankruptcy judge for the District of 

Arizona on July 1, 2014. Prior to his 

appointment to the bench, Judge Sala 

had been a member in the law firm of 

Allen, Sala & Bayne, PLC, in Yuma, 

Arizona, since 1999. Prior to that, he 

had been an associate at Dillingham & 

Cross, PLLC, from 1995 to 1999. Judge Sala began his 

legal career as an attorney with Fennemore Craig, PC, 

working there from 1987 to 1995. He received his B.S. 

from The University of Utah in 1984 and his J.D. from 

S.J. Quinney College of Law at The University of Utah in 

1987. Judge Sala maintains chambers in Phoenix.

Madeleine C. Wanslee was appointed 

as a U.S. bankruptcy judge for the 

District of Arizona on March 17, 

2014. Prior to her appointment 

to the bench, she had been an 

executive member and co-chair of 

the Creditors’ Rights Section of the 

Phoenix law firm of Gust Rosenfeld, 

PLC, where she also held the positions of associate 

then partner since 1990. Judge Wanslee received her 

B.F.A. and B.A. from the University of Arizona in 1985 

and her J.D. in 1988 from Gonzaga University School 

of Law, where she served as executive editor of the 

Gonzaga Law Review from 1987 to 1988 and published 

a note from 1985 to 1986. Following law school, she 

clerked for two years for Judge Robert C. Jones, then 

sitting on the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of 

Nevada. Judge Wanslee maintains chambers in Phoenix.

Scott H. Yun was appointed as a U.S. 

bankruptcy judge for the Central 

District of California on June 23, 

2014. Prior to his appointment 

to the bench, Judge Yun had been 

a shareholder with the former law 

firm of Stutman, Treister & Glatt 

since 2003. He joined the firm in 

2000 and served as president of the firm’s executive 

board. Judge Yun was previously an associate with the 

law firm Robinson, Diamant & Brill, from 1998 to 

2000, and an associate with Steinberg, Barness & Foster, 

from 1997 to 1998. He received his B.A., cum laude, 

from the University of California, Los Angeles, in 1993 

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

Gould School of Law, in 1996. Following law school, 

he served as a law clerk to Bankruptcy Judge Ernest M. 

Robles of the Central District of California in 1997. 

Judge Yun maintains chambers in Riverside.

Magistrate Judges

John Z. Boyle was appointed as a 

U.S. magistrate judge for the District 

of Arizona on September 10, 2014. 

Prior to his appointment, Judge Boyle 

served from 2004 to 2014 in the U.S. 

Attorney’s Office for the District of 

Arizona, where he held the positions 

of deputy appellate chief, chief of the 

Southwest Border Section, and an attorney in the National 

Security and Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task 

Forces sections. Prior to that, he worked in the Homicide 

Bureau, Gang and Vehicular Crimes, and Civil Litigation 

sections in the Maricopa County (Arizona) Attorney’s 
14

Office from 1996 to 2004. Judge Boyle received his B.A. 

from the University of Arizona in 1990 and his J.D. from 

the UA James E. Rogers College of Law in 1993. He 

maintains chambers in Phoenix.

Jill L. Burkhardt was appointed 

as a U.S. magistrate judge for the 

Southern District of California 

on March 11, 2014. Prior to her 

appointment to the bench, Judge 

Burkhardt had served as an assistant 

U.S. attorney for the Southern 

District of California since 1994. 

She engaged in private practice as an associate for 

Baker and McKenzie in San Diego from 1988 to 

1994. Judge Burkhardt received her B.A. from the 

University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, in 1985 and her 

J.D. from Harvard Law School in 1988. She maintains 

chambers in San Diego.

 Kenly Kiya Kato was appointed as a 

U.S. magistrate judge for the 

Central District of California on 

July 1, 2014. Prior to her 

appointment, she engaged in private 

practice from 2003 to 2014. She 

also served as deputy defender in 

the Office of the Federal Public 

Defender for the Central District of California from 

1997 to 2003. Judge Kato received her B.A., summa 

cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa, from the University of 

California, Los Angeles, in 1993 and her J.D., cum 

laude, from Harvard Law School in 1996. Following 

law school, she clerked for Judge Robert M. Takasugi 

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

California from 1996 to 1997. Judge Kato maintains 

chambers in Riverside.

 Eric J. Markovich was appointed as a 

U.S. magistrate judge for the 

District of Arizona of February 10, 

2014. Prior to his appointment to 

the bench, Judge Markovich had 

been an assistant U.S. attorney for 

the District of Arizona since 2001. 

He served as trial attorney for the 

Tax Division of the Criminal Enforcement Section of 

the Department of Justice from 1998 to 2001. He 

engaged in private practice in New York as an associate 

at the law firm of Morvillo, Abramowitz, Grand, Iason 

& Anello in New York from 1995 to 1998 and for White 

& Case from 1992 to 1994. Judge Markovich received 

his B.S.C., summa cum laude, from Ohio University in 

1989 and his J.D., summa cum laude, in 1992 from 

Syracuse University College of Law, where he was the 

business editor of the Syracuse Law Review. He clerked 

for Judge Theodore A. McKee of the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the Third Circuit from 1994 to 1995. Judge 

Markovich maintains chambers in Tucson.

 Eileen S. Willett was appointed as a 

U.S. magistrate judge for the District 

of Arizona on October 7, 2014. Prior 

to her appointment to the federal 

bench, she served as a judge of the 

Maricopa County (Arizona) Superior 

Court in 1999 and as a commissioner 

from 1998 to 1999. Prior to that, 

Judge Willett served as an administrative law judge and 

chief administrative law judge for the Industrial 

Commission of Arizona from 1992 to 1998 and was an 

attorney for the Arizona State Compensation Fund in 

1992. She engaged in private practice as a partner at 

Ober & Willett in Phoenix from 1990 to 1992 and as an 

associate at Ely, Bettini & Ulman in Phoenix from 1985 to 

1990. Judge Willett received her B.A., magna cum laude 

and Phi Beta Kappa, from the University of Georgia in 

1980 and her J.D. from Rutgers School of Law in 1984. 

She maintains chambers in Phoenix.

JUDICIAL TRANSITIONS: NEW JUDGES
15

 Senior District Judge Gary Allen 

Feess was confirmed as a district 

judge for the Central District of 

California on June 30, 1999, and 

received his commission on July 7, 

1999. He assumed senior status on 

March 13, 2014. Prior to his 

appointment to the federal bench, 

Judge Feess had served as judge of the Los Angeles 

County Superior Court since 1996. He also served in 

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

of California, working as chief assistant U.S. attorney 

from 1988 to 1989 and as an assistant U.S. attorney 

from 1979 to 1989. Judge Feess engaged in private 

practice in Los Angeles from 1989 to 1996, 1987-1988, 

and 1974-1979. He received a B.A. from Ohio State 

University in 1970 and his J.D. from the University of 

California, Los Angeles, School of Law in 1974. Judge 

Feess maintains chambers in Los Angeles.

 Senior District Judge Jeremy D. Fogel 

was confirmed as a district judge for 

the Northern District of California 

on March 16, 1998, and received his 

commission on March 17, 1998. 

After having been appointed director 

of the Federal Judicial Center in 

2011, he assumed senior status on 

December 31, 2014. Prior to his appointment to the 

federal bench, Judge Fogel served as a judge of the Santa 

Clara County (California) Superior Court, from 1986 to 

1998, and that county’s Municipal Court from 1981 to 

1986. Before coming onto the bench, he served as 

directing attorney then executive director of the Mental 

Health Advocacy Project, from 1978 to 1981, and 

worked for the Santa Clara County Bar Association Law 

Foundation, from 1978 to 1981. Judge Fogel was a 

lecturer on human development for the California State 

University from 1977 to 1978. Judge Fogel engaged in 

private practice in San Jose, California, from 1974 to 

1978. He received his B.A. from Stanford University in 

1971 and his J.D. from Harvard Law School in 1974.

 Senior District Judge Claudia A. 

Wilken was confirmed as a district 

judge for the Northern District of 

California on November 20, 1993, 

and received her commission on 

November 22, 1993. She served as 

chief judge of the district from 2012 

to 2014 and assumed senior status on 

December 17, 2014. Prior to her appointment, Judge 

Wilken had served as a magistrate judge for the U.S. 

District Court for the Northern District of California 

since 1983. She was a professor at New College School 

of Law from 1980 to 1985 and an adjunct professor at the 

University of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of 

Law, from 1978 to 1984. Judge Wilken also engaged in 

private practice in Berkeley. Before that, she served as a 

staff attorney in the Office of the Federal Public Defender 

for the Northern District of California from 1975 to 

1978. Judge Wilken received her B.A. from Stanford 

University in 1971 and her J.D. from UC Berkeley Boalt 

Hall in 1975. She maintains chambers in Oakland.

JUDICIAL TRANSITIONS: SENIOR JUDGES
16

 Senior District Judge Robert C. 

Broomfield, 81, of the U.S. District 

Court for the District of Arizona, 

died on July 10, 2014. Judge 

Broomfield was confirmed by the 

Senate on July 10, 1985, and 

received his commission the next 

day. He served as chief judge of the 

district from 1994 to 1999 and assumed senior status on 

August 12, 1999. Judge Broomfield served on several 

committees of the Judicial Conference of the U.S., 

including the Budget Committee, from 1997 to 2013; 

the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court, from 

2002 to 2009; and the Space and Facilities Committee, 

from 1987 to 1995. Prior to his appointment to the 

federal bench, he had served as a judge of the Maricopa 

County (Arizona) Superior Court from 1971 to 1985. 

He was the presiding judge of that court from 1974 to 

1985 and presiding judge of its juvenile division from 

1972 to 1974. Earlier in his career, he served as a 

superior court bailiff and was in private practice in 

Phoenix. Judge Broomfield served as a pilot in the Air 

Force from 1955 to 1958 and in the Arizona Air 

National Guard from 1958 to 1991. He also served in 

the Air Force Reserve from 1961 to 1972, leaving the 

service at the rank of captain. Judge Broomfield 

received his B.S. from Pennsylvania State University in 

1955 and his LL.B. from the University of Arizona 

College of Law in 1961. Survivors include his wife of 

55 years, Cuma; their son, Robert, Jr., and daughter, 

Alyson; four grandchildren; and two greatgrandchildren.

Bankruptcy Judge Arthur M. 

Greenwald, 83, of the U.S. 

Bankruptcy Court for the Central 

District of California died on 

June 4, 2014. Judge Greenwald 

was appointed as a bankruptcy 

judge in 1988 and reappointed 

to a second term in 2002. He 

maintained chambers in Woodland Hills, California, 

until retiring from the bench in 2005. Prior to his 

judicial appointment, Judge Greenwald had served as 

an assistant U.S. attorney for the Central District of 

California since 1964 and was a judge pro tempore 

for the Los Angeles Municipal Court from 1980 to 

1987. He served in the U.S. Army Quartermaster 

Corps and was released as first lieutenant in 1955. He 

received his undergraduate degree from the University 

of California, Los Angeles, and his law degree from the 

Southwestern University School of Law in Los Angeles. 

Judge Greenwald is survived by his twin sister, Pearl 

Greenwald of Los Angeles.

Bankruptcy Judge Herbert Katz, 84, 

of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for 

the Southern District of California 

died on February 4, 2014. Judge 

Katz was appointed in 1972 and 

served as chief bankruptcy judge of 

the court. He is one of the original 

five bankruptcy judges appointed to 

the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel. Judge 

Katz retired from the bench in 1983. Prior to his 

appointment to the bench, Judge Katz had engaged in 

private practice as a partner at Hinchy, Katz, Witte, 

Wood & Anderson in San Diego since 1963. Judge Katz 

received his B.A. from the California State University, 

San Diego, in 1956 and his J.D. from the University of 

San Diego School of Law in 1962. He is survived by 

Pati, David, Lee, Julia, Jeff and Barrie.

Senior District Judge J. Spencer 

Letts, 79, of the U.S. District 

Court for the Central District of 

California died on November 10, 

2014. Judge Letts was confirmed by 

the Senate on December 16, 1985, 

and received his judicial commission 

on December 17, 1985. Prior to 

his appointment to the bench, Judge Letts engaged in 

private practice in Los Angeles from 1978 to 1985 and 

from 1973 to 1975 and in Houston from 1960 to 1966. 

He was vice president and general counsel for Teledyne, 

Inc., in Los Angeles from 1975 to 1978 and from 

JUDICIAL TRANSITIONS: IN MEMORIAM
17

1966 to 1973. Judge Letts received his B.A. from Yale 

University in 1956 and his LL.B. from Harvard Law 

School in 1960. He served as captain in the U.S. Army 

Reserve from 1956 to 1965. Judge Letts is survived 

by his wife, Virginia; his sister, Elizabeth; his brother, 

Whitmarsh; three children, James, Elizabeth, and John; 

and nine grandchildren.

Senior District Judge Alfredo C. 

Marquez, 92, of the U.S. District 

Court for the District of Arizona 

died on August 27, 2014. Judge 

Marquez was confirmed by the 

Senate on June 26, 1980, and 

received his judicial commission 

on June 30, 1980. He was only 

the second district judge of Hispanic descent to be 

appointed in the District of Arizona. Judge Marquez 

assumed senior status on July 25, 1991. Prior to his 

appointment, he had engaged in private practice in 

Tucson, Arizona, since 1957. He worked previously as 

a prosecutor for the City of Tucson from 1956 to 1957; 

as a deputy county attorney for Pima County, Arizona, 

from 1952 to 1954; and as first assistant attorney 

general for the State of Arizona from 1951 to 1952. 

He began his legal career in private practice in Phoenix 

from 1950 to 1951. In 1941, at the outset of World War 

II, Judge Marquez joined the navy, becoming a pilot 

and later serving as a flight instructor. Judge Marquez 

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

1948 and his LL.B. from the University of Arizona 

College of Law in 1950. Judge Marquez is survived by 

four children Mark, Sandra, Sharon and Linda, as well as 

14 grandchildren and 14 great-grandchildren, from his 

marriage to his first wife, Georgie, whom he married in 

1948. He and his second wife, Linda, wed in 1974 and 

have a daughter, Natalie, and two grandchildren.

 Magistrate Judge Donald William 

Pitts, 86, of the U.S. District Court 

for the Eastern District of California, 

died on July 31, 2014. Judge Pitts 

was appointed to the bench in 1975 

and retired in 1993. He maintained 

chambers in Yosemite National Park 

and was one of three magistrate 

judges in the National Park system. Judge Pitts studied 

pre-med at UCLA then joined the U.S. Army as a 

paratrooper. He received his undergraduate degree in 

forestry from Oregon State University. Before attending 

the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, 

where he received his law degree, Judge Pitts served as a 

smoke jumper and worked as a forester for three seasons. 

Judge Pitts is survived by his wife, Kay.

Senior District Judge Alicemarie H. 

Stotler, 72, of the U.S. District Court 

for the Central District of California, 

died on June 9, 2014. She was 

confirmed by the Senate on May 1,

1984, and received her commission 

on May 3, 1984. She served as chief 

judge of the district from 2005 to 

2009, assuming senior status on January 5, 2009. Prior to 

federal service, Judge Stotler was a judge of the Orange 

County (California) Superior Court in Santa Ana from 

1978 to 1983; a justice pro tem of the California Court 

of Appeal, Fourth District, in 1977; and a judge of the 

Harbor Judicial District Municipal Court in Newport 

Beach from 1976 to 1978. Judge Stotler received her 

B.A. from the University of Southern California in 1964 

and her J.D. from the USC Gould School of Law in 

1967. She served on the Judicial Conference of the U.S. 

Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure and was a 

lecturer and conference organizer for the Federal Judicial 

Center. She also sat on the Judicial Council of the Ninth 

Circuit. Judge Stotler was the recipient of one of Orange 

County’s highest honors, the Franklin G. West Award, 

in 1984. The Orange County Federal Bar Association 

established the “Alicemarie H. Stotler Award” in her 

honor to be given annually to a deserving recipient. 
18

JUDICIAL TRANSITIONS: IN MEMORIAM

Memorial for Judge Broomfield

Judges of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona convened in a special session to honor 

the memory of Judge Robert C. Broomfield. The gathering was held July 23, 2014, in the Special Proceedings 

Courtroom of the Sandra Day O’Connor U.S. Courthouse in Phoenix. Speakers included Justice O’Connor; two 

colleagues, Senior District Judge James A. Teilborg and Magistrate Judge David K. Duncan; and Judge Julia Smith 

Gibbons of the U.S. Court of Apeals for the Sixth Circuit, who worked with Judge Broomfield on national projects. 

Nominated by President Reagan, Judge Broomfield came onto the federal bench in 1985 and served as chief judge of 

the district from 1994 to 1999, when he assumed senior status.
CIRCUIT

HIGHLIGHTS
20

The video stream process begins with two cameras 

in the courtroom, one focused on the bench, the 

other on the attorney lectern. Images from the 

two cameras are combined with a third image that 

consists of text identifying the case, including the 

date and location of the proceeding and composition 

of the panel. The combined image is then fed to two 

identical video recorder/streamer units, one of which 

is set only to record as safety backup.

The streaming unit sends its digital data via the court 

network to the YouTube.com website, which handles 

public distribution. Having a YouTube page – 

https://www.youtube.com/user/9thcirc/

videos – is essential as the court’s own network lacks 

the bandwidth to stream the video. The court also 

makes both audio and video recordings available the 

day after a proceeding.

Video streaming has been greeted enthusiastically 

by lawyers, parties to cases, law school students and 

faculty, and journalists. Viewership is expected to 

grow over time as the public becomes more aware of 

the availability of the service. A number of viewers 

have commented positively about the streaming and 

made suggestions for improvements, which are under 

consideration by the court.

The United States Court 

of Appeals for the Ninth 

Circuit continues to be a 

leader in using technology 

to make the judicial process 

more accessible and 

understandable to the public.

Since the early 1990s, the 

Ninth Circuit has granted 

nearly 400 requests from the 

news media to bring cameras 

into the courtroom for highprofile cases. Since 2003, the 

court has regularly provided 

audio recordings and 

occasionally offered video 

recordings of oral arguments before appellate panels. And 

in December 2013, the court ventured where no federal 

appellate court had gone before with live video streaming, 

enabling an Internet audience to observe oral arguments 

before an 11-judge en banc court. 

Technology upgrades completed in 2014 now make 

possible live video streaming from all four Ninth Circuit 

courthouses, and the court intends to eventually video and 

audio stream all of its oral arguments, some 2,100 cases 

each year.

In all, 10 courtrooms are equipped for video streaming: four 

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

three in the Richard H. Chambers U.S. Courthouse 

in Pasadena, California; and one each in the William 

K. Nakamura U.S. Courthouse in Seattle, the Pioneer 

Courthouse in Portland, Oregon, and the Ninth Circuit 

courthouse in Honolulu. High-definition cameras are used 

in four courtrooms, one each in San Francisco, Pasadena, 

Portland and Seattle.

While not cutting-edge, video streaming is still 

challenging technically, involving not just cameras in the 

courtroom but use of complex video production systems 

behind the scenes. A small group of dedicated court 

staff assembled and installed the systems and operate and 

maintain the equipment.

Live Video Streaming Now the Norm for Appellate Arguments
21

Judges of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 

convened in a special session in December for a 

gavel-passing ceremony marking the elevation of new 

Chief Judge Sidney R. Thomas of Billings, Montana. 

He succeeded outgoing Chief Judge Alex Kozinski of 

Pasadena, California, who had held the office since 2007.

Dozens of relatives and friends of Judge Thomas and his 

wife, Martha Sheehy, an attorney in Billings, traveled 

from Montana to witness the event at the James R. 

Browning United States Courthouse in San Francisco. 

Also in attendance were federal trial court judges, the 

U.S. attorney for Montana, the acting dean of the state’s 

only law school, and more than 50 of Judge Thomas’ 

current and former law clerks. Judge Thomas was 

joined on the bench by a dozen of his colleagues.

By law, selection of the chief judge of a federal circuit 

or district court is based on seniority and age. The most 

senior active judge under the age of 65 is eligible to 

serve as chief judge for a term of up to seven years.

Nominated by President Clinton, Judge Thomas came 

onto the court in 1996. As chief judge, he will preside 

when an 11-judge en banc court is convened to 

resolve cases posing intra-circuit legal conflicts or to 

consider other matters deemed to be of exceptional 

importance. He also assumes various administrative 

duties; chairs two judicial policy-making bodies, the 

Executive Committee of the Ninth Circuit Court of 

Appeals and the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit; 

and represents the Ninth Circuit at biannual meetings 

of the Judicial Conference of the United States, the 

judiciary’s national governing body.

Judge Thomas is Ninth Circuit’s 11th chief judge 

and the third to hail from Montana. Montanans who 

previously led the court were Chief Judge Emeriti 

James R. Browning, the eponym for the Ninth Circuit 

headquarters building in San Francisco, and Walter 

New Chief Judge for the Ninth Circuit

New Chief Judge Sidney R. Thomas, left, takes the podium 

after receiving a king-sized gavel from outgoing Chief Judge 

Alex Kozinski.
22

Lyndon Pope. Judge Browning, who died in 2012, served 

on the court for 50 years and was chief judge from 1976 

to 1988. Judge Pope, who sat on the court from 1949 

until his death in 1969, was chief judge for one year, 1959.

A native of Bozeman, Montana, Judge Thomas received his 

B.A. from Montana State University in 1975 and his J.D. 

from the University of Montana School of Law, graduating 

with honors in 1978. Prior to coming onto the federal 

bench, he had been in private practice in Billings from 

1978 to 1995. He also was as an adjunct instructor of law 

at Rocky Mountain College in Billings from 1982 to 1995.

In accepting the gavel, Judge Thomas spoke of Judge 

Browning, saying he hoped “to emulate, if I can, in some 

small way his style and his manner of working with 

people. He was a brilliant administrator, but he also 

understood human nature.”

“As we all know, it is a collective endeavor we are 

engaged in here” the new chief observed. “If we can 

trust each other and create a good atmosphere in which 

we can all do our best work, then truly the process of 

justice will be served.” 

Judge Kozinski stepped down after a successful sevenyear term in which the court greatly expanded the 

use of technology to improve operations and make the 

judicial process more accessible to the public. Among 

many noteworthy advances during his tenure, the 

court completed its migration to electronic case filing 

with more than 40,000 attorneys currently registered 

to use the system, and expanded the use of cameras 

in the courtroom, becoming the first and currently 

only federal appellate court to live video stream oral 

arguments on the Internet.

Circuit Welcomes New Law Clerks

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held its annual orientation program for newlyhired law clerks. The intensive two-day program, held September 16-17, 2014, at the James R. Browning U.S. 

Courthouse in San Francisco covered court operations and procedures, legal writing, ethics and use of social media, 

appellate jurisdiction and standards of review, and criminal law issues. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. 

Kennedy, who previously served on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and is now the Supreme Court justice 

designated to handle Ninth Circuit matters, spoke to the group, remarking upon workloads, opinion writing 

and interaction with other judges and their clerks. Judges of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. 

District Court for the Northern District of California, Clerk of Court Molly C. Dwyer, and other court staff made 

presentations and participated as panel members.
23

The Honorable Gloria M. Navarro is the first person of Hispanic descent to serve as an Article 

III judge of the United States District Court for the 

District of Nevada. She notched two more firsts 

on January 1, 2014, when she was elevated to chief 

district judge, becoming the first woman and first 

Hispanic to lead her court.

Nominated by President Obama, Judge Navarro came 

onto the federal bench in 2010 with experience as 

both prosecutor and defense counsel in Clark County, 

Nevada. She served in the Office of the District 

Attorney as chief deputy for civil matters, from 2005 

to 2010, and in the Office of the Public Defender as a 

special public defender, from 2001 to 2004. Earlier in 

her career she had been in private practice and worked 

as a research and writing specialist in the Office of the 

Federal Public Defender for Nevada.

“When someone opens the door you have to be 

prepared to walk through it,” Judge Navarro said of 

becoming a judge. “You do it not just for yourself but 

for your generation and your community.”

 

Judge Navarro is the first American-born child of 

Cuban immigrants who settled in Las Vegas in the 

1960s. She learned to speak English by watching 

“Sesame Street.” After grasping the written language 

as a young child, she was often called upon by family 

members and friends to read and write letters or 

answer the telephone and convey messages. Someone 

suggested she should become an attorney and the idea 

resonated with her.

“Attorneys are the voice of people who cannot 

communicate, whether because of language or lack of 

understanding or some other reason,” Judge Navarro 

recalled.

Elevated on the basis of seniority, Judge Navarro can 

serve as chief judge for up to six years. Much of her first 

year as chief has been focused on guiding her court’s 

recovery from the financial impacts of sequestration. 

The across-the-board cut in funding to the federal 

government in 2013 led to layoffs of court employees and 

cutbacks in services. Increased funding to the Judiciary 

in fiscal year 2014 has helped courts to restore services.

One of the new breed of tech-savvy jurists, Judge 

Navarro serves on the Ninth Circuit Information 

Technology Committee. She runs an almost 

paperless chambers, relying on electronic systems for 

calendaring, docketing and document storage. Hard 

copy documents provided by attorneys as a courtesy are 

shunted off to the clerk’s office, instead. Courtroom 

proceedings are similarly technology friendly.

Born in Las Vegas, Judge Navarro attended the 

University of Nevada, Las Vegas, receiving her B.A. 

in 1989. She earned her J.D. from the Arizona State 

University College of Law in 1992. During law school, 

she served as an intern in the chambers of U.S. District 

Judge Philip M. Pro of Las Vegas, now retired.

Nevada’s New Chief Judge Is Woman of ‘Firsts’

Chief District Judge Gloria M. Navarro, District of Nevada
24

Federal courts in the Ninth Circuit ended 2014 with the 

fewest judicial vacancies in recent memory. All of the seats 

on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals were filled while just 

two of the 112 district court judgeships in the circuit were 

vacant at year’s end.

Few Vacant Seats on the Federal Bench

Circuit Judge Michelle T. Friedland was joined by retired Justice 

Sandra Day O’Connor, who administered the oath of office. Circuit 

Judge John B. Owens took the oath of office as his wife, Marjorie, 

held the Bible during the investiture ceremony. 

The flurry of presidential appointments included 

two new circuit judges. The confirmation of 

John B. Owens in March expanded the court 

of appeals bench to 28 judges for the first time 

since 1992. The confirmation of Michelle T. 

Friedland in April gave the court 29 judges 

for the first time in its history. Judges Owens 

and Friedland are 99th and 100th judges to be 

appointed to the court.

Judge Owens, who maintains chambers in San 

Diego, was formally invested into office in April 

during a special court session at the new federal 

courthouse there. Chief Judge Emeritus J. 

Clifford Wallace administered the oath of office 

to Judge Owens, his former law clerk.

Judge Owens filled a judgeship vacant since 

2004, when Judge Stephen Trott assumed 

senior status. The prolonged vacancy resulted 

from a Senate disagreement over whether the 

seat should be filled by California or Idaho.

An investiture ceremony for Judge Friedland was 

held in June at the historic James R. Browning 

U.S. Courthouse in San Francisco. Retired U.S. 

Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor 

administered the oath of office to Judge Friedland, 

who had served as a law clerk for the justice.

Judge Friedland filled a judgeship vacant since 

2013, when Judge Raymond C. Fisher of 

Pasadena, California, assumed senior status. Judge 

Friedland maintains chambers in San Francisco.

Fifteen new district judges were seated in the 

Ninth Circuit during the year. Six of the new 

judges were appointed in May to the U.S. 

District Court for the District of Arizona. The 

newcomers included the first female Native 

American to sit on the federal bench. Diane 

J. Humetewa, a member of the Hopi Tribe, 

had been a special advisor to the president of 

Arizona State University.
25

Four new judges were appointed to the U.S. District Court for the 

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

Eastern District of Washington seated two new judges, including 

its first jurist of Hispanic descent. Judge Salvador Mendoza, Jr., 

formerly served as a judge of the Washington Superior Court for 

Benton and Franklin counties.

The U.S. district courts for the Central and Southern districts of 

California and the District of Nevada each seated one new judge 

during the year.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals approved the appointments of 

five new bankruptcy judges. The court reappointed two bankruptcy 

judges, including the longest-serving full-time bankruptcy judge in 

the nation. Judge Barry Russell, who has chambers in Los Angeles, 

has almost 40 years of continuous service to the U.S. Bankruptcy 

Court for the Central District of California.

Judges of the district courts appointed five new magistrate judges 

and reappointed four others over the course of the year.

Pictured top. District Judge André Birotte, Jr., left, and Chief District Judge 

George H. King of the Central District of California, are joined by U.S. 

Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. At right, District Judges James Donato, 

top, and Vince Chhabria of the Northern District of California.
26

T. Underwood, U.S. Marshal for the District of Idaho. Chief 

Magistrate Judge Candy W. Dale served as emcee.

The District of Idaho was established in 1890, when Idaho 

achieved statehood. Idaho’s first federal judge was appointed 

by President Harrison in 1891. The court operated with 

one judge until 1954, when Congress authorized a second 

judgeship. To date, presidents have appointed 11 judges to the 

federal bench in Idaho.

Idaho’s first federal courthouse opened in 1906 in Boise. 

Federal courthouses were opened in 1911 in Moscow and in 

1912 in Pocatello. New courthouses have since been built in 

all three cities.

Judges of the United States District Court for the District of Idaho convened a special session in 

September to celebrate the 225th anniversary of the 

Judiciary Act of 1789. The event, which also marked 

the establishment of the U.S. Marshals Service that 

same year, was held at the James A. McClure Federal 

Building and U.S. Courthouse in Boise.

Article III of the 

Constitution 

established the Judicial 

Branch and the 

Supreme Court. The 

First Congress created 

the Judiciary Act of 

1789 to establish the 

lower federal courts. 

In signing the bill into 

law, President George 

Washington also 

appointed the first 13 

United States Marshals to help enforce all lawful 

precepts of the courts.

Civic leaders, members of the bar and local and state 

historians gathered for the program, which featured 

remarks by Judge N. Randy Smith of the U.S. Court 

of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, who has chambers 

in Pocatello, Idaho, and Chief District Judge B. 

Lynn Winmill. Also making remarks was Brian 

Idaho Celebrates 225th Anniversary of Judiciary Act

Judges gather to celebrate 

the 225th anniversary of the 

Judiciary Act of 1789. Pictured 

above from left are Magistrate 

Judges Larry M. Boyle, Mikel H. 

Williams and Ronald E. Bush, 

Chief Bankruptcy Judge Terry L. 

Myers, Chief Magistrate Judge 

Candy W. Dale, District Judge 

Edward J. Lodge, Chief District 

Judge B. Lynn Winmill, and 

Circuit Judge N. Randy Smith. 

Pictured to the left are Deputy 

U.S. Marshal Travis Humkey 

with Judge Smith.
27

From left are Thomas Pyle and Guillermo Rojas, developers; Vicente Angotti, 

director of special projects; and Chief Deputy Clerk Cindy K. Jensen. 

Much of the credit for an electronic 

voucher processing system that 

is transforming how the federal courts 

manage spending for indigent defense under 

the Criminal Justice Act goes to a small 

group of employees at the United States 

District Court for the District of Nevada.

Chief Deputy Clerk Cindy K. Jensen set out 

in 2008 to develop a modern replacement 

for a paper-based system that was slow, 

inefficient and error prone. With ongoing 

help from District Clerk Lance Wilson, she 

tapped a trio of information technology 

specialists to tackle the job. They built what 

is now known as eVoucher, an electronic 

processing system for submitting and 

reviewing vouchers and disbursing payments.

With support from the Ninth Circuit, 

eVoucher was introduced in 2010 and 

quickly adopted by a number of courts in 

the circuit and elsewhere. After careful 

evaluation, the Administrative Office of the 

U.S. Courts officially adopted the system for 

use nationally in 2014. The implementation 

schedule calls for all federal courts to be 

using eVoucher by the end of 2015.

The Sixth Amendment of the Constitution 

and the Criminal Justice Act provide for 

legal representation of indigent criminal 

defendants. CJA funding is allocated to 

the federal judiciary for this purpose, and 

judges oversee use of these funds, which pay 

for legal counsel and other services. 

Until eVoucher, courts relied on “hard copy” 

forms often filled out by hand by attorneys 

and service providers. Lawyers or their 

staff performed multiple mathematical 

operations, often introducing errors that 

had to be resolved by court staff. The hard 

Small Staff with Big Ideas Produces National

eVoucher System

copy forms were often sent by mail, which took days and sometimes 

resulted in lost vouchers.

Working from the Lloyd D. George U.S. Courthouse in Las Vegas, 

Jensen and software developers Vicente S. Angotti, Thomas Pyle 

and Guillermo Rojas built a system that simplifies the voucher 

submission process for attorneys and service providers and the 

voucher review process for judges and court staff.

The eVoucher system automates much of the computation process. 

Hourly pay rates and mileage reimbursement rates are built into 

electronic forms, which automatically calculate payments based on 

the data entered by attorneys and service providers. This removes 

almost all mathematical errors and significantly reduces the amount 

of time needed for staff review.

“Their efforts have saved lawyers, judges, and court administrators 

in the Ninth Circuit significant time, money, and frustration,” said 

Judge Richard C. Tallman of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, 

who chairs the circuit’s CJA Oversight Committee.

The eVoucher system produces many different kinds of reports, 

providing judges with information needed to help them manage 

their cases. It is also highly flexible, allowing courts to individually 

design their internal workflows. 
28

Since 2010, some of the nation’s most distinguished 

jurists, practitioners and judges have traveled to 

Spokane, Washington, to participate in the Quackenbush 

Lecture Series at Gonzaga University School of Law. 

The annual event is named for Senior District Judge 

Justin L. Quackenbush of the United States District 

Court for the Eastern District of Washington, one of the 

law school’s most successful and influential alums.

The Quackenbush Lecture Series typically draws a 

large audience of law school students and faculty along 

with members of the bar from Spokane area. The guest 

speaker for the 2014 lecture was Cindy Cohn, legal 

director and general counsel for the Electronic Frontier 

Foundation, who discussed the legal implications of 

mass spying by the National Security Agency.

Prior speakers include Kathleen M. Sullivan, former 

dean of Stanford Law School, who discussed free speech 

in 2013; Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University 

of California, Irvine, School of Law, whose 2012 

talk focused on the Supreme Court; retired District 

Judge Vaughn R. Walker of the Northern District of 

California, who spoke in 2011 about his decision on 

same-sex marriage; and Judge William A. Fletcher of 

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, who shared his 

views on the death penalty in 2010.

Judge Quackenbush will celebrate his 35th anniversary 

as a federal judge in 2015. Nominated by President 

Carter, he came onto the bench in 1980 and served as 

an active judge for 15 years. He led the court as chief 

judge from 1989 to 1995, when he assumed senior 

status. He also was active in judicial governance, 

serving on several Ninth Circuit committees and the 

Committee on the Judiciary of the Judicial Conference 

of the United States. After taking senior status, he 

continued to carry a substantial caseload and served as a 

visiting judge for other federal courts.

Judge Quackenbush received his B.A. from the 

University of Idaho in 1951. After serving three years 

in the Navy, he returned to Spokane and enrolled in 

the Gonzaga University School of Law, receiving his 

LL.B. in 1957. His first job was as a Spokane County 

prosecutor. He was in private practice in Spokane from 

1959 to 1980, during which he served as an instructor 

at the law school from 1961 to 1967.

Quackenbush Lecture Series Draws Top Speakers

Law school students, 

faculty, and members 

of the bar gathered 

for the Quackenbush 

Lecture. Senior 

District Judge Justin 

L. Quackenbush with 

speaker Cindy Cohn, 

left.
29

Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit delivered 

the prestigious Regents Lecture in March at her alma 

mater, the University of California, Los Angeles, School 

of Law.

Judge Wardlaw, who received her J.D. in 1979, titled 

her talk “Judicial Philosophy: Does It Matter?” Speaking 

to students, faculty and members of the bar, she focused 

how the phrase “judicial philosophy” came into use, its 

relationship to politics, and how it applies to the judicial 

decision-making process.

Following her speech, Judge Wardlaw was joined by 

two Ninth Circuit colleagues, Judge Richard A. Paez 

and Judge Jacqueline H. Nguyen, for a panel discussion 

moderated by UCLA Law Professor Adam Winkler, 

a leading expert in constitutional law. Judge Nguyen 

is also a UCLA School of Law alum who received her 

J.D. in 1991. All three judges have their chambers in 

Richard H. Chambers U.S. Courthouse in Pasadena.

The lecture was part of a two-week visit to UCLA 

Law by Judge Wardlaw. While on campus, she met 

with students and faculty members, participated in 

law school classes and conducted a dean’s roundtable 

discussion, as well as taking part in additional panel 

discussions and law school events. 

The judges’ visit also coincided with a special sitting of 

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which heard oral 

arguments in four cases in the law school’s Cappello 

Courtroom. 

 

Established by the Regents of the University of 

California, the Regents Lecturer Program brings 

distinguished leaders from non-academic fields to 

the university to enrich the instructional program 

and increase students’ exposure to a diverse range of 

successful professionals.

Ninth Circuit Judge Kim

McLane Wardlaw Lectures

on Judicial Philosophy

Circuit Judge Kim Mclane Wardlaw, pictured above, delivered the Regents Lecture on “Judicial Philosophy: Does It Matter?”

Below, Circuit Judges Richard A. Paez and Jacqueline H. Nguyen joined Judge Wardlaw for a question-and-answer session. 
30

Speaking to an audience of 500 lawyers in March, Chief Judge Alex Kozinski of the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit looked back on 

his seven years at the helm of the biggest and busiest 

judicial circuit in the nation.

Judge Kozinski covered a lot of ground ranging 

from the court’s changing bench to its growing and 

sophisticated use of technology in his 30-minute speech 

delivered at the 36th annual Ninth Circuit Luncheon in 

San Francisco. The event was sponsored by the Federal 

Bar Association of the Northern District of California.

Judge Kozinski, who became chief in 2007, stepped 

down on November 30, 2014. He was succeeded by 

Judge Sidney R. Thomas of Billings, Montana, who 

assumed the leadership post on December 1, 2014. 

Judge Kozinski spoke of having a close working 

relationship with Judge Thomas and predicted an 

extraordinary chief judgeship for his successor.

Noting that judicial governance is largely collegial and 

reliant on consensus building, Judge Kozinski thanked 

his colleagues for their support, particularly those 

serving on various judicial committees. He also praised 

his predecessors as chief judges for having fended off 

repeated attempts to split the circuit, thus preserving 

“this great circuit of ours.”

Judge Kozinski also focused on the use of Internet 

technology to make the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 

more accessible to the public. During his tenure, the 

court has initiated live audio and video streaming of 

cases so that anyone with an Internet connection can 

observe oral arguments anywhere in the world.

Judge Kozinski said he took pride in increasing 

interaction between the bench and bar, including 

the appointments of lawyer representatives who are 

engaged in various programs to improve the practice of 

law before the court. In concluding his remarks, Judge 

Kozinski spoke with appreciation to the Federal Bar 

Association.

“We depend on you for a great deal and you are 

always there when we need you. For that we are very 

grateful,” he said.

Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Takes Stock

at Federal Bar Luncheon

Chief Judge Alex Kozinski delivered speech to more than 500 

lawyers at the annual Ninth Circuit Luncheon sponsored 

by the Federal Bar Association of the Northern District of 

California.
31

The Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference is 

authorized by law “for the purpose of 

considering the business of the courts and 

advising means of improving the administration 

of justice within the circuit” 28 U.S.C. § 333. 

Conferees included judges of the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the 

U.S. district courts and U.S. bankruptcy courts 

in nine western states and two Pacific island 

territories; lawyers practicing in these courts; 

court staff; and special guests.

The 2014 Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference, 

held July 14-17 in Monterey, California, was 

organized around the theme of “Access to 

Justice” in recognition of the 50th anniversary of 

the landmark ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court 

in Gideon v. Wainwright. 

The general session, “Access to Justice in Civil 

Cases 50 Years After Gideon,” looked at how the 

lack of civil legal representation impacts access to 

justice, and whether the right to court-appointed 

legal counsel for indigent criminal defendants 

might be extended to indigent civil defendants. 

Panel members included retired Justice Earl 

Johnson, Jr., of the California Court of Appeal; 

Professor Deborah L. Rhode of Stanford 

University School of Law; and Bryan Stevenson, 

executive director of Equal Justice Initiative 

and a professor of law at New York University 

School of Law. Professor Arthur R. Miller of 

New York University School of Law moderated. 

Introductions were made by Assistant Federal 

Public Defender Rebecca L. Pennell of the Eastern 

District of Washington, chair of the Lawyer 

Representatives Coordinating Committee.

“Police Practices and the Courts: What Are They 

Hearing? What Are They Learning?” was the 

title of a general session program moderated 

by Professor David Sklansky of Stanford 

Circuit Conference Marks 50th Anniversary

of Gideon Decision

Noted civil rights attorney Eva Paterson, top, led a panel discussion 

on implicit bias. Professor Arthur Miller engaged panel members in 

a discussion on access to justice 50 years after Gideon.
32

University School of Law. The 

panel presentation on state-ofthe-art management of police 

organizations was designed to 

help the bench and bar better 

understand how court decisions 

affect what happens on the streets. 

Panelists were Senior District 

Judge Gary A. Feess of the Central 

District of California; Deputy 

Chief Christy E. Lopez of the 

Special Litigation Section of U.S. 

Department of Justice’s Civil 

Rights Division; and Professor 

Joanna Schwartz of the University 

of California, Los Angeles, School 

of Law. Geoffrey T. Cheshire, 

assistant federal public defender 

for the District of Arizona, 

introduced the panel members.

The general session entitled “Shining A Light on the 

Hidden Recesses of Our Brains: Are We Subject to 

Implicit Bias and What Can We Do About That?,” 

focused on implicit biases and its effects on decision 

making particularly in the administration of justice in 

the 21st century. Panelists included Professor Samuel 

Bagenstos of the University of Michigan School of 

Law and Professor Anthony G. Greenwald of the 

University of Washington. Eva Paterson, co-founder 

and president of Equal Justice Society served as 

moderator. They were introduced by attorney William 

M. Symmes of the Eastern District of Washington, who 

serves on the Ninth Circuit Lawyer Representatives 

Coordinating Committee.

A bench-bar program focused on criminal discovery 

and disclosure of Brady information by the prosecution. 

Speakers included Jenny A. Durkan, then-U.S. 

attorney for the Western District of Washington, and 

attorney and author Sidney Powell of Sidney Powell, 

P.C. Senior Circuit Judge Michael Daly Hawkins 

served as moderator, while Circuit Judge Jay S. Bybee, 

program chair of the Conference Executive Committee, 

introduced the panel members.

In the general session, “What Makes the Constitution 

Work (or Not)?,” panel members debated whether the 

Constitution requires informal institutions to work 

in modern times. Speakers included Larry Kramer, 

president of The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation; 

Trevor Morrison, dean of New York University School 

of Law; and Professor Kim Lane Scheppele of Princeton 

University, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and 

International Affairs. Kathleen M. Sullivan, partner at 

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, served as 

moderator. Chief District Judge Rosanna M. Peterson of 

the Eastern District of Washington made introductions.

The effects of growing student debt and diminished 

employment opportunities were discussed in a general 

session entitled “The Crisis in Legal Education and Its 

Impact on the Federal Courts.” Deanell R. Tacha, dean 

of Pepperdine University School of Law moderated the 

panel, which included Alli Gerkman of the Institute 

for the Advancement of the American Legal System; 

Professor William Henderson of Indiana University, 

Maurer School of Law; Paula Littlewood, executive 

director of the Washington State Bar Association; and 

Dean Kellye Y. Testy of the University Washington 

School of Law. Bankruptcy Judge Margaret M. 

Mann of the Southern District of California, made 

introductions.

Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy made remarks on the final day of the 

conference, recognizing Chief Judge Alex Kozinski’s “commitment to the excellence of the 

Ninth Circuit.”
33

Circuit Judge Consuelo “Connie” M. Callahan of 

the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth 

Circuit received the prestigious Ninth Circuit 

Professionalism Award from the American Inns of 

Court. The award recognizes “a lawyer or judge 

whose life and practice display sterling character 

and unquestioned integrity, coupled with ongoing 

dedication to the highest standards of the legal 

profession and the rule of law.”

A prominent member of the legal community in 

California’s Central Valley for nearly 40 years, Judge 

Callahan has devoted her entire career to public service. 

She has served as a role model for women and minorities 

in the legal profession and been a mentor to many 

students and new attorneys.

Nominated by President George W. Bush and confirmed 

unanimously by the U.S. Senate, Judge Callahan was 

appointed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 

2003. She serves on the court’s Executive Committee 

and Standing Committee on Federal Public Defenders 

and is involved in various judicial education and 

outreach activities in the U.S. and overseas.

Prior to coming onto the federal bench, Judge Callahan 

had been an associate justice of the California Court of 

Appeal, Third District, from 1996 to 2003; a judge of 

the San Joaquin County Superior Court from 1992 to 

1996; and a commissioner of the Stockton Municipal 

Court from 1986 to 1992. Of Hispanic descent, she 

was inducted into the Mexican-American Hall of Fame 

in Sacramento in 1999. She is the first woman and first 

Hispanic to be appointed to the San Joaquin County 

Superior Court and the first San Joaquin County judge 

to be appointed to a federal court.

Judge Callahan received her A.B. from Stanford 

University in 1972, her J.D. from the University of 

the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law, in 1975, and her 

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

2004. She is a past president of the McGeorge School 

of Law Alumni Association.

John Frank Award

Attorney Peter J. Hughes, considered the dean of the 

criminal defense bar in San Diego, was presented with 

the 2014 John Frank Award, recognizing a lawyer who 

has “demonstrated outstanding character and integrity; 

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

appellate lawyer; success in promoting collegiality 

among members of the bench and bar; and a lifetime of 

service to the federal courts of the Ninth Circuit.”

Now in his 61st year of practice, Mr. Hughes has 

appeared as a trial lawyer in federal, state and military 

courts. He is highly regarded by members of the bench 

and bar for his professionalism and dedication to the 

pursuit of justice. Mr. Hughes has argued before the 

Supreme Court of the United States, the U.S. Court of 

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

for the Southern District of California, and the California 

Supreme Court.

Born in Los Angeles, Mr. Hughes received his B.A. from 

Stanford University in 1951 and his J.D. from Stanford 

Law School in 1953. After serving as an officer in the 

Army JAG Corps from 1954 to 1957, he joined the 

2014 Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference Awards

Circuit Judge Consuelo “Connie” M. Callahan accepts the Ninth 

Circuit Professionalism Award from Dean Deanell R. Tacha of 

the Pepperdine University School of Law, current president of the 

American Inns of Court Foundation.
34

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

California. He left government service in 1959 to go 

into private practice in San Diego, where he was a senior 

partner in two prominent law firms. He became a sole 

practitioner in 1978 emphasizing criminal defense.

Established in 2003, the award is named for the late 

John Frank, a renowned Phoenix attorney who argued 

more than 500 appeals before the Arizona Court of 

Appeals, the Arizona Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit 

Court of Appeals, other federal circuit courts and the 

U.S. Supreme Court.

Ninth Circuit ADR Education Award

A small group of attorneys credited with settling 

thousands of appeals brought before the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit received the 2014 

Robert F. Peckham Award, which recognizes outstanding 

achievement in the field of alternative dispute resolution.

The Ninth Circuit Mediation Office, which consists of 

nine attorney-mediators and support staff, regularly 

settles between 1,000 and 1,500 appellate cases 

annually. Cases range from basic contract and tort 

actions to complex public policy matters and death 

penalty cases. Since 2005, the mediators also have 

handled immigration cases, which constitute a large 

portion of the court’s docket.

The Peckham award, established in 2001, is named for 

the late Judge Peckham, a former chief district judge of 

the Northern District of California, who helped 

pioneer use of legal means other than court trials to 

resolve disputes.

Attorney Peter J. Hughes received the John Frank Award from 

Debora K. Kristensen, an Idaho attorney serving on the Ninth 

Circuit Advisory Board.

District Judge Ricardo S. Martinez of the Western District of Washington, center, presents the Robert F. Peckham Award to Chief 

Mediator Claudia Lynn Bernard and her colleagues.
35

The 2014 Ninth Circuit 

Judicial Conference, held in 

July in Monterey, California, was 

noteworthy for acknowledging 

the importance of community 

outreach. At the conference, 

the Courts and Community 

Committee was recognized for 

its work in promoting civics 

education through poster and 

essay contests for young people 

in and around the Monterey 

area. The contests, which were 

held in conjunction with the 

conference, were cosponsored by 

the committee and the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of California.

The theme of the contest, “50 Years After the March 

on Washington: What the American Dream Means to 

Me,” focused on the importance of the historic 1963 

demonstration in the nation’s capital. Some 250,000 

people took part in the march, demanding equal rights 

for African Americans and an end of racial segregation 

and discrimination in the nation’s schools and workplaces. 

The march ended at the Lincoln Memorial, where Dr. 

Martin Luther King, Jr., delivered his stirring “I Have A 

Dream” speech to a huge throng.

Three of the four winners of the writing competition, 

which was open to high school juniors and seniors, were 

young women preparing for their senior year in high 

school in the Monterey area. They attended the opening 

session of the conference, where they were recognized 

from the podium by the chair of the conference, District 

Judge Richard A. Jones of Seattle.

While at the conference, the students were able to meet 

many judges and attorneys, including Ninth Circuit 

Chief Judge Alex Kozinski and Circuit Judges Mary H. 

Murguia of Phoenix and Jacqueline H. Nguyen of Los 

Angeles, who serve on the Courts and Community 

Committee. The first-place finisher, Giovanna A. 

Mitchell, who lives in Santa Cruz, also returned to the 

conference later in the week to meet U.S. Supreme 

Circuit Conference Recognizes Civics Education

Pictured with Chief Judge Alex Kozinski are, from left, Giovanna 

A. Mitchell, Megan Holett, and Makena Ehnisz, who were winners 

of the civics education essay contest. Giovanna Mitchell later had 

a memorable moment meeting U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony 

M. Kennedy.
36

Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy and have her 

picture taken with him.

U.S. District Judge Janis L. Sammartino of San Diego, 

who chairs the committee, presented the students 

with their prizes along with Northern District 

Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal of San Jose and 

attorney Michael Celio of San Francisco. The prizes 

were made possible by a generous donation from the 

Federal Courts Committee of the Santa Clara County 

Bar Association.

In addition to the writing competition, third- and 

fourth-grade students were invited to submit posters 

illustrating the civil rights themes. Medals were 

awarded to three students from the communities of 

Aptos and Santa Cruz.

Soon after wrapping up the 2014 competition, the 

committee began work on a 2015 contest with the 

theme, “Our Constitution: What the American Dream 

Means to Me.” The contest focuses on how the 

Constitution, along with the Bill of Rights and later 

amendments, makes possible the American Dream. 

Individual students can express their thoughts and 

ideas in an essay of 500 to 750 words. Individual 

students or teams of two or three students may also 

submit a 2-3 minute video presentation on the theme.

Cosponsored by the U.S. District Court for the 

Southern District of California, the contest will be 

open to high school sophomores, juniors and seniors 

or home-schooled students of equivalent grade status 

in the greater San Diego area and Imperial County. 

Winners will be recognized at the opening session of 

the 2015 Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference, scheduled 

for July 13 in San Diego.

District Judge Janis Lynn Sammartino, chair of the Courts and Community 

Committee, met with essay contest winner, Makena Ehnisz. 
37

United States Supreme Court 

Justice Sonia Sotomayor 

was an honored guest of the 

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 

in March. The nation’s newest 

justice visited the Pioneer 

Courthouse in Portland, Oregon, 

where she was hosted by resident 

Ninth Circuit Judges Diarmuid F. 

O’Scannlain and Susan P. Graber.

Justice Sotomayor was given a tour 

of the historic courthouse, which 

opened in 1875 and has housed the 

Ninth Circuit since 1973. It is the 

oldest surviving federal building 

in the Pacific Northwest and the 

second oldest courthouse west of 

the Mississippi River.

Justice Sotomayor made a point of stopping to chat with 

law clerks and court staff and cheerfully agreed to have her 

picture taken with many of them. In the building’s historic 

postal lobby, she signed the visitor guest book, adding the 

words “With admiration of the majesty of this courthouse.”

Judges and chambers staff later lunched with the justice in 

the Matthew P. Deady Conference Room. Also invited to 

the brown bag affair were board members of the Pioneer 

Courthouse Historical Society and the executive director 

of the Oregon Historical Society. Justice Sotomayor talked 

about her recent autobiography, “My Beloved World,” and 

life as a justice and answered questions.

While in Portland, Justice Sotomayor also spoke to a 

gathering made up largely of young people, again focusing 

on her book. The event was organized by the Multnomah 

County Library in conjunction with the library’s 

“Everybody Reads” program. “My Beloved World” is one 

of the book selections for the 12th annual community 

reading program.

Newest Justice Makes a Visit to Portland

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor signs the guest 

book at the historic Pioneer Courthouse in Portland, 

Oregon. Circuit Judges Susan P. Graber and Diarmuid F. 

O’Scannlain, served as hosts.
38

People without lawyers, or pro se litigants, account 

for about half of all new appeals to the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, about a third 

of all new civil cases in the district courts and about 

one fifth of the new filings in the bankruptcy courts. In 

the Ninth Circuit, the Pro Se Litigation Committee is 

leading efforts to deal with the challenges posed by selfrepresented litigants.

To assist district courts, the committee has focused 

its efforts on issues of case management of prisoner 

litigation, increasing pools of pro bono attorneys for 

prisoner and non-prisoner cases, and judicial training. 

At the bankruptcy court level, the committee has 

sought to increase available pro bono resources and 

promote greater awareness of effective pro se litigant 

programs. The committee’s periodic reports to the 

Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit are available online 

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

prose/reports.html.

In 2014, the committee sponsored its biennial Ninth 

Circuit Pro Se Conference, held September 18-19 in 

Seattle, Washington. More than 100 judges and staff 

attorneys from all of the federal courts of the circuit 

participated in the program.

 

The conference focused on effective case management 

in prisoner and non-prisoner pro se cases, including the 

expanded use of prisoner e-filing systems in Arizona, 

California and Nevada. Attendees also received 

substantive updates on habeas and §1983 civil rights 

cases; medical care and deliberate indifference cases; 

prisoner First Amendment matters; and issues related 

to the Prison Rape Elimination Act, and the Religious 

Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.

Dean Erwin Chemerinsky of the University of 

California, Irvine, School of Law, was a featured 

speaker, providing a review of U.S. Supreme Court 

decisions and an update on recent cases and trends 

in habeas law. As has come to be expected of the 

renowned scholar, he delivered his 2-hour presentation 

without benefit of notes.

In addition to speakers and panel presentations, the 

program included roundtable discussions of case 

management strategies, particularly when dealing with 

mentally ill or incompetent pro se litigants; an ethics 

session for judges and judicial employees; and separate 

breakout sessions for judges and pro se staff attorneys.

Beyond its educational value, the conference served to 

recognize the exceptional work being done by pro se 

law clerks in dealing with unrepresented litigants. In 

welcoming remarks, Chief Judge Marsha J. Pechman of 

the Western District of Washington likened pro se law 

clerks to Klondike era miners who “waded through the 

muck and water to find those few nuggets of gold.”

“Because you are panning for gold,” Judge Pechman 

explained, “You are panning for those rights that have 

not been vindicated. You’re panning for those issues 

that have not been brought to the forefront. You’re 

panning for an opportunity for those who do not have 

opportunity to be heard.”

Ninth Circuit Committee Helps Courts Manage

Pro Se Litigation

Audience listened to Dean Erwin Chemerinsky review latest 

Supreme Court rulings and provide an update on recent cases.
39

2014 Ninth Circuit New Judges Orientation

Magistrate Judge James P. Donohue of the Western 

District of Washington, the committee’s outgoing chair, 

presided over the program. Judge Donohue stepped 

down after eight years of service on the committee, the 

last five as chair. During Judge Donohue’s tenure, the 

committee sponsored multiple conferences, established 

its own website and newsletter, and conducted webinars 

and other online training.

Magistrate Judge Charles R. Pyle of the District of 

Arizona, the new chair of the committee, is the driving 

force behind a new effort, the Ninth Circuit Prisoner 

Litigation Summit, which will be held in November 

2015 in Sacramento, California. The summit will 

be a collaborative effort among the Ninth Circuit, 

the Federal Judicial Center, the Association of State 

Correctional Administrators, the National Institute 

of Corrections, the National Association of Attorneys 

General and the Defense Research Institute. More than 

200 participants are anticipated.

The Ninth Circuit ADR Committee is assisting us in 

planning the alternative dispute resolution and prisoner 

reentry portions of the program.

Seated from left are Magistrate Judge Jill Burkhardt, Circuit Judge John B. Owens, Chief Judge Alex 

Kozinski, Circuit Judge Michelle T. Friedland, and Bankruptcy Judge Madeleine C. Wanslee. Standing 

in second row from left are Magistrate Judge Alka Sagar, District Judge Diane J. Humetewa, District 

Judges Beverly Reid O’Connell, Beth Labson Freeman, and Stanley Bastian; and Bankruptcy Judge 

Eddward P. Ballinger. Standing in third row from left are Bankruptcy Judge Frederick Corbit, 

Magistrate Judge John T. Rodgers, Bankruptcy Judges Brenda K. Martin and Laurel E. Davis, and 

Magistrate Judge and Clerk of Court Heather Kennedy. Standing in back row from left are Bankruptcy 

Judge August B. Landis, Magistrate Judge Douglas F. McCormick, and District Judges William H. 

Orrick, III, Richard Boulware, and Vince Chhabria. 
40

Palau bench and bar on the interpretation and implementation of 

the new criminal code enacted by the Palau legislature in 2014. 

Judge Marshall, then-U.S. Attorney André Birotte, Jr., who was 

subsequently appointed a district judge on the Central District 

of California bench, and Sean Kennedy, the former federal public 

defender for the Central District, participated in the training. 

Two committee members also undertook individual projects. 

Ninth Circuit Senior Judge Mary M. Schroeder sought funding for 

domestic violence programs in Kosrae, one of the Federated States 

of Micronesia. Ninth Circuit Senior Judge J. Clifford Wallace, who 

served as chair and/or member of the committee from 2000 to 

2007, has helped secure nearly $500,000 in annual grants, which 

make the educational programs possible.

Pacific Islands Committee works to 

improve the administration of justice in 

the United States territories of Guam and 

American Samoa, the Commonwealth of 

the Northern Mariana Islands, the republics 

of Palau and the Marshall Islands, and 

the Federated States of Micronesia. The 

committee partners with the state-level 

courts of these jurisdictions to develop and 

present a variety of judicial education and 

court professional training programs using 

grants from the U.S. Department of the 

Interior. The committee also collaborates 

on special projects with the Pacific Judicial 

Council, an organization made up of judicial 

officers from a number of island nations.

2014 was a particularly busy year for the 

committee. In March, committee members 

traveled to New Zealand to participate 

in the 21st Pacific Judicial Conference, a 

gathering of the chief justices from island 

jurisdictions in the north and South Pacific 

Ocean. Senior District Judge Consuelo 

B. Marshall of the Central District of 

California, who chairs the committee, 

along with Ninth Circuit Judge Richard R. 

Clifton and Chief District Judge Frances 

Marie Tydingco-Gatewood of the District of 

Guam made presentations at the conference. 

The Ninth Circuit contracted with the 

University of Hawaii’s Richardson School 

of Law to organize and conduct the third 

Pacific Islands Legal Institute for island 

judges not having prior legal training. 

Fifteen judges attended the seminar, which 

was held July 21-25, 2014, at the law 

school campus in Honolulu. 

Late in the year, at the request of the 

chief justice of the Supreme Court of 

Palau, the committee helped train the 

A Busy Year for Pacific Islands Committee

Senior District Judge 

Consuelo B. Marshall, 

above, third from left, pose 

with the judges in front 

of the Hawaii Supreme 

Court. The judges, pictured 

left, attended the seminar 

held at the law school in 

Honolulu.
41

Judges and staff of the federal courts are committed to 

community outreach, regularly engaging in programs and 

activities for the public at large and students in particular. In addition 

to the Ninth Circuit Courts and Community Committee, several 

judicial districts in the circuit have outreach committees working 

closely with bar associations, law schools and other partners to 

organize events. The circuit is also home to the Justice Anthony M. 

Kennedy Library and Learning Center, a resource for educators, 

which is located in the Robert T. Matsui United States Courthouse in 

Sacramento, California. Several noteworthy Ninth Circuit programs 

are discussed below.

Students Rise to the CourtWorks Challenge

The Arizona federal bench and bar chalked up another successful 

CourtWorks program in November at the Sandra Day O’Connor 

United States Courthouse in Phoenix. The annual event, now in its 

10th year, helps students learn about constitutional principles, the 

judicial process and careers in the legal field.

The morning program 

included re-enactment 

of an actual court case 

in mock trials with 

students assuming the 

roles of judges, jurors, 

prosecutors, defense 

attorneys, defendants 

and witnesses. The case 

involved the discovery 

of drugs in a student’s 

purse and focused on the 

application of the Fourth 

and Sixth amendments of 

Courts Excel in Community Outreach Efforts

Pictured above are some of the students who visited 

the Sandra Day O’Connor U.S. Courthouse during 

CourtWorks, a program co-founded by Circuit 

Judge Mary H. Murguia, left. Students above 

participated in a mock trial and listened to various 

presentations throughout the day.
42

the Constitution. The students 

later heard from representatives 

of the U.S. Marshals Service and 

the court’s probation and pretrial 

services offices.

Judge Mary H. Murguia of the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

Ninth Circuit, who has chambers 

in the courthouse, wrapped up 

the event with remarks stressing 

the importance of education 

and recalling the challenges 

she and her six siblings faced 

while growing up in a poor 

neighborhood of Kansas City, 

Kansas. 

Judge Murguia co-founded CourtWorks after being 

appointed to the U.S. District Court in Arizona in 2000 

and has remained active in the program even after being 

elevated to the appellate court in 2010. CourtWorks has 

grown considerably over the years with the support of 

the district court, the bar and the Sandra Day O’Connor 

School of Law at Arizona State University. Nearly 400 

eighth-graders from six schools participated in the 2014 

event.

Central District Welcomes Junior State Members

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central 

District of California hosted an engaging Law Day 

program in May for a group of bright and enthusiastic 

high school students from the greater Los Angeles area.

Approximately 80 students from Junior State of America 

participated in the event at the Edward R. Roybal 

Federal Building in downtown Los Angeles. Junior State 

is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that encourages 

students who are interested in politics, government, 

foreign affairs, the law and education to become active 

and informed citizens.

Organized around the theme, “American Democracy and 

the Rule of Law: Why Every Vote Matters,” the Law Day 

celebration began with mock trials involving criminal

charges brought in a texting-while-driving case. The 

program also included a segment on financial literacy 

and a Jobs Panel, featuring speakers from the district and 

bankruptcy courts, the Bureau of Prisons, and the offices 

of the United States Attorney, Federal Public Defender, 

U.S. Trustee, the Pretrial Services and Probation, U.S. 

Marshals Service, and Federal Protective Services.

One of the highlights was a “Power Lunch,” during 

which judges, lawyers and other professionals shared 

lunch with the students and discussed the law and the 

legal profession. The luncheon included discussion of 

significant events in our nation’s history regarding voting 

and voting rights; remarks by guest speaker, Professor 

Laurie Levenson of Loyola Law School; and a spirited 

game of “Legal Jeopardy,” which is played like the 

Jeopardy! game but with legal categories, such as the 

“Bill of Rights” and “Who’s Who in the Courtroom.” 

Court, Law School Host Teachers Institutes in 

Seattle

Judges and staff of the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Washington were busy over 

the summer with outreach efforts to teachers in the 

greater Seattle area. The court held its third Judicial 

Institute for High School Teachers in June and its third 

annual iCivics Institute for Middle and High School 

Chief District Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz and District Judge Janis L. Sammartino pose 

with students visiting the Southern District of California courthouse.
43

Teachers in July. Both programs were held at the 

federal courthouse in Seattle.

The judicial and iCivics institutes were developed 

in collaboration with the Seattle University School 

of Law. The judicial institute focused on the U.S. 

Constitution, the federal judiciary, Supreme Court 

decisions, issues involving civil rights and state and 

federal criminal law. The iCivics institute helped 

teachers become proficient in the games and lesson 

plans available at www.iCivics.org, a website 

promoted by retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor of 

the U.S. Supreme Court. 

Thirty teachers from throughout Western Washington 

participated in each program. The judicial institute 

featured Mary Beth Tinker, the plaintiff in Tinker v. Des 

Moines School District, a 1969 case in which the U.S. 

Supreme Court ruled that public school students do not 

shed their free speech rights at the school house door. The 

iCivics institute featured Margaret Fisher, a law-related 

education expert, who helped to translate the legal content 

into lessons available for use in the classroom. 

Judges, attorneys, law enforcement officers, and other 

professionals participated in both programs. Teachers 

earned continuing education credit for participating in 

the program.

Court Welcomes Youngest Citizens

On April 11, 2014, the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of California hosted a 

naturalization celebration at the new United States 

Courthouse Annex in San Diego for 15 children ages 

6-12. Chief District Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz and 

District Judge Janis L. Sammartino welcomed the 

children on behalf of the court.

In attendance were Congresswoman Susan A. Davis 

and representatives from the offices of Senator Dianne 

Feinstein, Senator Barbara Boxer, Congressman Darrell 

Issa and Congressman Scott Peters, and from the 

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. The Old 

Town Academy Choir, led by Mr. Anthony Kaneaster, 

performed several patriotic songs for the occasion. The 

children received their certificates commemorating the 

event after taking their Oath of Allegiance. The event 

proved to be a moving and memorable experience for 

everyone who joined in the celebration.

Ninth Circuit Celebrates Constitution Day

Federal courts in the Ninth Circuit joined in the 

celebration of Constitution Day on September 17,

2014. Judges and court staff participated in 

naturalization ceremonies in Alaska, the Central, 

Eastern and Southern districts of California, and 

the District of Hawaii, while the Western District 

of Washington welcomed a visit by students. The 

Administrative Office of the United States Courts is 

promoting the 2015 Constitution Day celebration, 

hoping every federal court in the nation will hold some 

form of observance. 
44

Kennedy Library Program

The Sacramento Federal Judicial Library and 

Learning Center Foundation hosted its first 

Summer Teacher Institute held in June 2014 at 

The Justice Anthony M. Kennedy Library and 

Learning Center in the Robert T. Matsui United 

States Courthouse in Sacramento, California. 

Teachers have since arranged special visits to the 

courthouse and the learning center as a result of 

the teacher institute. 
45

Judges Receiving Awards

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals:

Senior Circuit Judge Arthur L. Alarcón, Outstanding 

Jurist Award, Los Angeles County Bar Association; 

Circuit Judge Consuelo M. Callahan, Professionalism 

Award for the Ninth Circuit, American Inns of Court; 

Circuit Judge Michael Daly Hawkins, Inductee, Arizona 

Veterans Hall of Fame 

District of Arizona:

Bankruptcy Judge Redfield T. Baum, Sr., Alumnus 

of the Year, Arizona State University, Sandra Day 

O’Connor College of Law

Central District of California:

District Judge Andrew J. Guilford, Judicial Excellence 

Award, Orange County Asian American Bar 

Association; Chief Bankruptcy Judge Sheri Bluebond, 

Calvin Ashland Judge of the Year Award, Central 

District Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys’ Association

Eastern District of California:

Chief District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr., Judge 

of the Year, American Board of Trial Advocates, 

Sacramento Chapter; District Judge Kimberly J. 

Mueller, Frances Newell Carr Achievement Award, 

Women Lawyers of Sacramento; Senior District Judge 

Lawrence J. O’Neill, Alumnus of the Year Award, 

University of California, Hastings College of the Law; 

Magistrate Judge Allison Claire, Founders’ Award, 

Sacramento’s LGBT Bar Association

Northern District of California:

Senior District Judge Saundra B. Armstrong, 

Trailblazer’s Award, Oakland Black Officers 

Association, Inductee, Distinguished Knight Castlemont 

High School Alumni Hall of Fame, Honoree, Black 

History Month Award, and Honoree, Empire Mock 

Trial; Senior District Judge Charles R. Breyer, 

Federal Judge of the Year, San Francisco Trial Lawyers 

Association; District Judge Beth L. Freeman, Elinor 

Falvey Award, San Mateo County Bar Association, 

Women Lawyers Section

District of Hawaii:

Chief Bankruptcy Judge Robert J. Faris, admitted to 

the American College of Bankruptcy

District of Idaho:

Chief Magistrate Judge Candy Wagahoff Dale, 2014 

Justice for All Award, Diversity Section Group, Idaho 

State Bar

District of Oregon: 

Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke, Owen M. Panner 

Professionalism Award, Oregon State Bar Association, 

Litigation Section, and Oregon Trial Lawyers 

Association; District Judge Michael J. McShane, 

Lewis and Clark Law School Distinguished Honorary 

Graduate Award, Lewis and Clark Law School; District 

Judge Michael H. Simon, Lewis and Clark Law School 

Distinguished Honorary Graduate Award, Lewis and 

Clark Law School

Western District of Washington:

District Judge Richard A. Jones, Amicus Award, Black 

Law Student Association, Seattle University School 

of Law; Senior District Judge Thomas S. Zilly, 2014 

William L. Dwyer Outstanding Jurist Award, King 

County Bar Association; Bankruptcy Judge Karen A. 

Overstreet, honored by Federal Bar Association of 

the Western District of Washington for 20 years of 

judicial service
46

Administrative Changes

 Edward “Eddy” Emmons is the 

bankruptcy court clerk for the U.S. 

Bankruptcy Court for the Northern 

District of California. Prior to his 

appointment on February 24, 2014, he 

had served as the acting clerk of court 

for the district since February 3, 2014. 

Mr. Emmons has worked in the 

Northern District of California for 19 years and had 

been the chief deputy clerk since June 2003. He began 

his career in the judiciary as a docket clerk for the U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California. 

 

 Michael Filipovic was appointed the 

new federal public defender for the 

Western District of Washington on 

March 1, 2014. He joined the Office 

of the Federal Public Defender in 

1990 and had served as first assistant 

federal public defender since 2004. 

He worked previously as a defender 

for the Public Defender Association in King County, 

Washington, and as a public defender in the Office of the 

Illinois Appellate Defender from 1978 to 1981. Mr. 

Filipovic received his B.A. from the University of Illinois, 

Chicago, in 1974 and his J.D. from Illinois Institute of 

Technology, Chicago-Kent College of Law, in 1977.

 Lisa Christina Hay was appointed the 

acting federal public defender for the 

District of Oregon on October 1, 

2014. She joined the Office of the 

Federal Public Defender in 1998 and 

was named an assistant federal public 

defender in 2002. Prior to federal 

service, Ms. Hay worked as an 

associate at law firms in San Francisco, Boston and 

Portland, Oregon. She received her B.A. in 1985 from 

Yale University, graduating summa cum laude, and her 

J.D. in 1991 from Harvard Law School, graduating magna 

cum laude and serving as the editor of the Harvard Law 

Review from 1989 to 1991. After law school, she clerked 

for Judges Robert E. Keeton and Patti B. Saris of the U.S. 

District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

 Tom Holter was appointed the chief 

probation officer for the District of 

Montana on November 1, 2014. He 

served as the deputy chief from 2011 

to 2014, as a supervisor from 2004 to 

2011, and as a senior drug alcohol 

treatment specialist from 1996 to 

2004. Mr. Holter began his career as 

a probation officer in 1989 in the Western District of 

Washington, then transferred to the District of Montana 

in 1990. He received a B.S. in business administration 

from Montana Tech in 1985 and a master’s of education 

from Montana State University in 1987.

 

 John P. Morrill was appointed the 

district court clerk for the U.S. 

District Court for the Southern 

District of California on April 29, 

2014. He had served as the acting 

clerk of court for the district since 

December 2013. Mr. Morrill has 

worked in the Southern District of 

California for more than 20 years and was named chief 

deputy of operations in 2005. He earned his B.A. in 

political science and his master’s degree in public 

administration from San Diego State University. Prior to 

federal service, he worked for the Washington State 

House of Representatives in Olympia, Washington.

 Hilary Lee Potashner was appointed 

the acting federal public defender for 

the Central District of California on 

September 14, 2014. She joined the 

Office of the Federal Public Defender 

in 2001, was promoted to a 

supervising defender in 2007 and 

became the office’s chief deputy in 

2012. Ms. Potashner worked previously as a deputy 

public defender in the San Diego County Public 

Defender’s Office from 1993 to 2000. She received her 

B.A. from Duke University in 1989 and her J.D. in 1993 

from the University of California, Hastings College of 

the Law, where she received the Hastings Public Interest 

Law Foundation grant in 1991.
SPACE & 

FACILITIES
48

Elected officials, civic leaders and most of Arizona’s federal judges 

were among a crowd of more than 400 people who gathered in 

Yuma for the dedication of the John M. Roll United States Courthouse. 

The building is named for the late chief judge of the U.S. District Court 

for the District of Arizona, who was among six people slain in a mass 

shooting in Tucson in 2011.

Held April 24, 2014, some 40 members of the Roll family attended 

the dedication, including Maureen Roll, the widow of the late 

judge, and the couple’s sons, Robert, Christopher and Patrick Roll, 

who took the podium to conclude the program. Robert, the eldest, 

made remarks, remembering his father as a deeply religious man, 

devoted to his family and dedicated to his work.

A large contingent of Arizona federal judges, led by the court’s 

current chief judge, the Honorable Raner C. Collins, attended the 

dedication ceremony. Chief Judge Collins, who was among the 

speakers, described Judge Roll as the driving force behind the Yuma 

courthouse project, recognizing the need for additional resources to 

handle the border court’s heavy criminal caseload.

Courthouse Dedication Honors Memory of Slain Judge

Courthouse, below, named and dedicated as the 

John M. Roll U.S. Courthouse, after the late 

Chief Judge Roll, pictured above.
49

Gabrielle Giffords, 

the former 

Congresswoman who 

was the target of the 

attack that occurred on 

January 8, 2011,

at a Tucson shopping 

center, was a surprise 

addition to the 

program. Giffords, 

who survived a 

grievous head wound, has retired from political office 

and founded an organization that seeks to balance gun 

rights with community safety.

U.S. Senators John McCain and Jeff Flake, Rep. Raul 

M. Grijalva and Rep. Ron Barber, Giffords’ former 

aide who succeeded her in office, and Yuma Mayor 

Doug Nicholls also shared the podium, while Ruth 

Cox, regional administrator for the General Services 

Administration served as master of ceremonies.

“I cannot imagine a greater example of character or 

selflessness than Chief Judge Roll,” Senator McCain said, 

adding that the courthouse will stand as a fitting tribute.

Soon after Judge Roll’s death, the Senate unanimously 

approved naming the Yuma courthouse in his honor. 

President Obama signed the measure into law on 

February 17, 2011.

Opened for occupancy in late 2013, the two-story, 

56,800-square-foot courthouse houses two courtrooms, 

jury rooms and judges’ chambers along with space for 

offices of the bankruptcy and district courts, Probation 

and Pretrial Services, and the U.S. Marshals Service. It 

was built at a cost of $33.4 million on a prominent site 

along the Colorado River, near Yuma’s major state and 

local government buildings.

Designed “green,” the courthouse makes extensive 

use of solar power gathered by an expansive canopy of 

photovoltaic panels at the front of the building. Locallyobtained Arizona sandstone was used in the building, 

which also features a two-story glass lobby.

Former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, pictured top left, 

and Chief District Judge Raner C. Collins, pictured top right, 

were among the speakers at the dedication ceremony. Senator 

Jeff Flake, pictured above right, was joined by Senator John 

McCain, who co-sponsored the bill renaming the courthouse 

after Chief Judge Roll.
50

Visitors to the courthouse will find inside a 

bronze bust of Judge Roll by Arizona artist 

Nicholas Burke. Immediately outside the main 

entrance is a public art installation entitled “Lion 

Dandies,” a sculpture consisting of metal orbs 

created by artist John Bisbee using iron railroad 

nails to reflect on Yuma’s railroad history.
51

Judges and court staff of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals gathered in the fall to 

observe the 25th anniversary of the Loma Prieta 

Earthquake, which struck the San Francisco Bay 

Area on October 17, 1989, at exactly 5:04 p.m. 

While no casualties were reported among judicial 

employees, the Ninth Circuit’s headquarters 

building was severely damaged, forcing evacuation 

of the historic structure. Judges and court staff 

were relocated to multiple locations in downtown 

San Francisco and court operations continued 

uninterrupted. Leased space in the Rincon Center 

served as the court’s temporary headquarters 

for about six years. The historic courthouse 

officially reopened on October 17, 1996, after 

a $91-million restoration project. The 25th 

anniversary observance drew a good crowd, which 

included several former employees. Remarks 

were made by Ninth Circuit Judges Sidney R. 

Thomas and Carlos T. Bea, Court of Appeals and 

Circuit Executive Cathy Catterson and Clerk 

of Court Molly Dwyer. A four-panel exhibit 

produced by court staff was on display.

Remembering the Loma Prieta Earthquake
52

U.S. Courthouse in Los Angeles, California

Gross Square Footage: 600,000

Design/Build Team: 

Clark Construction & SOM

Occupancy Date: March 2016

U.S. Courthouse in McKinleyville, California

Gross Square Footage: 23,000 

Owner/Developer: Eureka Skyline 26 Partners

Occupancy Date: January 2015

Courthouses Under Construction
WORK OF

THE COURTS
54

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit continues 

to be the nation’s busiest federal 

appellate court. In fiscal year 2014, 

the court received fewer appeals and 

reduced its pending caseload and the 

time needed to process decisions in 

merits cases.

New appeals filed with the Ninth Circuit numbered 

12,061 in FY 2014, down 6 percent from the prior 

fiscal year. The Ninth Circuit had 21.9 percent of 

all new appeals nationally, the most of any circuit. 

Appellate filings nationwide numbered 54,988, down 

2.6 percent overall. Nine circuits reported fewer 

filings, led by the First Circuit with 9.9 percent fewer 

new appeals. New filings were up in three circuits led 

by a 6 percent increase in the Fifth Circuit.

The Ninth Circuit disposed of 12,493 cases in FY 2014, 

down 2.2 percent. The court’s pending caseload was 

reduced by 3 percent to 13,868 cases.

Breakdown of New Appeals

Immigration matters and appeals brought by inmates 

in state or federal prisons within the circuit constituted 

two-thirds of the new filings, while more than half of 

all new appeals were brought by litigants who were not 

represented by a lawyer.

District courts, which serve as trial courts in the 

federal judicial system, accounted for 60.9 percent 

of new filings in FY 2014. District courts generated 

7,346 new appeals, down 5.3 percent from the prior 

year. Of the total, 5,768 were civil appeals and 1,578 

were criminal appeals. Prisoner petitions involving 

habeas corpus, capital habeas corpus, civil rights, 

prison conditions and other matters accounted for 

48.1 percent of all new civil appeals from the district 

courts. The U.S. government was a plaintiff or 

defendant in 1,173 new civil appeals, 15.9 percent of 

the total new cases commenced. 

The four district courts in California accounted for 

61.4 percent of the new civil appeals and 52.4 percent 

of new criminal appeals. The Central District of 

California, the busiest court in the circuit, generated 

2,068 new appeals, down 11 percent from the prior 

year. The Eastern District of California had the next 

largest number of new appeals with 844, down 10.3 

percent. Nine district courts generated fewer appeals 

than the prior year.

Of 1,578 new criminal appeals, 50.8 percent were 

related to drug and immigration offenses. The court 

reported 407 appeals involving drug offenses and 395 

for immigration offenses. Of the 247 appeals involving 

property offenses, 216 were related to fraud. The court 

also received 133 appeals for offenses involving firearms 

and explosives, 112 for sex offenses and 85 for violent 

offenses.

A substantial portion of the court’s caseload consists 

of appeals of decisions by executive branch agencies, 

primarily the Board of Immigration Appeals, or BIA. 

Appeals of agency decisions, which had risen the 

past two fiscal years, were down 12.3 percent in FY 

2014. Of 3,555 appeals of agency decisions received, 

3,419 involved the BIA. The BIA cases constituted 

28.3 percent of the court’s new filings. The Ninth 

Circuit had 57.1 percent of the total BIA appeals filed 

nationally in FY 2014.

Original proceedings commenced in FY 2014 numbered 

931, up 25.9 percent from the prior year. The bulk of 

original proceedings cases involved second or successive 

habeas corpus petitions and mandamus appeals.

Court of Appeals Reduces Backlog and Processing Time

Caseload Measure 2013 2014

Change

2013-14

Filings 12,826 12,061 -6.0%

Terminations 12,779 12,493 -2.2%

1Pending Cases 14,300 13,868 -3.0%

1 APPELLATE CASELOAD PROFILE, 2013-2014

1

2013 pending cases revised.
55

Type of Appeal

Filings 

2013

Filings 

2014

Change

2013-14

% of Circuit

Total

Terminations 

2013

Terminations 

2014

Change

2013-14

Pending 

2013

Pending 

2014

Change

2013-14

Civil

U.S. Prisoner

Petitions 549 511 -6.9% 4.2% 584 550 -5.8% 343 302 -12.0%

Private Prisoner

Petitions 2,519 2,265 -10.1% 18.8% 2,936 2,650 -9.7% 2,116 1,718 -18.8%

Other U.S. Civil 634 662 4.4% 5.5% 567 491 -13.4% 726 895 23.3%

Other Private Civil 2,389 2,330 -2.5% 19.3% 2,099 2,226 6.1% 2,913 3,003 3.1%

Criminal 1,669 1,578 -5.5% 13.1% 1,608 1,699 5.7% 1,846 1,720 -6.8%

Other

Bankruptcy 273 229 -16.1% 1.9% 206 209 1.5% 299 316 5.7%

Administrative

Appeals 4,054 3,555 -12.3% 29.5% 4,041 3,837 -5.0% 5,870 5,589 -4.8%

Original

Proceedings 739 931 26.0% 7.7% 738 831 12.6% 157 325 107.0%

Circuit Total 12,826 12,061 -6.0% 12,779 12,493 -2.2% 14,270 13,868 -2.8%

National Appellate 

Total 56,475 54,988 -2.6% 58,393 55,216 -5.4% 41,670 41,751 0.2%

Ninth Circuit as % 

of National Total 22.7% 21.9% 0.8% 21.9% 22.6% -0.7% 34.2% 33.2% -1.0%

2 FILINGS, TERMINATIONS AND PENDING CASES BY APPEAL TYPE, 2013-2014

Note: This table does not include data for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Beginning in March 2014, data include miscellaneous 

cases not included previously.

Terminations and Pending Cases

The court terminated 12,493 cases in FY 2014, down 

2.2 percent from the prior year. Of the total, 7,515 

cases were terminated on the merits: 1,530 after oral 

argument, 5,692 after submission on the briefs, and 

293 by consolidation. Merit terminations included 

2,383 prisoner cases, 1,299 criminal cases and 1,552 

administrative agency appeals. Another 4,978 cases 

were terminated on procedural grounds by judges and 

court staff. For the year, judicial panels produced 565 

published opinions and 6,657 unpublished opinions and 

memorandum dispositions.

Among cases terminated on the merits in FY 2014, 

4,448 were affirmed or enforced, while 1,068 cases 

were dismissed, reversed, remanded or disposed of by 

other means. Another 1,706 cases were rejected on 

the basis of denial of a certificate of appealability. The 

court’s overall reversal rate was 9.5 percent, compared 

to a national average of 7.2 percent. By category, 

reversal rates were 13.5 percent in criminal matters; 

16.6 percent in private civil matters; 13.5 percent in 

cases involving inmates in federal correctional facilities 

and 3.7 percent for inmates in state correctional 

facilities; and 9.5 percent in administrative agency 

appeals.

The court’s pending cases numbered 13,868, down 3 

percent from the prior year. Among the pending cases, 

40.3 percent involved administrative appeals; 28.1 

percent civil matters; 14.6 percent prisoner petitions; 

and 12.4 percent criminal matters. Of the pending 

caseload, 33.8 percent had been pending less than 6 

months, 20.4 percent pending 6 to 12 months, and 45.7 

percent for more than 12 months.

Median Time Intervals

Median time intervals, which measure how long it takes 

for cases decided on the merits to proceed through the 

appellate process, continued to improve in FY 2014. The 

median time interval from filing of a notice of appeal to 

final disposition of all cases was 12.4 months, down from 
56

13.3 months. The court has reduced 

the median time interval by 5 months 

over the last four fiscal years. 

The median time interval from the 

filing of a case in a lower court to final 

appellate disposition was 32.6 months, 

down slightly from FY 2013. The 

national median time intervals in FY 

2014 were 8.5 months from notice of 

appeal to final disposition by a circuit 

court of appeals, and 28 months from 

the filing of a case in a lower court to 

final disposition by a circuit court.

In appeals of BIA decisions, the 

median time interval from the date of 

docketing the case to filing of opinion 

or final order was 21.5 months. 

For bankruptcy cases, the median time interval for 

docketing to decision was 20.4 months. The national 

median time intervals were 13.7 months for BIA cases 

and 12.3 months for bankruptcy appeals.

Once an appeal was fully briefed, Ninth Circuit judges 

decides all types of cases fairly quickly. In FY 2014, the 

median time interval for panel decisions was 1.1 months 

for a case in which oral arguments were heard, and a 

matter of days for cases submitted on briefs. 

Pro Se Filings and Terminations

Pro se appeals involve at least one party who is not 

represented by counsel. In FY 2014, new appeals by 

pro se litigants numbered 6,020, down 9.2 percent 

from the prior year. Pro se litigants accounted for 49.9 

percent of all appeals opened during the year. Prisoner 

petitions, 2,426, and agency appeals, 1,539, made up 

65.8 percent of the new pro se cases. The majority of 

pro se appeals, 3,654 cases, involved decisions of the 

district courts of the circuit.

The court terminated 6,455 pro se appeals in FY 2014, 

down 7 percent from the prior year. Of that number, 

2,706 were closed on procedural grounds, while 3,749 

were terminated on the merits after oral argument, 

submission on the briefs, or by consolidation. Prisoner 

petitions, 2,781, and agency appeals, 1,579, made up 

the bulk of the terminations. 

En Banc Cases

En banc courts, which consist of 11 judges rather 

than three, are convened quarterly to resolve intracircuit conflicts or other legal questions of exceptional 

importance. In FY 2014, 17 en banc courts were 

convened, each hearing one case. During the fiscal year, 

the court received 785 petitions seeking en banc review. 

Active judges of the court voted on 37 en banc requests, 

granting en banc review in 17 cases. En banc decisions 

issued by the court in FY 2014 numbered 17.

Death Penalty Cases

The court ended calendar year 2014 with 98 pending 

death penalty cases from five states. Arizona and 

California each had 38 pending death penalty cases. 

There were 16 pending cases in Nevada, four in Idaho 

and two in Washington. Within the circuit, another 712 

death penalty cases are pending in federal trial courts 

and state supreme courts. Since 1976, there have been 

75 executions by states within the circuit.

By Stage of Appeal

Number of Months

Ninth Circuit National

2013 2014 2013 2014

1

From Filing of Notice of Appeal or Docket Date 

to Filing or Appellee's Last Brief 8.2 8.4 5.8 5.8

From Filing of Appellee's Last Brief to Oral 

Argument or Submission on Brief 8.7 12.0 4.1 3.8

From Oral Argument to Last Opinion 

or Final Order 1.2 1.1 2.1 2.1

From Submission on Brief to Last Opinion 

or Final Order 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.4

1

From Filing of Notice of Appeal or Docket Date 

to Last Option or Final Order 13.3 12.4 9.0 8.5

From Filing in Lower Court to Last Opinion 

or Final Order in Appeals Court 32.9 32.6 28.3 28.0

MEDIAN TIME INTERVALS IN MONTHS FOR MERIT 3 TERMINATIONS OF APPEALS, 2013-2014

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

Beginning in March 2014, data include miscellaneous applications not included previously. 

Cases terminated include appeals, original proceedings, and miscellaneous applications.

1

Docket date is used when computing the median time intervals for original proceedings, 

miscellaneous applications, and appeals from administrative agencies.
57

Year

Petitions Filed for

Rehearing En 

Banc

En Banc

Ballots Sent

Grants of Rehearing

En Banc Following 

A Vote

Denials of Rehearing 

En Banc Following 

A Vote

2014 37 17 20 15

2013 32 17 15 14

2012 33 19 14 14

2011 1 28 13 14 34

2010 58 24 34 22

District Appeals % of Total

Alaska 68 0.6%

Arizona 788 6.5%

C. Calif. 2,068 17.1%

E. Calif. 844 7.0%

N. Calif. 861 7.1%

S. Calif. 598 5.0%

Guam 13 0.2%

Hawaii 145 1.2%

Idaho 138 1.1%

Montana 239 2.0%

Nevada 585 4.9%

Northern Mariana Islands 11 0.1%

Oregon 415 3.4%

E. Wash. 127 1.1%

W. Wash. 446 3.7%

Bankruptcy 229 1.9%

Administrative Agencies, Total 3,555 29.5%

IRS 50 0.4%

NLRB 21 0.2%

BIA 3,419 28.3%

Other Administrative Agencies 65 0.5%

Original Proceedings 931 7.0%

Circuit Totals 12,061

Contributions by Active, Senior 

and Visiting Judges

The court ended FY 2014 with 29 

active circuit judges and 16 senior 

circuit judges. During the year, active 

circuit judges authored the opinions in 

63.3 percent of all cases terminated on 

the merits, up slightly from prior year. 

Senior judges of the circuit authored 

opinions in 32.5 percent of the merits 

cases, while visiting judges authored 

opinions in the remaining 4.3 percent. 

Over the course of the year, 58 judges 

sat on the court by designation, 

including active and senior district 

judges from the Ninth Circuit and 

circuit judges and district judges from 

other circuits.

In addition to sitting on panels, senior 

circuit judges served on screening 

and motions panels and various 

administrative court committees.

NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS 5 EN BANC BALLOTS, 2010-2014

1

En banc call withdrawn in one case.

SOURCE OF APPEALS AND ORIGINAL 4 PROCEEDINGS COMMENCED, 2014

Note: Administrative agency appeals of decisions by the Immigration and Naturalization 

Service (INS) are now shown as appeals of decisions by the Board of Immigration Appeals 

(BIA). Appeals of decisions by the U.S. Tax Court are shown as Internal Revenue Service (IRS) 

appeals. Beginning March 2014, data include miscellaneous cases not included previously.
58

United States district courts serve as the trial courts 

in the federal judicial system and have jurisdiction 

to consider civil and criminal matters and other types 

of cases. A district court operates in each of the 94 

judicial districts in the nation. The 15 district courts in 

the Ninth Circuit ranked second in the nation in total 

number of new cases reported for FY 2014.

New filings in Ninth Circuit district 

courts were down slightly overall as 

a result of a significant drop in new 

criminal cases. Total new filings in Ninth 

Circuit district courts numbered 60,991 

cases, a 1.1 percent reduction from the 

prior fiscal year. Ninth Circuit district 

courts accounted for 17 percent of the 

358,032 new cases filed nationwide. 

District courts in the Fourth Circuit 

ranked first in total number of filings, 

61,347 new cases, while Fifth Circuit 

trial courts ranked third with 43,975 new 

cases in FY 2014.

Criminal Caseload and Defendants 

Beginning in FY 2012, data on criminal 

cases commenced by offense and 

district are no longer published by the 

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. 

Data on criminal defendants commenced 

by offense continues to be used because it 

takes into account that a single case may 

have multiple defendants.

Consistent with an overall drop in new 

criminal cases nationally, district courts 

of the Ninth Circuit reported 13,859 

new criminal filings, down 14.1 percent 

from FY 2013. The most significant 

declines nationally and in the circuit were 

found in immigration- and drug-related 

cases. Criminal cases terminated by 

Ninth Circuit district courts during the year numbered 

14,946, down 12.4 percent, while the total pending 

caseload decreased by 6.6 percent to 12,624 cases.

Thirteen of 15 district courts in the circuit reported 

fewer criminal cases in fiscal year 2014. The Ninth 

Circuit as a whole accounted for 22.1 percent of the 

District Courts See Significant Decline

in Criminal Filings

Caseload Measure 2013 2014

1

Change

2013-2014

Civil Filings 45,531 47,132 3.5%

Criminal Filings 16,136 13,859 -14.1%

Total Filings 61,667 60,991 -1.1%

Civil Terminations 46,628 47,928 2.8%

Criminal Terminations 17,070 14,946 -12.4%

Total Terminations 63,698 62,874 -1.3%

2

Pending Civil Cases 38,825 38,029 -2.1%

Pending Criminal Cases 13,513 12,624 -6.6%

2

Total Pending Cases 52,338 50,653 -3.2%

Civil Case Termination Index (in months) 10.00 9.52 -4.8%

Criminal Case Termination Index (in months) 9.50 10.14 6.7%

2

Overall Case Termination Index 9.86 9.67 -1.9%

Median Months (from filing to disposition)

Civil Cases

7.30 7.20 -1.4%

Median Months (from filing to disposition)

Criminal Felony Defendants

5.20 5.60 7.7%

Median Months National Total 

(from filing to disposition) Civil Cases 

8.50 8.30 -2.4%

Median Months National Total 

(from filing to disposition) Criminal Felony Defendants

6.80 7.00 2.9%

U.S. DISTRICT COURTS - TOTAL CRIMINAL AND CIVIL 6 CASES FILED, TERMINATED AND PENDING, 2013-2014

Note: Criminal cases commenced includes all cases filed as felonies or Class A 

misdemeanors but includes only those cases filed as petty offenses that were assigned 

to district judges rather than magistrate judges. Pending totals for criminal cases exclude 

cases in which the only defendants pending in such cases had been fugitives more than 

12 months before the end of the period indicated. Beginning in March 2012, the median 

time interval is computed from the proceeding date for a defendant (e.g., the date an 

indictment or information was filed) to the date on which the defendant was found not guilty 

or was sentenced. Previously, the median time interval was computed beginning with the 

defendant’s filing date. Therefore, data for March 2012 and thereafter are not comparable 

to data for previous periods. Excludes land condemnation, prisoner petitions, deportation 

reviews, recovery of overpayments and enforcement of judgments. Median computed only 

for 10 or more defendants. 

1

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

2

2013 total pending civil cases and total pending cases revised
59

AK AZ

C. 

Calif.

E. 

Calif.

N. 

Calif.

S. 

Calif. GU HI ID MT NMI NV OR E. 

W. 

Wash.

Total

2013

Total

2014

Change

2013-14

Violent Offenses

Homicide 0 26 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 10 0 2 0 1 1 61 44 -27.9%

Robbery 3 15 27 4 13 16 0 2 2 1 0 20 16 4 4 148 127 -14.2%

Assault 4 96 8 3 8 28 0 4 16 28 0 8 16 6 29 245 254 3.7%

Other 1 33 7 4 27 0 0 5 5 24 0 10 3 18 0 142 137 -3.5%

Property Offenses

Burglary, 

Larceny & Theft 7 34 43 24 29 13 25 8 2 22 0 19 33 7 115 462 381 -17.5%

Embezzlement 1 17 8 1 2 4 1 3 3 24 0 2 6 4 10 95 86 -9.5%

Fraud 9 312 323 109 124 387 10 35 22 29 8 63 77 28 57 1,794 1,593 -11.2%

Forgery & 

Counterfeiting 3 12 22 13 12 4 4 8 2 3 0 1 9 4 7 85 104 22.4%

Other 0 0 2 2 5 1 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 9 26 24 -7.7%

Drug Offenses

Marijuana 9 2,696 34 68 26 121 0 9 5 15 0 0 21 5 60 3,455 3,069 -11.2%

All Other Drugs 63 421 403 207 174 1,350 36 129 91 129 10 122 215 133 188 4,138 3,671 -11.3%

Firearms and 

Explosives 

Offenses 29 127 79 73 132 57 2 8 35 63 1 90 101 72 59 959 928 -3.2%

Sex Offenses 13 87 50 71 11 54 4 4 17 57 0 61 45 29 34 631 537 -14.9%

Justice System 

Offenses 4 55 16 8 20 34 0 2 3 6 2 5 18 4 7 150 184 22.7%

Immigration 

Offenses

Improper 

Reentry by Alien 1 2,293 186 113 84 1,279 0 5 55 4 0 96 123 63 73 5,697 4,375 -23.2%

Other 0 401 11 0 1 742 2 2 7 0 4 1 0 4 3 1,320 1,178 -10.8%

General Offenses 2 44 50 6 32 89 0 29 2 8 0 15 11 2 31 400 321 -19.8%

Regulatory 

Offenses 19 72 55 14 31 83 0 23 4 3 1 11 16 7 23 405 362 -10.6%

Traffic Offenses 3 1 0 8 26 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 214 381 257 -32.5%

All Offenses Total 171 6,742 1,324 730 757 4,262 87 277 277 426 26 527 710 392 924 20,594 17,632 -14.4%

total criminal filings nationwide, which numbered 

62,722, down 9 percent from FY 2013. 

In the Ninth Circuit, criminal defendants numbered 

17,676, down 14.3 percent from prior fiscal year. Most 

defendants, 14,564 were charged with felony offenses. 

Defendants charged with drug offenses made up 38.1 

percent of total criminal defendants in the circuit, 

up compared to FY 2013. Of the 6,740 total drug 

offenses, 3,069 involved marijuana and 3,671 involved 

all other drug offenses.

Criminal defendants charged with immigration 

offenses numbered 5,553, down compared to FY 2013. 

Immigration offenses constituted 31.4 percent of all 

criminal defendants in the circuit. Of the total, 4,375 

defendants were charged with improper reentry into 

the country.

U.S. DISTRICT COURTS - CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS COMMENCED BY OFFENSE 7 AND DISTRICT, 2013-2014

Note: This table includes defendants in all cases filed as felonies or Class A misdemeanors but includes only those defendants in cases filed as petty 

offenses that were assigned to district judges rather than magistrate judges.
60

The Ninth Circuit’s two districts on the U.S.-Mexico 

border reported high numbers of defendants charged 

with immigration and drug offenses. Defendants 

charged with drug offenses in the District of Arizona 

numbered 3,117. The district had 46.2 percent of all 

defendants charged with drug offenses in the circuit. 

Defendants charged with immigration offenses in 

Arizona numbered 2,694 and accounted for 48.5 

percent of the circuit total. The Southern District 

of California reported 1,471 defendants charged 

with drug offenses, accounting for 21.8 percent 

of the circuit total, and 2,021 charged with 

immigration offenses, or 32.1 percent of the 

circuit total. 

District courts reported 2,188 defendants charged with 

property offenses. Under this category, defendants 

charged with fraud were most numerous, totaling 

1,593, followed by burglary, larceny or theft, 381; 

forgery and counterfeiting, 104; embezzlement, 86; and 

24 for other property offenses.

Defendants charged with firearms and explosive offenses 

numbered 928, while violent offenses, including homicide, 

robbery, assault, and other violent offenses numbered 562. 

District courts saw a 6.6 percent decline in pending 

criminal caseloads with 12 out of the 15 districts reporting 

fewer pending criminal cases in fiscal year 2014. 

Weighted Filings Per Judgeship Unweighted Filings Per Judgeship

District

 

Authorized

Judgeships 

 

Civil Criminal

Supervision

Hearings

2014

Total

2013

Total

Change

2013-2014 Civil Criminal

Supervision

Hearings

2014

Total

Alaska 3 104 53 1.15 158 189 -19.6% 96 58 8.00 162

Arizona 13 445 281 15.87 742 644 15.2% 527 516 113.31 1,156

C. Calif. 28 617 42 4.51 664 652 1.8% 502 47 31.82 581

E. Calif. 6 858 108 8.05 974 920 5.9% 793 121 57.33 971

N. Calif. 14 541 48 4.41 593 618 -4.0% 403 54 31.43 488

S. Calif. 13 275 218 15.38 508 566 -10.2% 234 327 108.92 670

Hawaii 4 209 70 6.73 286 298 -4.0% 164 70 46.25 280

Idaho 2 308 132 6.00 446 484 -7.9% 269 139 42.00 450

Montana 3 246 145 7.97 399 385 3.6% 260 140 50.67 451

Nevada 7 430 70 4.79 505 557 -9.3% 386 75 33.14 494

Oregon 6 381 107 8.87 497 517 -3.9% 351 119 63.66 533

E. Wash. 4 161 96 20.61 278 354 -21.5% 176 98 146.50 421

W. Wash. 7 467 76 6.25 549 634 -13.4% 441 133 43.86 618

Circuit Total 110 5,042 1,446 110.59 6,599 6,818 -3.2% 4,602 1,897 776.89 7,275

Circuit Mean - 388 111 8.51 508 524 -3.2% 354 146 59.76 560

Circuit Median - 381 96 6.73 505 557 -9.3% 351 119 46.25 494

National Mean - 409 98 5.84 513 531 -3.5% 410 120 39.07 569

National Total 673 434 94 5.41 533 545 -2.2% 411 120 36.74 568

8 U.S. DISTRICT COURTS - WEIGHTED AND UNWEIGHTED FILINGS PER AUTHORIZED JUDGESHIP

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

cases arising by reopening, remand, or transfer to the district by the order of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. This table includes defendants 

in all felony and Class A misdemeanor cases but include only those petty offense defendants whose cases have been assigned to district judges. 

Remands and reopens for criminal defendants are excluded. This table excludes data for the territorial courts. Data are reported for supervised release 

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

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

revocation filings may not equal totals for weighted and unweighted filings.
61

Civil Caseload

District courts in the Ninth Circuit saw a 3.5 increase 

in new civil filings in fiscal year 2014, reporting 47,132 

new cases. Civil matters accounted for 77.3 percent of 

the district courts’ total caseload. Civil filings increased 

nationally by 3.8 percent over the prior fiscal year.

District courts in the Ninth Circuit closed 47,928 civil 

cases, up 2.8 percent, and ended the fiscal year with 

fewer pending civil cases, 38,029, down 2.1 percent.

Private civil cases, which numbered 38,666, accounted 

for 82 percent of all new civil filings in FY 2014. 

Within this category, prisoner petitions were most 

numerous, numbering 12,110, up 31.6 from the prior 

year. Prisoner petitions accounted for 31.3 percent of 

all new private civil cases. 

Other major categories of new private civil filings include 

civil rights, 6,477 cases, up 10.5 percent; contracts, 

3,889, down 7.9 percent; other personal injury, 2,761, 

down 16.1 percent; intellectual property suits, 2,688, 

down 11.6 percent; labor suits, 2,513, down 10.4 

percent; and real property suits, 1,987, down 48 percent.

Civil cases in which the U.S. government was a party 

numbered 8,466, accounting for 18 percent all civil 

filings. The government acted as a plaintiff in 1,484 

cases and as a defendant in 6,982 cases. Among matters 

involving the government, social security cases were 

most numerous, 3,835, up 7.2 percent and accounted for 

45.3 percent of the total U.S. civil cases. Other major 

categories were prisoner petitions 1,605 cases or 19 

percent, and contracts, 735 cases or 8.7 percent.

Six districts saw increased civil filings in fiscal year 

2014. Filings in the District of Arizona, which reported 

the largest increase, rose by 54.7 percent to 6,960 

new cases. Civil filings were up in the Eastern District 

of California, by 4.3 percent to 4,880 new cases; the 

Southern District of California, by 2.6 percent to 3,439 

cases; the District of Montana, by 21.4 percent to 795 

cases; the District of Hawaii, by 0.4 percent to 710 

cases; and the District of the Northern Mariana Islands, 

by 3.4 percent to 30 cases.

The Central District of California, which had the 

highest civil caseload in the circuit and second in the 

nation, reported 14,567 filings, down 1.1 percent from 

FY 2013. Other districts with fewer filings include 

Alaska, Guam, Northern California, Idaho, Nevada, 

Oregon, Eastern Washington and Western Washington.

District courts in the Ninth Circuit reported 47,928 

civil cases terminated, an increase of 2.8 percent from 

the prior fiscal year. Civil case terminations nationwide 

increased by 1.3 percent to 258,477. Pending civil 

cases were down 2.1 percent to 38,029 in the circuit, 

while pending civil cases nationwide rose by 12.3 

percent to 337,302. 

Case Processing Times

Case processing times in the district courts of the Ninth 

Circuit improved in FY 2014. The Case Termination 

Index, which computes how long it would take to clear the 

pending caseload if the current termination rate remained 

constant, was 9.67 months compared to 9.87 months 

the prior fiscal year. (The termination rate for FY 2013, 

previously reported as 9.59 months, was revised due to 

revised total pending cases as reported in the FY 2013 

statistical tables published by the Administrative Office of 

the U.S. Courts.)

The median time from filing to disposition of civil 

cases terminated in the Ninth Circuit decreased to 7.2 

months compared to the prior fiscal year, while the 

national median decreased to 8.3 months in FY 2014.

For criminal defendants, the median time from filing 

to disposition in the Ninth Circuit was 5.6 months 

compared to 5.2 months in FY 2013. The national 

median time was 7 months, up from 6.8 months the 

prior fiscal year.
62

Bankruptcy filings continued to decline nationally in 

fiscal year 2014. Total filings numbered 963,739, 

down 13 percent from the 1.1 million bankruptcy filings 

reported in FY 2013. It was the lowest number of 

bankruptcy filings for any 12-month period since 2007.

The 15 districts within the Ninth Circuit reported 

185,829 new cases, down 21.8 percent from fiscal year 

2013. It was the fourth consecutive year in which new 

filings in the circuit declined.

All 15 districts in the Ninth Circuit reported fewer filings. 

Bankruptcy courts in California reported the largest 

decreases percentage-wise. The Northern District of 

California, which includes San Francisco, Oakland and San 

Jose, reported 15,430 filings, down 29.4 percent. The 

Eastern District of California, which includes Sacramento, 

Fresno and the Central Valley, reported 22,383 filings, 

down 27.1 percent. The Southern District of California, 

which takes in San Diego and Imperial counties, opened 

10,992 new cases, down 20.4 percent. The 

Central District of California, which serves 

Los Angeles and six other populous Southern 

California counties, reported 60,545 filings, down 

26.9 percent. The Central District continues to 

claim the busiest bankruptcy court in the nation.

Significant declines reported elsewhere in 

the circuit included the Western District of 

Washington, which serves Seattle and Tacoma, 

had 17,380 new filings, down 15.1 percent, and 

the District of Arizona, which had 20,907 filings, 

down 13.1 percent. 

Among the nine western states within the Ninth 

Circuit, Nevada had the highest bankruptcy 

filings per capita, 4.22 per 1,000 residents. The 

state had the seventh highest per capita filing 

rate in the nation.

Chapter 7 cases, which provide for the sale 

of a debtor’s nonexempt property and the 

distribution of the proceeds to creditors, were 

most numerous throughout the circuit. Chapter 7 filings 

numbered 148,082 or 79.7 percent of all new filings in 

the circuit. Chapter 13 filings, which enable individuals 

with regular income to develop a plan to repay all or 

part of their debts, numbered 35,971 or 19.4 percent 

of the circuit total. Chapters 11 and 12 filings made up 

the remainder. Nonbusiness filings involving individual 

debtors accounted for 96.5 percent of all new cases. 

Pro Se Bankruptcy Filings

The Ninth Circuit reported the highest number of new 

bankruptcy filings by people not represented by legal 

counsel. Total bankruptcy cases by pro se filers in the 

circuit numbered 30,419, or 16.4 percent of the total 

filings. Some courts have established self-help centers 

for pro se filers, who are unfamiliar with bankruptcy 

law and court procedures. Courts also are urging their 

local bars to assist by providing pro bono representation 

for some cases.

Bankruptcy Filings Continue Steep Decline

Caseload Measure 2013 2014

Change

2013-2014

Filings

 Business Chapter 7 5,885 4,640 -21.2%

 Business Chapter 11 1,522 1,188 -21.9%

 Business Chapter 12 69 62 -10.1%

 Business Chapter 13 627 528 -15.8%

 Nonbusiness Chapter 7 181,606 143,442 -21.0%

 Nonbusiness Chapter 11 660 517 -21.7%

 Nonbusiness Chapter 13 47,359 35,443 -25.2%

 Total 237,728 185,820 -21.8%

Terminations 274,593 217,764 -20.7%

1

Pending Cases 244,003 212,072 -13.1%

BUSINESS AND NONBUSINESS BANKRUPTCY CASES 

COMMENCED, BY CHAPTER OF THE U.S. BANKRUPTCY 

CODE, 2013-2014 9

1

2013 pending cases revised

Note: Section 101 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code defines consumer (nonbusiness) 

debt as that incurred by an individual primarily for a personal, family, or household 

purpose. If the debtor is a corporation or partnership, or if debt related to operation of 

a business predominates, the nature of the debt is business.

These figures include the following cases not reflected elsewhere:

Fiscal Year 2013

Alaska (Chapter 15 = 11); Arizona (Chapter 15 = 4); Central Calif. (Chapter 15 = 1); 

Northern Calif. (Chapter 9 = 1, Chapter 15 = 1); Southern Calif. (Chapter 15 = 1); Guam 

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

Fiscal Year 2014

Central Calif. (Chapter 15 = 1); Northern Calif. (Chapter 9 = 1); Southern Calif. (Chapter 

15 = 1); Nevada (Chapter 15 = 5); Western Wash. (Chapter 15 = 1)
63

Pro se filings in the Central District of California 

numbered 14,050, accounting for 46.2 percent of pro se 

filings in the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit, in turn, 

accounted for 36 percent of pro se filings nationwide.

Also reporting large numbers of pro se bankruptcy filings 

were the District of Arizona, 4,358 or 14.3 percent of 

all pro se filings in the Ninth Circuit; the Eastern District 

of California, 3,609 or 12 percent; and the Northern 

District of California, 2,502 or 8.2 percent.

Terminations and Pending Cases

Bankruptcy courts in the Ninth Circuit terminated 

217,764 cases or 19.8 percent of the 1,099,666 

cases terminated nationwide. The Central District of 

California terminated 66,508 cases or 30.5 percent of 

all cases closed in the circuit. The District of Arizona 

followed with 27,469 or 12.6 percent; the Eastern 

District of California, 26,528 or 12.2 percent; the 

Northern District of California, 19,884 cases or 9.1 

percent; the Western District of Washington, 19,183 

cases or 8.8 percent; the District of Nevada, 15,553 

cases or 7.1 percent; District of Oregon, 15,135 cases 

or 7 percent; and the Southern District of California, 

11,747 cases or 5.4 percent.

Pending cases reported by bankruptcy courts in the 

circuit declined by 13.3 percent to 212,072 and made 

up of 15.2 percent of pending cases nationwide which 

totaled 1,399,496. The Central District of California saw 

its pending caseload decrease by 10.9 percent to 48,605 

cases. The District of Arizona reported 30,994 pending 

cases, down 17.5 percent; the Northern District of 

California, 29,686, down 13.1 percent; and the Eastern 

District of California, 25,522, down 14 percent.

Appointments, Transitions

In 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth 

Circuit appointed five new bankruptcy judges. The 

new judges were Madeleine C. Wanslee, Brenda K. 

Martin, Paul Sala and Scott H. Gan, in Arizona; and 

Scott H. Yun in the Central District of California.

Three bankruptcy judges were elevated to chief 

bankruptcy judges in 2014. Elevated as chief were 

Judges Daniel P. Collins of the District of Arizona, 

Frederick Corbit of the Eastern District of Washington, 

and Brian D. Lynch of the Western District of 

Washington.

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

reappointed two bankruptcy judges in 2014. 

Reappointed to another 14-year term were Judges Ralph 

B. Kirscher of the District of Montana and Barry Russell 

of the Central District of California. Judge Russell is the 

longest-serving active bankruptcy judge in the nation.

Ninth Circuit bankruptcy courts also rely on recalled 

bankruptcy judges who are appointed on a temporary 

basis with the approval of the Judicial Council of the 

Ninth Circuit. There were 13 recalled bankruptcy 

judges who served in seven districts in 2014.

District

Total Filings 

2013

Total Filings 

2014

Change

2013-2014

Alaska 638 458 -28.2%

Arizona 24,046 20,907 -13.1%

C. Calif. 82,861 60,545 -26.9%

E. Calif. 30,685 22,383 -27.1%

N. Calif. 21,841 15,430 -29.4%

S. Calif. 13,816 10,992 -20.4%

Guam 159 147 -7.5%

Hawaii 2,313 1,805 -22.0%

Idaho 5,643 4,976 -11.8%

Montana 1,851 1,625 -12.2%

Nevada 14,483 11,676 -19.4%

1

N. Mariana Is. 7 5 -

Oregon 13,677 12,660 -7.4%

E. Wash 5,253 4,840 -7.9%

W. Wash. 20,477 17,380 -15.1%

Circuit Total 237,750 185,829 -21.8%

NINTH CIRCUIT BANKRUPTCY COURTS, 10 2013-2014

Note: Due to differences among districts in reporting intra-district 

transfers, the total provided above for cases pending on September 30, 

2014, may not equal the number obtained by adding totals for cases 

pending at the end of the prior period plus cases filed during the current 

period, then subtracting cases terminated during the current period.

1

Percent change not computed when fewer than 10 cases reported for 

the previous period.
64

The Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, or 

BAP, operates under the authority of the Judicial 

Council of the Ninth Circuit. It is authorized seven 

bankruptcy judges, who serve seven-year terms 

and may be reappointed to an additional three-year 

term. In 2003, one seat on the BAP was left vacant 

intentionally due to a reduced workload that year. 

Although its workload has fluctuated, including a 

substantial increase in new filings between 2008 and 

2011, the BAP continues to operate with six judges to 

reduce costs. In their appellate capacity, BAP judges 

are precluded from hearing matters arising from their 

own districts.

All district courts within the Ninth Circuit have issued 

general orders providing for the automatic referral of 

bankruptcy appeals to the BAP for disposition. If a 

party files a timely election to have the appeal heard by 

a district court, the appeal is transferred according to 

the consent rule.

New Filings

In fiscal year 2014, new bankruptcy appeals filed 

numbered 976, an increase of 4 percent from FY 

2013. The BAP handled 51 percent of all bankruptcy 

appeals, and the district courts handled 49 percent. 

Historically, the percentage of appeals that the BAP 

has handled has ranged between 49 percent and 60 

percent. After three years of double-digit growth, 

total annual filings peaked in 2011. 

Parties Turn to BAP to Resolve Half of All

Bankruptcy Appeals

The BAP consists of, from left, Randall L. Dunn of the District of Oregon, chief 

judge of the BAP; Chief Bankruptcy Judge Laura S. Taylor of the Southern 

District of California, Chief Bankruptcy Judge Frank L. Kurtz of the Eastern 

District of Washington, Bankruptcy Judge Jim D. Pappas of the District of Idaho, 

Bankruptcy Judge Meredith A. Jury of the Central District of California, and 

Chief Bankruptcy Judge Ralph B. Kirscher of the District of Montana.

District

Bankruptcy 

Appellate Panel

District 

Court1 Total

Alaska 3 2 5

Arizona 36 47 83

C. Calif. 256 294 460

E. Calif. 38 22 60

N. Calif. 64 75 139

S. Calif. 24 17 41

Hawaii 4 11 15

Idaho 5 13 18

Montana 3 9 12

Nevada 44 46 90

Oregon 10 8 18

E. Wash. 3 2 5

W. 

Wash.

7 23 30

Total 497 (51%) 479 (49%) 976

NEW BANKRUPTCY APPEAL 11 FILINGS, 2014

1

The numbers for bankruptcy appeals to the district 

courts are taken directly from a statistical caseload 

table prepared by the Administrative Office of the 

United States Courts (“AOUSC Table B-23”). The 

numbers for bankruptcy appeals to the BAP are 

calculated based on data from AOUSC Table B-23, 

and on data from the BAP’s CM/ECF docketing 

system. The district court numbers include all 

appeals in which a timely election was made to 

have the appeal heard in the district court (both 

appellant and appellee elections) as well as other 

cases transferred in the interest of justice. The BAP 

numbers exclude all such appeals.
65

Dispositions

The BAP disposed of 639 appeals 

in fiscal year 2014, down 6 percent 

from the prior fiscal year. Of 

those, 178 appeals were merits 

terminations. Oral argument was 

held in 142 appeals, and 36 appeals 

were submitted on briefs. Of the 

178 merits decisions, 31 were 

published opinions. The reversal 

rate was 12 percent. The median 

time for an appeal decided on the 

merits was 10.8 months.

Of the remaining 461 closed cases, 

14 were terminated by consolidation 

and 130 were transferred to the district courts after 

appellee elections or in the interest of justice. The 

balance of 317 closed appeals were terminated on 

procedural grounds, such as lack of prosecution, lack 

of jurisdiction, or voluntary dismissal. Appeals pending 

before the BAP totaled 283 in fiscal year 2014, down 4 

percent from FY 2013.

Appeals to the Ninth Circuit

Appeals from a bankruptcy decision of either the BAP 

or a district court may be filed with the court of appeals 

for second-level appellate review. In fiscal year 2014, 

second-level appeals filed numbered 227, and of these, 

80 were appeals from decisions by the BAP and 147 

were from decisions by the district courts. Thus, of the 

639 appeals that were disposed of by the BAP, roughly 

87 percent were fully resolved, with only about 13 

percent seeking second-level review.

BAP Use of Pro Tem Judges

The BAP continued to use bankruptcy judges from 

throughout the Ninth Circuit on a pro tem basis to 

assist with its large caseload. In fiscal year 2014, 

the BAP used 7 pro tem appointments, including 6 

newly appointed bankruptcy judges, to assist with oral 

arguments and merits decisions. The BAP reached out 

to the Ninth Circuit’s newly appointed bankruptcy 

judges to provide them the opportunity to review trial 

work from the appellate perspective.

BAP Outreach

The BAP continued its efforts to reach out to future 

and current bankruptcy attorneys throughout the Ninth 

Circuit in 2014. In January 2014, the BAP held oral 

arguments at the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law at 

Arizona State University in Tempe, Arizona. In July 2014, 

in conjunction with oral arguments in San Francisco, 

BAP judges participated in a continuing legal education 

program with the Commercial Law and Bankruptcy 

Section of the Bar Association of San Francisco.

Year

Appeals 

Total

Raw Appeals

Received by 

BAP

2

Net 

Appeals 

BAP

3

Net Appeals 

District Court

4

Election 

Rate

Percentage of 

Appeals

Heard by BAP

FY 2012 1,015 712 590 425 42% 58%

FY 2013 944 650 538 406 43% 57%

FY 2014 976 627 497 479 49% 51%

12 NINTH CIRCUIT BANKRUPTCY APPEAL FILINGS, 2012-2014

1

Number of new appellate filings received and opened as new case files at the BAP Clerk’s Office. 

This figure includes some appeals where an appellee files an election and the appeal thereafter 

is transferred to district court. (Where a timely election is made by an appellant, the bankruptcy 

court generally bypasses the BAP and refers the appeal directly to the district court.)

2

The number of raw bankruptcy appeals received by BAP less the number of appeals transferred 

from BAP to district court by election or other transfer.

3

Includes the number of all bankruptcy appeals received by district court either referred directly 

from the bankruptcy court or transferred from the BAP.

4

Percentage of bankruptcy appeals where one or more parties timely elected to have their 

appeals heard in district court.
66

Magistrate judges are appointed under Article I of the Constitution. Selected by the district judges 

of their judicial district, magistrate judges are appointed 

to an eight-year term and may be reappointed. They 

also may serve as recalled magistrate judges.

Magistrate judges make invaluable contributions 

to the work of the federal trial courts. They assist 

district judges in a variety of judicial matters with 

duties ranging from handling petty offenses to taking 

felony pleas. Magistrate judges conduct preliminary 

proceedings, decide trial jurisdiction matters, review 

prisoner petitions and perform other duties. They 

may also preside over civil trials with consent of the 

parties. 

In 2014, the 15 district courts of the Ninth Circuit 

were served by 94 full-time and 8 part-time magistrate 

judges along with 19 recalled magistrate judges. They 

disposed of a combined 233,866 judicial matters during 

the year. Their dispositions were down 7.8 percent 

from fiscal year 2013. 

Preliminary proceedings, the largest category of 

matters presided over by magistrate judges, include 

arraignments, initial appearances, detention hearings 

and warrants for searches and arrests. Preliminary 

proceedings in fiscal year 2014 numbered 84,863, 

down 9.5 percent from FY 2013. In this category, only 

summonses showed an increase in FY 2014, totaling 

1,169, up 4.5 percent. Initial appearances were down 

10.1 percent to 20,980; arraignments were down 15.2 

percent to 14,672; and search warrants were down 3.8 

percent to 14,402. 

Additional duties related to criminal matters totaled 

39,758 down 14.4 percent from FY 2013. Among 

matters included in this category are non-dispositive 

and dispositive motions, pretrial conferences, 

hearings on probation revocations and supervised 

release, and guilty plea proceedings. Non-dispositive 

motions numbered 15,390, down 3.6 percent from 

FY 2013.

Additional duties related to civil matters totaled 47,554 

down 3.2 percent from prior fiscal year. The bulk of 

this category included non-dispositive motions/grants 

of in forma pauperis, or IFP, status, pretrial conferences 

and settlement conferences.

Trial jurisdiction cases, which include Class A 

misdemeanors and petty offenses, numbered 36,427, 

down 3.6 percent from FY 2013. Petty offenses were 

down 4 percent to 33,533 while Class A misdemeanors 

were slightly up .2 percent to 2,894.

Civil consent cases, in which a magistrate judge presides 

at the consent of the parties, rose by 8.1 percent to 

5,146. The great majority of cases were disposed of 

without trial. 

Prisoner petitions numbered 5,672, down 15.8 percent 

from the prior fiscal year. State habeas and civil rights 

petitions made up the bulk of this work.

New Magistrate Judges and Governance

Five new full-time magistrate judges were seated in 

2014. They were John Z. Boyle, Eric J. Markovich and 

Eileen Willett, appointed to the District of Arizona; Jill 

L. Burkhardt of the Southern District of California; and 

Kenly Kiya Kato of the Central District of California. 

Chief Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Smith of the 

District of Alaska succeeded Chief Magistrate Judge 

Candy W. Dale of the District of Idaho as chair of the 

Magistrate Judges Executive Board. Judge Smith 

serves as an official observer at meetings of the Judicial 

Council of the Ninth Circuit. Her term began in 

2014. Appointed to the board in 2014 were Magistrate 

Judges Ronald E. Bush of the District of Idaho, James 

P. Donohue of the Western District of Washington, 

Barry M. Kurren of the District of Hawaii, and John T. 

Rodgers of the Eastern District of Washington.

New magistrate judges attending the New Judges 

Orientation held May 21-22, 2014, at the James R. 

Browning U.S. Courthouse in San Francisco, had the 

opportunity to meet the Magistrate Judges Executive 

Magistrate Judges Work Invaluable to Ninth Circuit
67

Activity 2013 2014

Percent 

Change

2013-2014

Total Matters 253,748 233,866 -7.8%

Preliminary Proceedings 93,783 84,863 -9.5%

Search Warrants 14,971 14,402 -3.8%

Arrest Warrants 7,651 6,916 -9.6%

Summonses 1,119 1,169 4.5%

Initial Appearances 23,341 20,980 -10.1%

Preliminary Hearings 7,307 7,016 -4.0%

Arraignments 17,306 14,672 -15.2%

Detention Hearings 14,489 13,009 -10.2%

Bail Reviews/Forfeitures/Nebbia 

Hearings 1,788 1,661 -7.1%

Other 5,811 5,038 -13.3%

Trial Jurisdiction Cases 37,804 36,427 -3.6%

Class A Misdemeanors 2,889 2,894 0.2%

Petty Offenses 34,915 33,533 -4.0%

Civil Consent Cases 4,760 5,146 8.1%

Without Trial 4,693 5,069 8.0%

Jury Trial 51 58 13.7%

Nonjury Trial 16 19 18.8%

Additional Duties

Criminal 46,465 39,758 -14.4%

Non-Dispositive Motions 15,967 15,390 -3.6%

Dispositive Motions 219 231 5.5%

Evidentiary Proceedings 139 170 22.3%

Pretrial Conferences 15,879 11,160 -29.7%

Probation and Supervised Release

Revocation Hearings 1,933 1,594 -17.5%

Guilty Plea Proceedings 9,669 8,456 -12.5%

Other 2,659 2,757 3.7%

 Civil 49,102 47,554 -3.2%

Settlement Conferences/Mediations 2,977 2,959 -0.6%

Other Pretrial Conferences 4,095 4,016 -1.9%

1

Non-Dispositive Motions/Grants 

of IFP Status 35,974 34,595 -3.8%

Other Civil Dispositive Motions 2,195 2,133 -2.8%

Evidentiary Proceedings 86 124 44.2%

Social Security 719 908 26.3%

Special Master References 2 1 -50.0%

Other 3,054 2,818 -7.7%

Prisoner Petitions 6,734 5,672 -15.8%

State Habeas 2,973 2,468 -17.0%

Federal Habeas 355 356 0.3%

Civil Rights 3,383 2,827 -16.4%

Evidentiary Proceedings 23 21 -8.7%

Miscellaneous Matters 15,100 14,446 -4.3%

Board. During an informal session, 

board members offered guidance and 

encouragement, and shared their knowledge 

in dealing with complex matters. 

Educational Program

The Magistrate Judges Education 

Committee, chaired by Magistrate Judge 

Brian A. Tsuchida of the Western District 

of Washington, presented a supplemental 

program at the 2014 Ninth Circuit Judicial 

Conference. Held July 2014 in Monterey, 

California, the program, “Breaking Bad: 

Myths, New Science, Treatment and, Perhaps, 

Jurisprudence on Substance Abuse,” focused 

on the neuroscience and treatment of drug 

addiction to help judges better understand 

the complexity of this disorder.

MATTERS DISPOSED OF BY NINTH CIRCUIT 13 MAGISTRATE JUDGES, 2013-2014

1

In 2013, magistrate judge workload statistics were 

produced using a new software program that recalculated 

the statistics for 2013 and for previous years. In some 

categories, the statistics provided in the report differ from 

the ones displayed in those categories in previous reports. 

Non-dispositive motions/grants of IFP status category 

includes prisoner cases, social security cases and other 

civil cases.
68

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.

Community defender organizations are non-profit 

defense counsel organizations staffed by nongovernment employees, while public defender offices 

are federal units staffed by federal judiciary employees. 

Both types of organizations are staffed with experienced 

federal criminal law practitioners who provide a 

consistently high level of representation. Federal public 

defender representations include criminal defense 

and appeals, court-directed prisoner and witness 

representations, bail/pre-sentencing, supervised 

release, and probation and parole revocation hearings.

By statute, judges of a court of 

appeals select and appoint federal 

public defenders to four-year 

terms. The court makes its initial 

appointment after a nationwide 

recruitment and the use of a local 

screening committee. A federal 

Caseloads Decline for Most Federal Public

Defender Offices

Cases 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Change

2013-2014

Opened 31,691 33,929 33,664 32,539 28,055 -13.8%

Closed 31,508 33,733 33,376 33,192 28,951 -12.8%

Pending 10,753 10,950 11,236 10,120 9,076 -10.3%

NINTH CIRCUIT FEDERAL DEFENDER ORGANIZATIONS: 14 CASES OPENED, CLOSED AND PENDING, 2010-2014

District

Opened

2013

Opened

2014

Change

2013-2014

Closed

2013

Closed

2014

Change

2013-2014

Pending

2014

Alaska 347 319 -8.1% 312 267 -14.4% 175

Arizona 12,085 9,044 -25.2% 11,681 9,281 -20.5% 1,034

C. Calif. 3,441 3,116 -9.4% 3,256 3,221 -1.1% 1,740

E. Calif. 1,744 1,541 -11.6% 1,822 1,552 -14.8% 702

N. Calif. 1,944 1,998 2.8% 1,880 2,138 13.7% 515

1

S. Calif. 6,636 5,858 -11.7% 7,692 6,308 -18.0% 2,015

Guam 114 113 -0.9% 107 127 18.7% 68

Hawaii 483 448 -7.2% 622 438 -29.6% 332

1

Idaho 279 271 -2.9% 286 288 0.7% 120

1

Montana 629 694 10.3% 617 665 7.8% 251

Nevada 1,064 1,013 -4.8% 1,061 995 -6.2% 706

Oregon 1,337 1,405 5.1% 1,484 1,322 -10.9% 736

1

E. Wash. 1,025 857 -16.4% 977 882 -9.7% 331

W. Wash. 1,411 1,378 -2.3% 1,395 1,467 5.2% 351

Circuit Total 32,539 28,055 -13.8% 33,192 28,951 -12.8% 9,076

National Total 138,039 118,862 -13.9% 140,260 122,802 -12.4% 45,228

Circuit Total as % of 

National Total 23.6% 23.6% 0.0% 23.7% 23.6% -0.1% 20.1%

15 FEDERAL DEFENDER ORGANIZATIONS: SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS BY DISTRICT, 2013-2014

1

Community Defender Organizations

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

Other representations include court-directed prisoner, bail/presentment, witness, probation revocation, supervised release, and parole revocation 

representations. 
69

public defender may be reappointed if the court 

concludes that he or she is performing in a highly 

satisfactory manner based upon a broad survey and 

performance evaluation process.

In fiscal year 2014, federal public defenders in the Ninth 

Circuit opened 28,055 new cases, down 13.8 percent 

from the prior fiscal year. 

Offices of federal public defenders in 11 districts reported 

reduced caseloads in FY 2014. Federal defenders in the 

District of Arizona experienced the sharpest decline, down 

25.2 percent to 9,044 cases. Also reporting fewer cases 

opened are the Southern District of California, down 11.7 

percent to 5,858; Central District of California, down 

9.4 percent to 3,116; Eastern District of California, down 

11.6 percent to 1,541; Western District of Washington, 

down 2.3 percent to 1,378; District of Nevada, down 

4.8 percent to 1,013; Eastern District of Washington, 

down 16.4 percent to 857; District of Hawaii, down 7.2 

percent to 448; District of Alaska, down 8.1 percent to 

319; District of Idaho, down 2.9 percent to 271; and the 

District of Guam, down .9 percent to 113.

Elsewhere in the circuit, federal defenders in three 

districts reported an increase in new cases. The District 

of Montana had the biggest increase, reporting 694 

cases, up 10.3 percent.

Other offices with higher caseload were the District of 

Oregon, 1,405 cases, up 5.1 percent and the Northern 

District of California, up 2.8 percent to 1,998.

Federal public defenders closed 28,951 cases, down 

12.8 percent from the prior fiscal year, while pending 

caseloads decreased by 10.3 percent to 9,076 cases.

Offices of federal public defenders in nine districts 

reported fewer cases closed in FY 2014. The District 

of Arizona which had the largest number of cases 

closed with 9,281 cases, down 20.5 percent. The 

Southern District of California followed with 6,308 

cases closed, down 18 percent; the Central District 

of California, 3,221 cases, down 1.1 percent; the 

Eastern District of California, 1,552 cases, down 14.8 

percent; the District of Oregon, 1,322 cases, down 

10.9 percent; the District of Nevada, 995 cases, down 

6.2 percent; the Eastern District of Washington, 882 

cases, down 9.7 percent; the District of Hawaii, 438 

cases, down 29.6 percent; and the District of Alaska, 

267, down 14.4 percent.

New cases opened nationally declined by 13.9 percent to 

118,862 in FY 2014. Cases closed nationally numbered 

122,802, down 12.4 percent. The pending caseload 

nationally totaled 40,822, down by 9.2 percent.

Transitions

Michael Filipovic took office on March 1, 2014, as the 

new federal public defender for the Western District of 

Washington following the retirement of veteran FPD 

Thomas W. Hillier, II. Hilary Lee Potashner assumed 

the leadership post as acting federal public defender 

for the Central District of California on September 15, 

2014. Lisa Christina Hay took office as acting FPD for 

the District of Oregon on October 1, 2014, following 

the retirement of FPD Steven Wax, who served the 

district for 31 years.
70

United States probation officers prepare presentence reports on convicted defendants and 

supervise offenders who have been placed on probation, 

supervised release, civilian and military parole, or 

conditional release. Probation officers perform these 

duties in various settings, from courthouses in major 

cities to one-person offices in rural areas.

Presentence Reports

Probation officers investigate the offense conduct 

and the defendant’s personal background. They 

identify applicable guidelines and 

policy statements, and calculate 

the defendant’s offense level and 

criminal history category. They 

report the resulting sentencing 

range, and identify factors relevant 

to the appropriate sentence. 

Presentence reports assist a judge in 

sentencing convicted defendants. 

Standard guideline presentence reports are generally 

prepared in felony and Class A misdemeanor cases 

for which the U.S. Sentencing Commission has 

promulgated guidelines. In the Ninth Circuit, probation 

officers prepared 13,300 guideline presentence reports 

in FY 2014, down 11.3 percent from the prior year. 

The circuit accounted for 19.7 percent of the national 

total of 67,433 submitted guideline presentence 

reports.

Post-Conviction Supervision of Offenders

Probation officers supervise persons who are released 

to the community after serving prison sentences or 

placed on probation supervision by the court. They assist 

supervised individuals by directing them to services, 

including substance abuse, mental health, and sex 

offender treatment; medical care; employment assistance; 

literacy and training programs; and cognitive-behavioral 

treatment therapies to foster long-term positive changes 

to reduce recidivism. By using both controlling and 

correctional strategies, officers work diligently to protect 

the community, while promoting long-term change in the 

offender population. 

Probation officers in the Ninth Circuit supervised 

22,807 persons in FY 2014, up slightly from the prior 

fiscal year. The circuit accounted for 17.2 percent of 

the national total of 132,858 persons under supervision.

Among those under supervision, 3,534 were on 

probation, 19,125 were on supervised release, 133 

persons were on parole, and 15 individuals adhered to 

Bureau of Prisons custody standards.

Offenders with convictions for drugs, property, 

firearms/weapons, and violent offenses are the largest 

group of persons under supervision in the Ninth 

Circuit. These offenders numbered 18,711, accounting 

for 82 percent of persons under supervision in the 

Ninth Circuit.

Revocations and Early Terminations

Ninth Circuit cases that were revoked and closed after 

post-conviction supervision numbered 3,181, down 5.2 

percent from FY 2013. Of the revocations, 187 were 

from probation sentences, 2,984 were from supervised 

release terms, and 10 were from parole cases. The 

Ninth Circuit had 21.5 percent of the 14,766 cases 

revoked nationally. The national revocation rate for 

FY 2014 was 27.2 percent, while the Ninth Circuit’s 

revocation rate was 31.5 percent. 

Since 2002, the Judicial Conference of the United States 

Committee on Criminal Law has encouraged officers 

to identify offenders who qualify for early termination. 

Probation Officers Workload Increase

Persons Under 

Supervision 2013 2014 Change 2013-2014

1

From Courts 3,667 3,534 -3.6%

2

From Institutions 18,367 19,273 4.9%

NINTH CIRCUIT FEDERAL PROBATION SYSTEM: PERSONS 16 UNDER POST-CONVICTION SUPERVISION, 2013-2014

1

Includes judge and magistrate judge probation.

2

Includes parole, special parole, mandatory release, and military parole. 
71

When conditions of supervision have been met, and the 

offender does not pose a foreseeable risk to the public 

or an individual, the probation officer may request the 

sentencing judge to consider early termination. For FY 

2014, there were 7,437 cases terminated early, resulting 

in a savings to the judiciary of over $32.4 million. For 

the Ninth Circuit, there were 1,259 early terminations, 

resulting in a savings of over $5.3 million.

Evidence-Based Practices

United States probation officers seek to reduce 

recidivism by using “evidence-based practices” to make 

informed decisions about the supervision risks offenders 

may pose. The process known as Post-Conviction Risk 

Assessment, or PCRA, is undertaken to improve postconviction supervision. PCRA helps direct allocation of 

resources, directing attention and services to the highest 

risk offenders. 

Along with this risk/needs assessment tool, evidencebased practices include the use of low-risk supervision 

caseloads and reentry programs, which include reentry 

courts, workforce development activities, and cognitive 

behavioral therapy programs. Furthermore, to enhance 

the bond and strengthen offender success, techniques 

such as Motivational Interviewing (MI) and STARR 

(Strategic Techniques Aimed at Reducing Re-arrest 

program) have been implemented. These areas focus 

on skills most helpful to an officer in trying to change 

offender behavior. 

The utilization of Second Chance Act funding has 

allowed districts to connect with much needed services 

in allowing individuals under supervision in becoming 

successful. Some examples of funding use include: 

employment/training programs, financial literacy 

classes, availability of transitional housing, and more. 

Challenges

Since sequestration in FY 2013, probation and pretrial 

services offices have been working well under budget 

to ensure no disruption in court services and/or no 

compromise to community safety. Probation and 

pretrial services offices are now beginning to build 

themselves up, but there is still concern regarding a new 

funding formula which will be released in FY 2016. 

In addition, space continues to be a challenge with all 

district courts with the mandated release of space to 

reduce the amount of rent accrued by the courts. A 

final challenge is the number of retroactive drug cases 

being released pursuant to federal sentencing guidelines 

Amendment 782 beginning November 2015, as well as 

facilitating the successful reentry of these inmates into 

the community. The Bureau of Prisons continues to 

push for home detention of its lower-risk inmates, but 

only a small number have been tested within the Ninth 

Circuit.

One positive is that the new funding formula will 

include Second Chance Act in law enforcement budgets, 

thus future funding will be historically reciprocated. 

This will allow districts to better utilize funding for 

reentry services and community safety. 

Transitions 

Thomas Holter was appointed chief probation officer 

for the District of Montana on November 3, 2014.
72

From Courts 4Referred by Institutions

District 1

Probation

 Supervised 

Release 2Parole 3BOP Custody

Persons Under

Supervision, 2013

Persons Under

Supervision, 2014

Change

2013-2014

Alaska 77 272 0 3 349 352 0.9%

Arizona 666 3,333 13 2 3,773 4,014 6.4%

C. Calif. 796 4,815 31 0 5,556 5,642 1.5%

E. Calif. 186 1,480 17 0 1,709 1,683 -1.5%

N. Calif. 342 1,483 11 0 1,738 1,836 5.6%

S. Calif. 294 2,300 15 0 2,547 2,609 2.4%

Guam 60 107 2 1 152 170 11.8%

Hawaii 121 654 3 0 768 778 1.3%

Idaho 106 422 7 0 508 535 5.3%

Montana 104 746 3 6 787 859 9.1%

Nevada 228 919 6 0 1,088 1,153 6.0%

N. Mariana Is. 9 26 0 3 37 38 2.7%

Oregon 238 881 11 0 1,103 1,130 2.4%

E. Wash 98 547 1 0 557 646 16.0%

W. Wash. 209 1,140 13 0 1,362 1,362 0.0%

Circuit Total 3,534 19,125 133 15 22,034 22,807 3.5%

NINTH CIRCUIT FEDERAL PROBATION SYSTEM: 17 PERSONS UNDER POST-CONVICTION SUPERVISION BY DISTRICT, 2013-2014

1

Includes judge and magistrate judge probation.

2

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

3

BOP (Bureau of Prisons)
73

United States pretrial services officers have significant roles in the federal judicial system. In 

the Ninth Circuit, pretrial services officers contribute 

to the fair administration of justice, protect their 

communities, and seek to bring about positive, longterm change to individuals under supervision.

Pretrial services officers investigate defendants charged 

with federal crimes, recommend to the court whether 

to release or detain them, and supervise those who are 

released to the community while awaiting trial. While the 

defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty, pretrial 

services officers must balance this presumption with the 

reality that some persons, if not detained before their trial, 

are likely to flee or to pose a danger to the community or 

to certain persons through criminal activity. 

Pretrial services officers also conduct pretrial 

diversion investigations and prepare written reports 

about a diversion candidate’s suitability for the Office 

of the U.S. Attorney’s Pretrial Diversion Program. 

They are responsible for supervision of diverted 

defendants who are deemed appropriate and accepted 

into the program. 

Case Activations

Pretrial services offices in the Ninth Circuit continue to 

rank first nationally in new cases activated. In fiscal year 

2014, case activations in the circuit numbered 37,264, 

a decrease of 3.7 percent from FY 2013. New case 

activations nationwide totaled 99,355, down 8 percent 

from the prior year. The Ninth Circuit accounts for 

37.5 percent of all case activations. 

Pretrial Bail Reports, Supervision

Pretrial services officers in the Ninth Circuit prepared 

36,438 written pre-bail reports and 480 post-bail 

reports over the course of the fiscal year. Bail reports 

were prepared in 99.1 percent of the cases activated. 

Officers conducted 8,541 pretrial bail interviews.

Excluding immigration cases, officers made 

recommendations for initial pretrial release to the court 

in 40.5 percent of cases. Assistant U.S. attorneys in the 

circuit recommended release in 33.2 percent of these 

cases during this period. 

During FY 2014, a total of 5,017 defendants were 

received for supervision which was down 11.9 percent 

from 5,693 in FY 2013. Of these, 3,596 were received 

for regular supervision; 1,263 were supervised on a 

courtesy basis from another district or circuit; and 158 

were on pretrial diversion caseloads which includes 

courtesy supervision of diversion cases.

Detention Summary

In the Ninth Circuit, judicial officers detained a total 

of 26,025 defendants in FY 2014, the highest in the 

nation. Defendants were detained an average of 206 

days. The U.S.-Mexico border courts in the districts 

of Arizona and Southern District of California 

reported the highest numbers of defendants 

detained. Total number of defendants detained in 

the Arizona district was 10,264, while defendants 

detained in the Southern District of California 

numbered 6,813. The Ninth Circuit accounted 

for 21.3 percent of the total days of defendant 

incarceration nationally.

Violations

Of 11,292 cases in release status, cases with violations 

reported to the court numbered 1,281. They included 

Pretrial Services Officers Use Various

Methods to Improve Supervision

Caseload Measure 2013 2014

Change 

2013-2014

Reports 38,277 36,918 -3.6%

Interviews 9,671 8,541 -11.7%

Cases Activated 38,690 37,264 -3.7%

PRETRIAL SERVICES CASES ACTIVATED 18 IN NINTH CIRCUIT COURTS, 2013-2014

Note: Total pretrial services cases activated includes 

complaints, indictment/information, material witness, 

superseding, and other cases, and includes data reported for 

previous periods as “transfers received.”
74

79 violations due to felony re-arrests, 83 violations 

resulting from misdemeanor re-arrests, 23 for “other” 

re-arrest violations, and 119 for failure to appear. 

Technical violations, including positive urine tests for 

illegal substances, violation of location monitoring 

conditions, possession of contraband, and failure 

to report to a supervising pretrial services officer, 

accounted for the remaining violations.

Evidence-Based Practices

Pretrial Services Offices in the Ninth Circuit have 

incorporated the Pretrial Services Risk Assessment, 

or PTRA, into its businesses practices. The PTRA is 

an objective instrument that provides a consistent and 

valid method of predicting risk of failure to appear, 

new criminal arrest and revocations due to technical 

violations. Pretrial services officers are using this 

tool to improve their ability to assess risks and make 

informed recommendations to the court on release 

or detention. The PTRA has also been used as a tool 

to assess the level of supervision appropriate for 

defendants released on pretrial supervision.

Another evidence-based practice being implemented 

in the Ninth Circuit is Staff Training Aimed at 

Reducing Re-Arrest, or STARR. Use of STARR 

communication techniques improve the quality of the 

interaction between the officer and defendant to effect 

long-term behavioral change. The techniques have a 

cognitive behavioral foundation with the premise that 

thinking controls behavior. STARR training has been 

provided by the Probation and Pretrial Services Office 

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

is an extensive training program requiring ongoing 

coaching and assessment of officers’ use of STARR 

skills. The districts of Arizona, Central California, 

Guam, Hawaii, and Eastern Washington have 

Defendant Contact Written Reports

District Interviewed

1

Not

 Interviewed 2

Pre-bail Post-bail

No Reports

Made

Total Cases

Activated 2013

Total Cases

Activated 

2014

Change

2013-2014

Alaska 67 84 151 0 0 223 151 -32.3%

Arizona 1,784 22,217 23,926 45 30 22,984 24,001 4.4%

C. Calif. 1,095 508 1,584 7 12 2,124 1,603 -24.5%

E. Calif. 375 432 780 22 5 1,084 807 -25.6%

N. Calif. 439 497 625 304 7 916 936 2.2%

S. Calif. 2,987 3,007 5,902 35 57 6,851 5,994 -12.5%

Guam 70 21 85 0 6 88 91 3.4%

Hawaii 250 49 293 1 5 374 299 -20.1%

Idaho 109 173 207 3 72 364 282 -22.5%

Montana 173 264 430 1 6 417 437 4.8%

Nevada 394 284 670 2 6 806 678 -15.9%

N. Mariana 

Is.

21 2 22 0 1 27 23 -14.8%

Oregon 276 386 652 3 7 690 662 -4.1%

E. Wash 167 245 275 10 127 602 412 -31.6%

W. Wash. 334 554 836 47 5 1,140 888 -22.1%

Circuit Total 8,541 28,723 36,438 480 346 38,690 37,264 -3.7%

National 

Total

58,222 48,601 93,598 2,552 3,205 108,002 99,355 -8.0%

Circuit % of 

National

14.7% 59.1% 38.9% 18.8% 10.8% 35.8% 37.5% 1.7%

19 PRETRIAL WORKLOAD, 2013-2014

Note: This table includes data for the District of Columbia and includes transfers received.

1

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

defendants were interviewed in other districts.

2

Includes prebail reports both with recommendations and without, and includes types of reports categorized in previous periods as “other reports.”
75

introduced and incorporated STARR, at various stages, 

into their business practices.

Specialty Courts and Pre-entry Programs

In FY 2014, several pretrial services offices in the 

Ninth Circuit were involved in innovative specialty 

courts. These programs permit defendants to have 

their cases dismissed or sentences reduced upon 

successful completion of supervision. Programs in 

the Ninth Circuit include the Alternative to Prison 

Solution diversion program in the Southern District of 

California; the Conviction and Sentencing Alternatives 

Program, a presentence and post-conviction diversion 

program in the Central District of California; and the 

Veterans Court in Arizona, a diversionary and postsentence program that assists military veterans.

There are also “pre-entry” programs throughout the 

Ninth Circuit designed to educate defendants awaiting 

sentencing and their family members about Bureau of 

Prisons services and general rules to help reduce the 

level of stress and anxiety of going to prison. Notably, 

the District of Nevada started The Compass which also 

includes a presentation by an ex-offender to share prison 

experiences with the group. These programs establish a 

strong foundation for future success and compliment the 

post-conviction reentry efforts.
76

1

Petit Juror Utilization Rate

Percent Not Selected or Challenged

District

Grand Juries

Empaneled, 2013

Petit Juries

Selected, 2014 2013 2014

Change 

2013-2014

Alaska 2 16 32.9 36.1 3.2

Arizona 15 81 30.3 27.5 -2.8

C. Calif. 30 165 47.4 36.2 -11.2

E. Calif. 10 74 42.5 39.6 -2.9

N. Calif. 9 75 38.2 39.8 1.6

S. Calif. 8 95 38.1 38.7 0.6

Guam 2 1 74.7 64.6 -10.1

Hawaii 3 13 33.5 46.6 13.1

Idaho 6 12 20.0 44.0 24.0

Montana 6 39 34.8 34.2 -0.6

Nevada 4 45 30.1 33.9 3.8

N. Mariana Is. 1 5 71.7 55.2 -16.5

Oregon 12 47 39.0 20.3 -18.7

E. Wash. 4 24 26.6 33.4 6.8

W. Wash. 4 47 31.0 31.3 0.3

Circuit Total 116 739 — — —

Circuit Average 15 92 39.4 38.8 -0.6

National Total 763 4,278 — — —

National 

Average

8 45 37.5 37.4 -0.1

20 JUROR UTILIZATION, 2013-2014

Juror Utilization

Note: This table includes data on jury selection days only. Data on juror service after the selection day are not 

included. 

1

Jurors who completed pre-screening questionnaires or were in the courtroom during the conducting of voir 

dire but were not selected or challenged. Other jurors not selected or challenged who were not called to the 

courtroom or otherwise did not participate in the actual voir dire.
77

Court Interpreters

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

2013

Total

2014

Total

Change

2013-14

Arabic 0 8 20 4 3 7 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 0 3 46 50 8.7%

Armenian 0 0 168 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 171 186 8.8%

Cantonese 0 1 31 64 84 7 0 1 1 0 6 0 5 0 25 361 225 -37.7%

Farsi 0 1 25 0 13 7 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 68 47 -30.9%

Japanese 0 0 11 0 11 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 32 34 6.3%

Korean 15 0 104 10 0 19 13 58 0 0 14 0 0 0 16 285 249 -12.6%

Mandarin 0 17 170 16 46 14 13 10 0 0 52 0 34 4 8 301 384 27.6%

Navajo 

(Certified)

0 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 74 29 -60.8%

Navajo 

(NonCertified)

0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 8 -50.0%

Russian 0 0 33 114 7 19 2 0 3 0 18 0 0 0 11 198 207 4.5%

Sign 

(American)

0 4 13 5 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 3 18 30 48 60.0%

Sign 

(Mexican)

0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 3 -50.0%

Spanish 

Staff

20 56,338 1,586 762 283 16,605 0 0 0 0 354 0 480 0 0 85,747 76,428 -10.9%

Spanish 

(Certified)

2 6,710 1,333 1,340 855 666 0 11 154 14 285 0 243 517 697 15,831 12,827 -19.0%

Spanish 

(NonCertified)

0 0 0 0 5 0 3 53 134 31 108 0 32 48 3 521 417 -20.0%

Tagalog 3 0 8 0 37 0 11 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 67 11.7%

Vietnamese 3 1 28 12 82 13 0 4 0 0 0 0 9 3 60 233 215 -7.7%

All Others 9 430 107 136 37 153 0 4 1 1 25 0 12 6 48 942 969 2.9%

Total 52 63,550 3,637 2,478 1,463 17,513 42 154 294 46 867 0 820 581 896 104,922 92,393 -11.9%

21 INTERPRETER USAGE BY DISTRICT COURTS, 2014
78

Caseload Measure

 

2013 2014 Change 2013-2014

Per Judgeship Unweighted 

2014

District Court

 Filings 471 450 -4.5% 150

 Terminations 496 413 -16.7% 138

 1

Pending 499 538 7.8% 179

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 638 458 -28.2% 229

 Terminations 723 557 -23.0% 279

 Pending 682 583 -14.5% 292

District Caseloads

DISTRICT OF ALASKA

Authorized Judgeships

District 3

Bankruptcy 2

Magistrate

Full-time 2

Part-time 3

Authorized places of holding court: Anchorage, Fairbanks, Juneau, Ketchikan, Nome

1

2013 total pending cases revised.

Caseload Measure

 

2013 2014 Change 2013-2014

Per Judgeship Unweighted 

2014

District Court

 Filings 9,777 12,210 24.9% 939

 Terminations 9,887 12,304 24.4% 946

 1

Pending 5,233 5,164 -1.3% 397

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 24,046 20,907 -13.1% 2,987

 Terminations 28,595 27,469 -3.9% 3,924

 Pending 37,556 30,994 -17.5% 4,428

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Authorized Judgeships

2

District 13

Bankruptcy 7

Magistrate

Full-time 14

Part-time 1

Authorized places of holding court: 3

Bullhead City, Flagstaff, Kingman, Phoenix, Prescott, Tucson, Yuma

1

2013 total pending cases revised.

2

Includes one authorized temporary judgeship.

3

Bullhead City and Kingman apply only to the bankruptcy court.

1

2013 total pending cases revised.

2

Includes one authorized temporary judgeship.

3

Includes three authorized temporary judgeships.

4

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

Caseload Measure

 

2013 2014 Change 2013-2014

Per Judgeship Unweighted 

2014

District Court

 Filings 15,798 15,390 -2.6% 550

 Terminations 16,393 15,695 -4.3% 561

 1

Pending 12,277 11,952 -2.6% 427

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 82,861 60,545 -26.9% 2,523

 Terminations 96,424 66,508 -31.0% 2,771

 1

Pending 54,561 48,605 -10.9% 2,025

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Authorized Judgeships

2

District 28

Bankruptcy 24

Magistrate

Full-time 24

Part-time 1

Authorized places of holding court: Los Angeles, Riverside, 4

San Fernando Valley, Santa Ana, 4Santa Barbara
79

Caseload Measure

 

2013 2014 Change 2013-2014

Per Judgeship Unweighted 

2014

District Court

 Filings 5,456 5,424 -0.6% 904

 Terminations 5,858 5,469 -6.6% 912

 1

Pending 7,602 7,561 -0.5% 1,260

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 30,685 22,383 -27.1% 3,198

 Terminations 35,146 26,528 -24.5% 3,790

 1

Pending 29,667 25,522 -14.0% 3,646

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Authorized Judgeships

2

District 6

Bankruptcy 7

Magistrate

Full-time 12

Part-time 0

Authorized places of holding court: Bakersfield, Fresno, 3

Modesto, Redding, Sacramento, Yosemite National Park

1

2013 total pending cases revised.

2

Includes one authorized temporary judgeship.

3

Modesto applies only to bankruptcy court.

Caseload Measure

 

2013 2014 Change 2013-2014

Per Judgeship Unweighted 

2014

District Court

 Filings 6,854 6,431 -6.2% 459

 Terminations 7,272 6,864 -5.6% 490

 1

Pending 6,526 6,102 -6.5% 436

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 21,841 15,430 -29.4% 1,714

 Terminations 24,455 19,884 -18.7% 2,209

 1

Pending 34,142 29,686 -13.1% 3,298

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Authorized Judgeships

District 14

Bankruptcy 9

Magistrate

Full-time 11

Part-time 0

Authorized places of holding court: Eureka, Oakland, Salinas, San Francisco, San Jose, Santa Rosa

1

2013 total pending cases revised.

Caseload Measure

 

2013 2014 Change 2013-2014

Per Judgeship Unweighted 

2014

District Court

 Filings 8,190 7,138 -12.8% 549

 Terminations 8,594 7,184 -16.4% 553

 1

Pending 5,315 5,367 1.0% 413

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 13,816 10,992 -20.4% 2,748

 Terminations 15,212 11,747 -22.8% 2,937

 Pending 11,761 11,006 -6.4% 2,752

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Authorized Judgeships

District 13

Bankruptcy 4

Magistrate

Full-time 11

Part-time 0

Authorized places of holding court: 2

El Centro, San Diego

1

2013 total pending cases revised.

2

El Centro applies only to the district court.
80

Caseload Measure

 

2013 2014 Change 2013-2014

Per Judgeship Unweighted 

2014

District Court

 Filings 106 83 -21.7% 83

 Terminations 113 128 13.3% 128

 Pending 161 122 -24.2% 122

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 159 147 -7.5% 385

 Terminations 170 143 -15.9% 271

 Pending 161 165 2.5% 327

DISTRICT OF GUAM

Authorized Judgeships

District 1

Bankruptcy 0

Magistrate

Full-time 1

Part-time 0

Authorized place of holding court: Hagatna

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

Caseload Measure

 

2013 2014 Change 2013-2014

Per Judgeship Unweighted 

2014

District Court

 Filings 968 921 -4.9% 230

 Terminations 1,085 1,037 -4.4% 259

 1

Pending 1,049 948 -9.6% 237

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 2,313 1,805 -22.0% 1,805

 Terminations 2,307 1,920 -16.8% 1,920

 Pending 2,738 2,623 -4.2% 2,623

DISTRICT OF HAWAII

Authorized Judgeships

2

District 4

Bankruptcy 1

Magistrate

Full-time 3

Part-time 1

Authorized place of holding court: Honolulu

1

2013 total pending cases revised.

2

Includes one temporary judgeship.

Caseload Measure

 

2013 2014 Change 2013-2014

Per Judgeship Unweighted 

2014

District Court

 Filings 850 781 -8.1% 391

 Terminations 937 780 -16.8% 390

 1

Pending 980 976 -0.4% 488

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 5,643 4,976 -11.8% 2,488

 Terminations 7,033 5,947 -15.4% 2,974

 Pending 4,996 4,025 -19.4% 2,013

DISTRICT OF IDAHO

Authorized Judgeships

District 2

Bankruptcy 2

Magistrate

Full-time 2

Part-time 0

Authorized places of holding court: Boise, Coeur d’Alene, Moscow, Pocatello, 1

Twin Falls

1

Twin Falls applies only to the bankruptcy court. 
81

Caseload Measure

 

2013 2014 Change 2013-2014

Per Judgeship Unweighted 

2014

District Court

 Filings 973 1,126 15.7% 375

 Terminations 1,019 1,065 4.5% 355

 Pending 800 873 9.1% 291

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 1,851 1,625 -12.2% 1,625

 Terminations 2,302 2,017 -12.4% 2,017

 Pending 2,867 2,475 -13.7% 2,475

DISTRICT OF MONTANA

Authorized Judgeships

District 3

Bankruptcy 1

Magistrate

Full-time 3

Part-time 1

Authorized places of holding court: Billings, Butte, Great Falls, Helena, Missoula

Caseload Measure

 

2013 2014 Change 2013-2014

Per Judgeship Unweighted 

2014

District Court

 Filings 3,485 3,204 -8.1% 458

 Terminations 3,276 3,281 0.2% 469

 1

Pending 4,147 4,078 -1.7% 583

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 14,483 11,676 -19.4% 2,919

 Terminations 18,829 15,553 -17.4% 3,888

 1

Pending 20,188 16,311 -19.2% 4,078

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

Authorized Judgeships

District 7

2

Bankruptcy 4

Magistrate

Full-time 7

Part-time 0

Authorized places of holding court: Carson City, Elko, Ely, Las Vegas, Lovelock, Reno

1

2013 total pending cases revised.

2

Includes one authorized temporary judgeship.

Authorized Judgeships

District 1

Bankruptcy 0

Magistrate

Full-time 0

Part-time 0

3

Combination 1

Caseload Measure

 

2013 2014 2Change 2013-2014

Per Judgeship Unweighted 

2014

District Court

 Filings 45 52 15.6% 52

 Terminations 60 54 -10.0% 54

 1

Pending 94 92 -2.1% 92

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 7 5 - 1

 Terminations 12 4 -66.7% 0

 1

Pending 10 11 10.0% 1

DISTRICT OF NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS

Authorized place of holding court: Saipan

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

1

2013 total pending cases revised.

2

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

3

Heather Kennedy serves as magistrate judge and clerk of court. 
82

Caseload Measure

 

2013 2014 Change 2013-2014

Per Judgeship Unweighted 

2014

District Court

 Filings 2,924 2,698 -7.7% 450

 Terminations 2,909 2,985 2.6% 498

 1

Pending 2,905 2,619 -9.8% 437

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 13,677 12,660 -7.4% 2,532

 Terminations 15,203 15,135 -0.4% 3,027

 Pending 18,319 15,842 -13.5% 3,168

DISTRICT OF OREGON

Authorized Judgeships

District 6

Bankruptcy 5

Magistrate

Full-time 6

Part-time 1

Authorized places of holding court: 2

Bend, 2Coos Bay, Coquille, Eugene, Klamath Falls, Medford, Pendleton, Portland, 2Redmond, 2Roseburg, 2Salem

1

2013 total pending cases revised.

2

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

Caseload Measure

 

2013 2014 Change 2013-2014

Per Judgeship Unweighted 

2014

District Court

 Filings 1,236 1,088 -12.0% 272

 Terminations 1,292 1,266 -2.0% 317

 1

Pending 1,121 963 -14.1% 241

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 5,253 4,840 -7.9% 2,420

 Terminations 5,584 5,169 -7.4% 2,585

 1

Pending 5,410 5,081 -6.1% 2,541

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

Authorized Judgeships

District 4

Bankruptcy 2

Magistrate

Full-time 2

Part-time 0

Authorized places of holding court: 2

Richland, Spokane, 2Walla Walla, Yakima

1

2013 total pending cases revised.

2

Richland and Walla Walla apply only to the district court.

Caseload Measure

 

2013 2014 Change 2013-2014

Per Judgeship Unweighted 

2014

District Court

 Filings 4,534 3,995 -11.9% 571

 Terminations 4,507 4,349 -3.5% 621

 1

Pending 3,629 3,298 -9.1% 471

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 20,477 17,380 -15.1% 3,476

 Terminations 22,598 19,183 -15.1% 3,837

 1

Pending 20,945 19,143 -8.6% 3,829

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

Authorized Judgeships

District 7

Bankruptcy 5

Magistrate

Full-time 5

Part-time 2

Authorized places of holding court: Bellingham, Seattle, Tacoma, Vancouver

1

2013 total pending cases revised.
To view current and archived oral arguments, visit the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals YouTube 

page: https://www.youtube.com/user/9thcirc/videos
Cathy A. Catterson, Circuit & Court of Appeals Executive

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

Ph: (415) 355-8800, Fax: (415) 355-8901

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov