1 8 6 6

NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES COURTS

ninth

circuit

for the

united

states

courts

2013 ANNUAL REPORT
NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES COURTS

1 8 6 6

The Office of the Circuit Executive would like to acknowledge the following for their contributions to the 2013 

Ninth Circuit Annual Report:

Chief Judge Alex Kozinski

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

Richard A. Ertola, Chief Probation Officer, Eastern District of California

George Walker, Chief Pretrial Services Officer, Central District of California

The cover image is from a historic sitting of the first all-Alaskan panel to be seated on the United States Court 

of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Pictured from top to bottom are Senior Circuit Judge Andrew J. Kleinfeld, 

Senior District Judge John W. Sedwick, and Circuit Judge Morgan Christen. More information about the panel 

can be found on page 21. Photographs from this sitting courtesy of Joy M. Shoemaker, circuit branch librarian in 

Pasadena, California.
judicial council

Seated from left are Circuit Judge Richard R. Clifton, Circuit Judge Sidney R. Thomas, Chief Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski, 

Circuit Judge Richard A. Paez, and Senior District Judge Anthony W. Ishii. Standing middle row from left are Chief 

District Judge Ann L. Aiken, Chief District Judge George H. King, Chief Probation Officer Richard A. Ertola, Bankruptcy 

Court Clerk Jan Samuel Ostrovsky*, District Court Clerk Sue Beitia*, and Chief District Judge Raner C. Collins. Standing 

back row from left are Chief Pretrial Services Officer George Walker, Chief District Judge Ralph R. Beistline, and Senior 

District Judge Susan Y. Illston. 

Not pictured: District Judge Audrey B. Collins, Chief Bankruptcy Judge Christopher M. Klein, District Judge Robert S. 

Lasnik, District and Bankruptcy Court Clerk Elizabeth “Libby” A. Smith, District Court Clerk Terry Nafisi, Circuit Judge 

Richard C. Tallman, Senior Circuit Judge J. Clifford Wallace. 

*Terms for the following members expired and were replaced by Bankruptcy and District Court Clerk Elizabeth “Libby” A. 

Smith and District Court Clerk Terry Nafisi.

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

of the ninth circuit
table of contents

SPACE & SECURITY

42 Courthouses under construction

43 Courthouses completed

44 Ground Broken for Federal Courthouse

in Los Angeles

44 Ground Broken for New Courthouse 

in Northern California

THE WORK OF THE COURTS

46 With Caseload Steady, Appeals Court Improves 

Processing Time

48 Judges of the United States Court of Appeals 

for the Ninth Circuit

51 District Court Caseloads Decline for Second Year

55 Bankruptcy Filings Down for Third Year

57 Appeals to Bankruptcy Appellate Panel

59 Magistrate Judges Fulfill Key Duties

62 Federal Defenders Cope with Sequestration

64 Probation Officers Carry On Despite 

Budget Shortfall

66 Pretrial Services Officers Endure Funding Cuts

68 Juror Utilization

69 Court Interpreters

70 District Caseloads

NINTH CIRCUIT OVERVIEW

1 Foreword

3 Ninth Circuit Overview

4 Judicial Council and Administration

JUDICIAL TRANSITIONS

8 New Judges

15 Senior Judges

17 In Memoriam

NINTH CIRCUIT HIGHLIGHTS

20 Justice O’Connor Sits with Ninth Circuit

20 Appellate Lawyer Reps Produce Practice Guide

21 Ninth Circuit’s First All-Alaskan Panel 

Makes History 

22 Federal Bar Honors Ninth Circuit, Northern 

California Judges

23 Internet Streaming Comes of Age at Court 

of Appeals

24 New Clerks Gather for Orientation Program

25 First African-American Leads Arizona Federal Court

26 ‘Transitions’ Seminar Helps Judges Plan Ahead

27 Northern District Judge Recalls 1963 Civil Rights 

Movement

28 Committee Updates Jury Trial Procedures Manual

29 Webinars Bring Legal Discussions to the Desktop

30 Magistrate Judges Workshop Focuses on 

Competency Hearings

31 Sacramento Celebrates Justice Kennedy 

Learning Center

33 2013 Ninth Circuit New Judges' Orientation

34 Circuit Offers Training for Pacific Island Courts

34 Ninth Circuit Joins Online Repository

35 Portrait Unveiling Marks Jurist’s 25th Year of Service

36 Judges Receiving Awards in 2013

37 Court Staff, Law School Recognized for ADR Efforts

38 Government, Private Sector Confront 

‘SuperStorm’ Crisis

39 Administrative Changes
1

Most of us in the 

Judicial Branch will 

remember 2013 for 

the extraordinary 

efforts of judges and 

court staff to meet the 

challenges arising from 

sequestration and a 

prolonged government 

shutdown. 

The budget cuts imposed in March under 

sequestration led to layoffs and furloughs of hundreds 

of judicial employees, disrupting federal court 

operations across the country. Particularly hard hit 

were offices of the Federal Public Defender, which 

provide representation to indigent criminal defendants 

as required under the Sixth Amendment and the 

Criminal Justice Act. In addition to implementing 

mandatory furloughs, the ten offices in the Ninth 

Circuit reduced their combined workforce by 121 

positions, or 13.6 percent. The staff reductions 

resulted in eight of the ten offices reporting fewer new 

cases opened during the year. Unfortunately, cases not 

taken by the FPDs are referred to more costly private 

attorneys, thus eroding any savings that might have 

accrued from the workforce reductions.

Layoffs and furloughs also seriously impacted Pretrial 

Services and Probation offices. Fewer officers 

were available to monitor defendants and convicted 

offenders released into the community while awaiting 

trial or after serving sentences. And officers’ use of 

important support services, such as drug testing and 

counseling for drug and sex offenders, was curtailed 

by lack of funds. 

The 16-day government shutdown in October 

threatened to make an already bad situation even 

worse. Fortunately, all of the federal courts in the 

Ninth Circuit remained open for business during 

the crisis. Doing so required no small amount of 

ingenuity and innovation by the courts, particularly in 

coordinating with federal agencies that were closed for 

the most part.

I am extremely proud of and grateful to all of our 

judges and staff for their perseverance and dedication 

during this difficult and uncertain time. The budget 

eventually adopted by Congress provided some 

additional funding to the Judiciary to help restore staff 

and services, for which we are grateful.

The 2013 Ninth Circuit Annual Report provides more 

information about the work of our courts. In addition 

to statistical profiles, it highlights other aspects of 

the administration of the federal justice system in the 

West. We hope you find it useful and encourage you 

to provide us with feedback.

In 2013, the workload for the Ninth Circuit Court 

of Appeals held steady with a small upturn in new 

filings and negligible increases in terminations and 

pending cases. Although the court renders important 

decisions in all areas of the law, prisoner petitions 

and immigration cases continue to predominate our 

docket. New filings dropped significantly in the 

district courts of the circuit, down 7 percent overall. 

Criminal filings dropped by 10 percent and civil filings 

by 5 percent. In the bankruptcy courts, new filings 

fell a precipitous 22 percent, indicative of further 

economic recovery after the long recession.

All of our courts are struggling to manage extremely 

large numbers of pro se litigants, who often do not 

understand filing requirements and legal processes, 

thus posing special challenges for judges and court 

staff. In the Ninth Circuit last year, self-represented 

litigants filed 52 percent of all new appeals, 34 percent 

foreword

CHIEF JUDGE ALEX KOZINSKI
2

of all new civil cases in the district 

courts, and 18 percent of all new 

bankruptcy filings. Courts are 

responding with self-help centers, 

new or expanded mediation and 

pro bono representation programs, 

and vigorous outreach to state 

attorneys general and prison 

managers. The Ninth Circuit Pro 

Se Litigation Committee is helping 

lead these efforts.

A number of judicial vacancies 

were filled during the year. Eleven 

new judges were seated in the 

district courts of the circuit, which 

ended the year with 14 vacancies. 

Seven new bankruptcy judges and 

four new magistrate judges were 

appointed during the year. No 

new judges were seated on the 

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, 

which ended the year with 27 of 

29 judgeships filled. Nominations 

for the two vacancies, which were 

not acted upon by Congress during 

the last session, were renewed 

by the president in early 2014. 

Both nominees were subsequently 

confirmed by the Senate, giving the 

court 29 judges for the first time in 

its history. We also mourned the 

passing of four judges serving on 

district and bankruptcy courts in 

Alaska, California and Nevada. 

Our courts continue to make 

greater use of technology. In 

2013, the Ninth Circuit Court 

of Appeals began live audio and 

video streaming of oral arguments, 

making the judicial process more 

accessible and transparent to the 

public. Anyone with an Internet 

connection can now see and hear 

what transpires in the courtroom 

in real time from anywhere in the 

world. Ours is the first federal 

court to use Internet technology 

for this purpose. Also of note 

technology-wise is the further 

rollout of the CJA eVoucher 

System, which speeds up payments 

to attorneys and allows judges to 

better manage cases in which the 

government has provided legal 

counsel for indigent defendants. 

The system was developed by the 

district court in Nevada and will 

soon be implemented nationally. 

There continues to be very positive 

interaction between the bench and 

bar in our circuit. Ninth Circuit 

lawyer representatives, who are 

chosen by judges of the court of 

appeals and each of the district 

courts of the circuit, are helping 

improve the practice of law in 

many ways. Our appellate lawyer 

representatives, for example, 

initiated a mentoring program 

and released in December a 

comprehensive practice manual 

focused on Ninth Circuit processes 

and procedures.

Construction is progressing on a 

new courthouse in downtown Los 

Angeles, long a top priority in the 

Ninth Circuit, with completion 

scheduled for 2015. The John M. 

Roll United States Courthouse in 

Yuma, Arizona, one of two new 

courthouses occupying leased 

space, was opened for occupancy 

late in the year. The courthouse 

is named after the late chief judge 

of the U.S. District Court for the 

District of Arizona, who was killed 

in the Tucson shooting rampage 

in 2011. Work continues on the 

other leased-space courthouse, 

which is located in McKinleyville, 

California, and will replace an 

aging facility in nearby Eureka. 

Both new courthouses are designed 

to provide courtrooms and 

chambers, plus space for clerk’s 

staff and other federal agencies.

As usual, many of our judges were 

recognized during the year and 

a complete list of their awards is 

found elsewhere in this report. Of 

particular note are the U.S. State 

Department’s recognition of Chief 

Judge Emeritus J. Clifford Wallace 

of San Diego for his ongoing 

leadership in international rule-oflaw programs, and the presentation 

of the American Bar Association’s 

Thurgood Marshall Award to 

Senior District Judge Thelton 

E. Henderson of the Northern 

District of California. Also of 

note was the election of Circuit 

Judge M. Margaret McKeown of 

San Diego as the new president 

of the Federal Judges Association, 

which focuses on the preservation 

of the Judiciary as an independent 

branch of government, and Senate 

confirmation of Senior District 

Judge Charles R. Breyer of the 

Northern District of California 

to a seat on the U.S. Sentencing 

Commission. He is the first 

commission member to be drawn 

from the Ninth Circuit. 2013 

also marked 50 years of combined 

service on federal and state courts 

for District Judge Edward J. Lodge 

of the District of Idaho, and 25 

years of combined service for 

Circuit Judge Susan P. Graber of 

Portland. Our congratulations to 

all of these distinguished jurists.
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 of federal circuits.

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. The Ninth Circuit 

Court of Appeals is authorized 29 

judgeships and ended 2013 with 

two vacant positions. For most 

of the year, the district courts of 

the circuit were authorized 112 

judgeships, 14 of which were 

vacant at the end of the year.

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 merits and motions 

panels, serving on circuit and 

national judicial committees, and 

handling a variety of administrative 

matters. In the district courts 

within the circuit, 68 senior judges 

were at work, hearing cases, 

presiding over procedural matters, 

serving on committees and 

conducting other business in 2013.

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 2013, authorized magistrate 

judge positions in the district courts 

included 103 full-time, 10 parttime, and 1 combined position of 

clerk of court/part-time magistrate 

judge. Bankruptcy courts in the 

Ninth Circuit were authorized 68 

permanent and five temporary 

judgeships. Several courts also 

utilized recalled bankruptcy and 

recalled magistrate judges.

The District of Northern Mariana 

Islands has combined the positions 

of clerk of court and part-time 

magistrate judge into a single 

position. Heather L. Kennedy 

assumed her post as clerk of 

court on April 11, 2013, and was 

appointed as a part-time magistrate 

judge on June 13, 2013.

 

Overall, the Ninth Circuit courts 

experienced decreased caseloads 

in 2013. Unless otherwise noted, 

statistics in this report cover the 

2013 fiscal year.

ninth circuit overview
4

Judicial Council, Advisory 

Groups and Administration

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.

In governing the circuit, the judicial 

council relies on advisory groups 

and committees to accomplish its 

goals. Chairs of three advisory 

groups attend council meetings as 

observers and sometimes as voting 

members. Committee chairs report 

to the council as needed.

Newly appointed to the Judicial 

Council of the Ninth Circuit in 

2013 were Circuit Judge Richard A. 

Paez of Pasadena, California, Chief 

District Judge Raner C. Collins of 

the District of Arizona, and Senior 

District Judge Susan Y. Illston of the 

Northern District of California. 

Circuit Judge Richard R. Clifton of 

Honolulu and Chief District Judge 

Ralph R. Beistline of the District 

of Alaska were appointed to serve 

on the Judicial Council Executive 

Committee. 

New judicial council observers 

include Chief District Judge 

Ann L. Aiken of the District of 

Oregon, District Judge Audrey 

B. Collins of the Central District 

of California, Chief Bankruptcy 

Judge Christopher M. Klein of 

the Eastern District of California, 

District Court Clerk Terry Nafisi of 

the Central District of California, 

District and Bankruptcy Court 

Clerk Elizabeth “Libby” Smith of the 

District of Idaho, Chief Probation 

Officer Richard A. Ertola of the 

Eastern District of California, and 

Chief Pretrial Services Officer 

George Walker of the Central 

District of California.

Under the Rules for JudicialConduct and Judicial-Disability 

Proceedings, the Judicial Council 

of the Ninth Circuit considers 

petitions for review of the 

chief judge’s orders in judicial 

misconduct complaints. In 2013, 

there were 40 petitions for review 

filed and all 40 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 judge of each district. 

Chief District Judge Frances Marie 

Tydingco-Gatewood of the District 

of Guam served as chair from 2012 

to 2013. She was succeeded by 

Chief District Ann L. Aiken of the 

District of Oregon, who will chair 

the conference until February 2014.

Elevated to chief district judge 

during the year were Judges Dana 

L. Christensen of the District of 

Montana and Raner C. Collins of 

the District of Arizona.

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

& administration
5

circuit. The conference, which also 

meets twice per year, consists of the 

chief bankruptcy judge from each 

district, the chief bankruptcy judge 

of the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy 

Appellate Panel and a recalled 

bankruptcy judge representative. 

Chief Bankruptcy Judge Frank L. 

Kurtz of the Eastern District of 

Washington chaired the conference 

from October 2012 to September 

2013. He was succeeded by Chief 

Bankruptcy Judge Christopher 

M. Klein of the Eastern District 

of California, who will chair the 

conference until September 2014.

Judge Randolph J. Haines of the 

District of Arizona was elevated 

to chief bankruptcy judge of the 

district, and Judge Randall L. Dunn 

of District of Oregon was elevated 

to chief judge of the Bankruptcy 

Appellate Panel or BAP.

Magistrate Judges Executive 

Board

The Magistrate Judges Executive 

Board communicates to the Judicial 

Council of the Ninth Circuit 

on behalf of the more than 115 

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 Candy W. Dale of the District 

of Idaho succeeded Magistrate 

Judge David K. Duncan of the 

District of Arizona, as chair of the 

board. Her term began in July 

2012 and will expire in July 2014.

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 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 

ADVISORY & STAN DI NG 

COMMITTEES

• ADVISORY BOARD

• ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

• CAPITAL CASE

• CJA OVERSIGHT

• COURT-COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON

BANKRUPTCY JUDGE APPOINTMENTS

• COURTS AND COMMUNITY

• FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDERS

• INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

• JURY INSTRUCTIONS

• JURY TRIAL IMPROVEMENT

• NINTH CIRCUIT JUDGES EDUCATION

• PACIFIC ISLANDS

• PRO SE LITIGATION

• SPACE & SECURITY

• WELLNESS

EXECUTIVE 

COMMITTEE

OFFICE OF TH E 

CIRCUIT EXECUTIVE

CATHY A. CATTERSON

CIRCUIT & COURT OF 

APPEALS EXECUTIVE

J UDICIAL CONFERENCE

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

• LAWYER REPRESENTATIVES 

COORDINATING 

COMMITTEE

LIAISON COMMITTEES

• DISTRICT CLERKS

• BANKRUPTCY CLERKS

• CHIEF PROBATION & 

PRETRIAL SERVICES 

OFFICERS

ASSOCIATIONS OF 

J UDICIAL OFFICERS

• CONFERENCE OF CHIEF 

DISTRICT JUDGES

• MAGISTRATE JUDGES 

EXECUTIVE BOARD

• CONFERENCE OF CHIEF 

BANKRUPTCY JUDGES

J UDICIAL COUNCIL OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CHIEF JUDGE ALEX KOZINSKI
6

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 courtrelated 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 circuitwide 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 of 

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.
7

Chief Judge Alex Kozinski and Circuit and 

Court of Appeals Executive Cathy Catterson 

address newly appointed judges at the 2013 

Ninth Circuit New Judges Orientation.

JUDICIAL

TRANSITIONS

Bankruptcy Judge Brenda Moody Whinery of the District of 

Arizona attends the 2013 New Judges Orientation held in 

San Francisco.
8

Jennifer A. Dorsey was confirmed as a district 

judge for the United States District 

Court for the District of Nevada 

on July 9, 2013, and received her 

commission on the same day. 

Prior to her appointment, Judge 

Dorsey had been with the law firm 

of Kemp, Jones & Coulthard LLP 

in Las Vegas. She joined the firm in 1997 and became 

an equity partner in 2004. She also worked 

previously as a law clerk for Totaro & Shanahan in 

Santa Ana, California, from 1996 to 1997. Judge 

Dorsey received her B.A. in 1994 from the 

University of Nevada at Las Vegas, graduating cum 

laude, and her J.D. in 1997, also cum laude, from 

Pepperdine University School of Law, where she was 

a staff member of the Pepperdine Law Review. She 

served as a congressional intern for U.S. Senator 

Richard Bryan and as a judicial extern for Circuit 

Judge Stephen Reinhardt of the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Judge Dorsey 

maintains chambers in Las Vegas.

Andrew P. Gordon was confirmed as a district judge 

for the U.S. District Court for the 

District of Nevada on March 11, 

2013, and received his commission 

on March 12, 2013. Prior to his 

appointment to the bench, Judge 

Gordon had worked with the law 

firm of McDonald Carano Wilson 

LLP in Las Vegas. He joined the firm in 1994 and had 

served as a partner since 1997. Before that, he 

engaged in private practice at the law firm of Dawson 

& Associates in Las Vegas from 1992 to 1994 and at the 

law firm of Streich Lang Weeks & Cardon in Phoenix 

from 1987 to 1992. Judge Gordon received his B.A. 

in 1984 from Claremont McKenna College, where he 

graduated cum laude, and his J.D. from Harvard Law 

School in 1987. He maintains chambers in Las Vegas.

Michael J. McShane was confirmed as a district 

judge for the U.S. District Court for 

the District of Oregon on May 20, 

2013, and received his commission 

on May 30, 2013. Prior to his 

appointment to the federal bench, 

Judge McShane had served as a judge 

of the Oregon Circuit Court, Fourth 

Judicial District, in Multnomah County since 2001. He 

served on Oregon’s Death Penalty Panel from 2003 to 

2012 and served as a circuit court judge pro tem in 

Multnomah County from 1997 to 2001. Prior to that, 

he held several positions, including staff attorney, senior 

felony attorney, and misdemeanor supervisor, at the 

Metropolitan Public Defender Services, Inc., in 

Portland, Oregon, from 1988 to 1997. Judge McShane 

received his B.A., magna cum laude, from Gonzaga 

University in 1983, and his J.D., with honors, from 

Northwestern School of Law of Lewis and Clark 

College in 1988. He maintains chambers in Eugene.

Brian M. Morris was confirmed as a district judge for 

the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana on 

December 12, 2013, and received his commission on 

December 17, 2013. Prior to his appointment to the 

federal bench, he had served as justice of the Montana 

Supreme Court since 2005. He had served previously 

as solicitor for the State of Montana since 2001 and as 

a senior legal officer for United Nations Compensation 

Commission from 2000 to 2001. Judge Morris engaged 

in private practice at the law firm of Goetz, Madden & 

Dunn, PC, in Bozeman from 1995 to 2000 and was a 

legal assistant for the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal 

in The Hague from 1994 to 1995. Judge Morris received 

both his B.A. and M.A. from Stanford University in 1987 

and his J.D., with distinction, from Stanford Law School 

in 1992. He clerked for Judge John T. Noonan, Jr., of the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from 1992 to 

1993 and for Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist of the 

U.S. Supreme Court from 1993 to 1994. Judge Morris 

maintains chambers in Great Falls.

NEW DISTRICT JUDGES
9

Troy L. Nunley was confirmed as a district judge

 for the U.S. District Court for the 

Eastern District of California on 

March 23, 2013, and received his 

commission on March 26, 2013. 

Prior to his appointment to the 

federal bench, Judge Nunley had 

served as a judge for the 

Sacramento County (California) Superior Court 

since 2002. Prior to coming onto the bench, he had 

served as a deputy attorney general of the Criminal 

Division in the Office of the Attorney General for 

the State of California since 1999. He also worked 

as a deputy district attorney for Sacramento County 

from 1996 to 1999 and as a deputy district attorney 

for Alameda County from 1991 to 1994. Judge 

Nunley received his B.A. from St. Mary’s College in 

1986 and his J.D. from the University of California, 

Hastings College of the Law, in 1990. He maintains 

chambers in Sacramento. 

Beverly Reid O’Connell was confirmed as a 

district judge for the U.S. District 

Court for the Central District of 

California on April 15, 2013, and 

received her commission on 

April 30, 2013. Prior to her 

appointment to the federal bench, 

Judge O’Connell had served as a 

judge for the Los Angeles County Superior Court. 

She was appointed to the state court in 2005 and 

elevated to supervising judge in 2011. Earlier in her 

career, Judge O’Connell held several positions in the 

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

of California, including senior litigation counsel, 

Organized Crime Strike Force, from 2003 to 2005; 

deputy chief, General Crimes Section, from 1999 

to 2003; and assistant U.S. attorney from 1995 to 

2005. She began her career as an associate at the Los 

Angeles law firm of Morrison & Foerster from 1990 

to 1995. Judge O’Connell received her B.A. from 

the University of California, Los Angeles, in 1986 and 

her J.D. in 1990 from Pepperdine University School 

of Law, where she graduated magna cum laude and 

served as managing editor of the Pepperdine Law 

Review. She maintains chambers in Los Angeles.

Fernando M. Olguin was confirmed as a district 

judge for the U.S. District Court 

for the Central District of 

California on December 17, 2012, 

and received his commission on 

January 16, 2013. Judge Olguin 

had previously served as a 

magistrate judge for the Central 

District of California since 2001. He came onto the 

bench after engaging in private practice as a partner 

at Traber, Voorhees & Olguin in Pasadena, California, 

from 1995 to 2001. Earlier in his career, Judge 

Olguin worked as a national director of the MexicanAmerican Legal Defense and Educational Fund’s 

Education Program from 1994 to 1995 and as a trial 

attorney for the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. 

Department of Justice from 1991 to 1994. Judge 

Olguin received his B.A. from Harvard University in 

1985, his M.A. from the University of California, 

Berkeley, in 1989, and his J.D. from UC Berkeley 

Law, also in 1989. Following law school, Judge 

Olguin clerked for Senior District Judge Charles A. 

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

Arizona from 1989 to 1991. He maintains chambers 

in Los Angeles.
10

William H. Orrick, III, was confirmed as a district 

judge for the U.S. District Court 

for the Northern District of 

California on May 15, 2013, and 

received his commission on 

May 16, 2013. Prior to his 

appointment to the bench, Judge 

Orrick had served as special 

counsel at the San Francisco law firm of Coblentz, 

Patch, Duffy & Bass LLP, where he had engaged in 

private practice for over 25 years. He joined the 

firm as an associate in 1984 then became a partner in 

1988. From 2009 to 2012, he worked for the U.S. 

Department of Justice as a counselor to the assistant 

attorney general in the Civil Division then as a deputy 

assistant attorney general for the Civil Division's 

Immigration Litigation Unit. Judge Orrick received 

his B.A., cum laude, from Yale University in 1976 and 

his J.D., cum laude, from Boston College Law School 

in 1979. He is the son of the late U.S. District Judge 

William H. Orrick, Jr., who served on the Northern 

District bench from 1974 to 2003. Judge Orrick 

maintains chambers in San Francisco.

Jon S. Tigar was confirmed as a district judge for the 

U.S. District Court for the 

Northern District of California on 

December 21, 2012, and received 

his commission on January 18, 

2013. Prior to his appointment to 

the federal bench, Judge Tigar had 

served as a judge of the Alameda 

County (California) Superior Court since 2002. Prior 

to coming onto the bench, Judge Tigar had engaged in 

private practice at the San Francisco law firm of Keker 

& Van Nest LLP. He joined the firm in 1994 and 

became a partner in 1997. Earlier in his career, he 

served as a trial attorney in the Office of the Public 

Defender in San Francisco from 1993 to 1994 and 

worked as a litigation associate at the San Francisco 

law firm of Morrison & Foerster LLP from 1990 to 

1992. Judge Tigar received his B.A. from Williams 

College in 1984 and his J.D. from the University of 

California, Berkeley, School of Law, in 1989. 

Following law school, he clerked for Judge Robert S. 

Vance of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th 

Circuit. He maintains chambers in San Francisco.

Derrick Kahala Watson was confirmed as a district 

judge for the U.S. District Court 

for the District of Hawaii on 

April 18, 2013, and received his 

commission on April 23, 2013. 

Prior to his appointment to the 

bench, Judge Watson had served 

in the Office of the U.S. Attorney 

for the District of Hawaii as an assistant U.S. attorney 

from 2007 to 2009 and as chief of the Civil Division 

from 2009 to 2013. He also served as an assistant 

U.S. attorney in the Northern District of California 

from 1995 to 2000 and was the deputy chief of the 

Civil Division from 1999 to 2000. Judge Watson 

joined the law firm of Farella Braun & Martel LLP 

in San Francisco in 2000 and became a partner in 

2003. He began his legal career at the law firm of 

Landels, Ripley & Diamond LLP in San Francisco, 

where he was an associate from 1991 to 1995. Judge 

Watson received his A.B. from Harvard College 

in 1988 and his J.D. from Harvard Law School in 

1991. A Hawaiian native, he is a 1984 graduate of 

the Kamehameha Schools in Honolulu, where he 

maintains chambers.

NEW DISTRICT JUDGES continued
11

NEW BANKRUPTCY JUDGES

Susan P. Watters was confirmed as a district judge 

for the U.S. District Court for the 

District of Montana on December 

12, 2013, and received her 

commission on December 18, 

2013. Judge Watters had served as 

a judge of the Montana District 

Court, 13th Judicial District, since 

1998. Prior to her appointment to the state bench, 

Judge Watters had worked as a senior associate at 

Hendrickson, Everson, Noennig & Woodward, PC, in 

Billings, Montana, since 1996 and was a sole 

practitioner of Watters Law Firm from 1995 to 1996. 

Judge Watters served as a deputy county attorney for 

the Yellowstone County Attorney’s Office from 1989 

to 1995. She received her B.A., with honors, from 

Eastern Montana College, now Montana State 

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

of Montana School of Law in 1988. Judge Watters 

maintains chambers in Billings.

Eddward P. Ballinger was appointed a bankruptcy 

judge for the U.S. Bankruptcy 

Court for the District of Arizona on 

February 15, 2013. Prior to his 

appointment, Judge Ballinger had 

been a judge of the Maricopa 

County (Arizona) Superior Court 

since 1998. He served on the 

Maricopa County Juvenile Court from 2010 to 2013 

and on the Maricopa County Criminal Court as an 

associate presiding judge from 2000 to 2002 and as the 

presiding judge from 2002 to 2005. Before coming 

onto the state court bench, Judge Ballinger had 

worked at Brown and Bain P.A., now Perkins Coie, in 

Phoenix, as an associate from 1981 to 1986 and as a 

partner from 1986 to 1998. Judge Ballinger 

graduated from Ohio State University, receiving his 

B.A., with honors, in 1976, and his M.B.A. and J.D. in 

1979. He received an LL.M. from New York University 

in 1981. He maintains chambers in Phoenix.

Hannah L. Blumenstiel was appointed a bankruptcy 

judge for the U.S. Bankruptcy Court 

for the Northern District of 

California on February 11, 2013. 

Prior to coming onto the bench, 

Judge Blumenstiel had practiced 

with Winston & Strawn LLP in San 

Francisco. She joined the firm in 

2003 and had been a partner since 2008. She also 

worked as an associate at Murphy Sheneman Julian & 

Rogers, now Winston & Strawn LLP, from 2001 to 

2003. She clerked for Judge Donald E. Calhoun, Jr., of 

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

Ohio from 2000 to 2001 and for Judge Charles M. 

Caldwell from 1998 to 2001. Judge Blumenstiel 

worked as an intern and an assistant attorney general in 

the Office of the Attorney General for the State of Ohio 

from 1996 to 1998. Judge Blumenstiel received her 

B.A. from Ohio State University in 1992 and her J.D. in 

1997 from Capital University Law School in Columbus, 
12

NEW BANKRUPTCY JUDGES continued

Ohio, where she served as a member of the Order of 

the Barristers and on the school’s National Moot Court 

Team. She maintains chambers in San Francisco.

Daniel P. Collins was appointed a bankruptcy judge 

for the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for 

the District of Arizona on January 

18, 2013. Prior to his appointment, 

he had been a partner since 2004 at 

Collins, May, Potenza, Baran & 

Gillespie in Phoenix, serving on the 

firm’s management committee until 

2012. His earlier career also included private practice 

in Phoenix as a partner at Leonard, Collins & Kelly, 

P.C., from 1994 to 1993, and as an associate then 

partner at Rawlins, Burrus, Lewkowitz & Feinstein, 

P.C., from 1983 to 1994. He had served as an 

arbitrator on commercial panels for the American 

Arbitration Association since the 1990s and as a 

mediator in bankruptcy and state court matters prior to 

his appointment. Judge Collins received his B.S. from 

the University of Arizona in 1980 and his J.D. in 1983 

from UA James E. Rogers College of Law, where he 

was part of the Moot Court Travel Team during his third 

year of law school. He maintains chambers in Phoenix.

Frederick Corbit was appointed a bankruptcy judge 

for the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for 

the Eastern District of Washington 

on September 19, 2013. Prior to his 

appointment, Judge Corbit had 

worked as a senior attorney for 

Northwest Justice Project in Seattle 

since 2007. He engaged in private 

practice as a partner at the former Heller Ehrman LLP 

in Seattle from 1989 to 2007. Judge Corbit received his 

B.A., magna cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa, from the 

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

University of California, Los Angeles, School of Law, in 

1980. He clerked for Judge Kenneth Treadwell of the 

U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of 

Washington and for Chief Justice Robert Utter of the 

Washington State Supreme Court. Judge Corbit 

completed a program on negotiation at Harvard Law 

School and received a mediation certificate in 2005. He 

maintains chambers in Spokane.

Laurel E. Davis was appointed a bankruptcy judge for 

the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the 

District of Nevada on July 12, 2013. 

Prior to her appointment, she had 

engaged in private practice as director 

at the law firm of Fennemore Craig, 

P.C., in Las Vegas since 2007. Before 

that, she worked at Lionel Sawyer & 

Collins in Las Vegas as a partner from 1994 to 2007 and 

as an associate from 1987 to 1993. Judge Davis received 

her B.S. from the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, in 

1983 and her J.D., magna cum laude, from the University 

of San Diego School of Law in 1987. She maintains 

chambers in Las Vegas.

August B. Landis was appointed a bankruptcy judge 

for the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for 

the District of Nevada on November 

27, 2013. Before coming onto the 

bench, Judge Landis had served in 

the U.S. Trustee Program of the 

Department of Justice since 2005 

and had been the acting U.S. trustee 

for Region 17 since 2010. Earlier in his career, Judge 

Landis had practiced at Whitfield & Eddy, P.L.C., in Des 

Moines, Iowa, as a member attorney from 1996 to 2005 

and as an associate attorney from 1990 to 1995. He 

also had been an associate at Neiman, Neiman, Stone & 

Spellman, PC, in Des Moines from 1987 to 1989. 

Judge Landis received his B.S. from Drake University in 

1984 and his J.D. in 1987 from Drake Law School, 

where he served as a staff member of the Drake Law 

Review. He maintains chambers in Las Vegas.
13

NEW MAGISTRATE JUDGES

Brenda Moody Whinery was appointed a 

bankruptcy judge for the U.S. 

Bankruptcy Court for the District 

of Arizona on February 1, 2013. 

Prior to her appointment, Judge 

Whinery had been a partner at 

Mesch, Clark & Rothschild, P.C., in 

Tucson since 2002. She served as 

the U.S. trustee for the District of Arizona from 1998 

to 2002. Prior to her public service, Judge Whinery 

worked as an associate in 1985 and became a partner 

in 1991 at the Phoenix law firm of Ryley, Carlock & 

Applewhite. She received her B.S., with high 

distinction, from the University of Arizona in 1982 

and her J.D. in 1985 from the UA James E. Rogers 

College of Law, where she was the note editor of the 

Arizona Law Review. Judge Whinery maintains 

chambers in Tucson.

Nancy J. Koppe was appointed a magistrate judge 

for the U.S. District Court for the 

District of Nevada on January 1, 

2013. Prior to her appointment, 

Judge Koppe had served as an 

assistant U.S. attorney for the 

Office of the U.S. Attorney for the 

District of Nevada since 2000. She 

served as an assistant district attorney in Philadelphia 

from 1992 to 2000. Judge Koppe received her B.A. 

from the University of Pennsylvania in 1989 and her 

J.D. from Cornell Law School in 1992. She served as 

chair of the Ninth Circuit’s Lawyer Representatives 

Coordinating Committee in 2012 and as a member of 

the Ninth Circuit’s Conference Executive Committee 

from 2010 to 2012. Judge Koppe maintains chambers 

in Las Vegas.

Douglas F. McCormick was appointed a magistrate 

judge for the U.S. District Court 

for the Central District of 

California on August 23, 2013. 

Prior to his appointment, Judge 

McCormick had served as an 

assistant U.S. attorney in the Office 

of the U.S. Attorney for the Central 

District of California since 2001 and had held the 

position of deputy chief since 2007. He engaged in 

private practice at Latham & Watkins in Costa Mesa, 

California, from 1997 to 2001. He clerked for Circuit 

Judge Charles E. Wiggins of the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the Ninth Circuit from 1996 to 1997 and for 

District Judge Gary L. Taylor of the U.S. District 

Court for the Central District of California from 1995 

to 1996. Judge McCormick received his B.A., magna 

cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa, from the University of 

California, Irvine, in 1991 and his J.D. in 1995 from 

the UCLA School of Law, where he was a member of 

the Order of the Coif. He maintains chambers in 

Santa Ana.
14

NEW MAGISTRATE JUDGES continued

John T. Rodgers was appointed a magistrate judge 

for the U.S. District Court for the 

Eastern District of Washington on 

September 1, 2013. Prior to 

coming onto the bench, Judge 

Rodgers had served as director of 

the Spokane County Public 

Defender’s Office since 2003. He 

served as a criminal defense attorney in state and 

federal courts in Washington State from 1978 to 2003. 

Judge Rodgers received his B.A. in English literature 

and B.A. in business administration from the 

University of Washington in 1975 and his J.D. from 

Gonzaga University School of Law in 1978. He 

maintains chambers in Spokane.

Alka Sagar was appointed a magistrate judge for the 

U.S. District Court for the Central 

District of California on August 21, 

2013. Judge Sagar is the first 

woman of Indian-American descent 

to serve as a federal judge. Prior to 

her appointment, she had served 

since 1987 as an assistant U.S. 

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

Central District of California, where she had held the 

positions of deputy chief of the Major Frauds Section 

since 2001 and deputy chief of the Major Crimes 

Section since 1991. Judge Sagar served as judge pro 

tem for the Los Angeles County Superior Court from 

2004 to 2006. She engaged in private practice in Los 

Angeles as an associate at Bronson, Bronson & 

McKinnon from 1984 to 1986 and at Solish, Jordan & 

Weiner from 1986 to 1987. Judge Sagar received her 

B.A., summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa, from the 

University of California, Los Angeles, in 1981 and her 

J.D. from the UCLA School of Law in 1984. She 

maintains chambers in Los Angeles.
15

NEW SENIOR JUDGES

Judge Richard F. Cebull was confirmed as a district 

judge for the District of Montana on 

July 20, 2001, and received his 

commission on July 25, 2001. He 

served as chief judge of the district 

from 2008 to 2013. Judge Cebull 

assumed senior status on March 18, 

2013, and retired from the bench on 

May 3, 2013. Prior to his appointment, he served as a 

magistrate judge for the District of Montana from 1998 

to 2001. Judge Cebull engaged in private practice as a 

partner at Brown, Gerbase, Cebull, Fulton, Harman & 

Ross in Billings, Montana, from 1972 to 1998 and as a 

partner at Longan, Holmstrom & Cebull, also in 

Billings, from 1969 to 1972. Judge Cebull received his 

B.A. from Montana State University in 1966 and his 

J.D. from the University of Montana School of Law in 

1969. He maintained chambers in Billings.

Judge Raymond C. Fisher was confirmed as a circuit 

judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the Ninth Circuit on October 5, 

1999, and received his commission 

on October 12, 1999. He assumed 

senior status on March 31, 2013. 

Prior to his appointment to the 

bench, Judge Fisher had served as an 

associate attorney general for the U.S. Department of 

Justice since 1997. He served as president of the 

California Police Commission in Los Angeles from 1995 

to 1997; as deputy general counsel for the Independent 

Commission on the Los Angeles Police Department in 

1990; and as member of the L.A. City Civil Service 

Commission from 1984 to 1989. Judge Fisher received 

his B.A. from the University of California, Santa 

Barbara, in 1961 and his LL.B. from Stanford Law 

School in 1966. Following law school, he clerked for 

Judge J. Skelly Wright of the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

the D.C. Circuit from 1966 to 1967 and for Associate 

Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., of the Supreme Court of 

the United States from 1967 to 1968. He maintains 

chambers in Pasadena. 

Judge Irma E. Gonzalez was confirmed and 

received her commission as a 

district judge for the U.S. District 

Court for the Southern District of 

California on August 12, 1992. She 

served as chief judge of the district 

from 2005 to 2012. Judge 

Gonzalez assumed senior status on 

March 29, 2013, and retired from the bench on 

October 25, 2013. Prior to her appointment, Judge 

Gonzalez had served as a judge of the San Diego 

County Superior Court since 1991 and as a U.S. 

magistrate judge for the Southern District of 

California from 1984 to 1991. She worked as an 

associate at the law firm of Seltzer, Caplan, Wilkins 

and McMahon in San Diego from 1981 to 1984. 

Judge Gonzalez served as an assistant U.S. attorney for 

the Central District of California from 1979 to 1981 

and for the District of Arizona from 1975 to 1979. 

She received her B.A. from Stanford University in 

1970 and her J.D. from the University of Arizona 

School of Law in 1973. Following law school, she 

clerked for Judge William C. Frey of the U.S. District 

Court for the District of Arizona from 1973 to 1975. 

She maintained chambers in San Diego.

Judge Susan Y. Illston was confirmed as a district 

judge for the U.S. District Court 

for the Northern District of 

California on May 25, 1995, and 

received her commission on 

May 26, 1995. She assumed senior 

status on July 1, 2013. Prior to her 

appointment to the bench, she had 

engaged in private practice at Cotchett, Illston and 

Pitre in Burlingame, California, since 1973. Judge 

Illston received her B.A., summa cum laude, from 

Duke University in 1970 and her J.D., Phi Beta Kappa, 

from Stanford Law School in 1973. She maintains 

chambers in San Francisco.
16

NEW SENIOR JUDGES continued

Judge Frederick J. Martone was confirmed as a 

district judge for the U.S. District 

Court for the District of Arizona on 

December 13, 2001, and received his 

commission on December 21, 2001. 

He assumed senior status on January 

30, 2013. Prior to his appointment 

to the federal bench, Judge Martone 

had served as justice of the Arizona Supreme Court since 

1992 and as judge of the Maricopa County (Arizona) 

Superior Court from 1985 to 1992. Prior to that, he 

engaged in private practice in Phoenix from 1973 to 

1985. Judge Martone received his B.S. from College of 

Holy Cross in 1965, his J.D. from Notre Dame Law 

School in 1972, and his LL.M. from Harvard Law School 

in 1975. He maintains chambers in Phoenix.

Judge Roslyn O. Silver was confirmed as a district 

judge for the U.S. District Court for 

the District of Arizona on October 

7, 1994, and received her 

commission on October 11, 1994. 

She served as chief district judge 

from 2011 to 2013 before assuming 

senior status on September 3, 2013. 

Prior to coming onto the bench, she served as chief of 

the Criminal Division in the Office of the U.S. Attorney 

for the District of Arizona from 1989 to 1994 and from 

1980 to 1984, and as an assistant U.S. attorney from 

1986 to 1994. Earlier in her career, she worked as a 

trial attorney for the U.S. Equal Employment 

Opportunity Commission, a partner in a Phoenix law 

firm, in-house labor counsel for Greyhound Corp., and 

as an advisor and litigator for the Education Division of 

the Native American Rights Fund, Navajo Nation. 

Judge Silver received her B.A. from the University of 

California, Santa Barbara in 1968 and her J.D. from 

Arizona State University College of Law in 1971. She 

clerked for Justice Lorna Lockwood of the Arizona 

Supreme Court from 1971 to 1972. Judge Silver 

maintains chambers in Phoenix.

Judge Lonny R. Suko was confirmed as a district 

judge for the U.S. District Court 

for the Eastern District of 

Washington on July 15, 2003, and 

received his commission on July 16, 

2003. He served as chief judge of 

the district from 2009 to 2011 and 

assumed senior status on November 

1, 2013. Prior to his appointment to the bench, he 

had served as a magistrate judge for the Eastern 

District of Washington from 1995 to 2003 and as a 

part-time magistrate judge for the district from 1971 

to 1991. Before joining the federal bench, Judge Suko 

engaged in private practice as an associate then 

partner at Lyon, Weigand, Suko and Gustafson, P.S., in 

Yakima from 1969 to 1995. He received his B.A. 

from Washington State University in 1965 and his J.D. 

from the University of Idaho College of Law in 1968. 

He maintains chambers in Yakima.

Judge James A. Teilborg was confirmed as a 

district judge for the U.S. District 

Court for the District of Arizona 

on October 3, 2000, and received 

his commission on October 13, 

2000. He assumed senior status on 

January 30, 2013. Prior to his 

appointment, Judge Teilborg 

engaged in private practice in Phoenix as a shareholder 

at Teilborg, Sanders and Parks from 1973 to 2000, as a 

partner at Dunn & Teilborg from 1972 to 1973, and as 

an associate at O’Connor, Cavanagh, Anderson, 

Westover, Killingsworth and Beshears from 1967 to 

1972. Judge Teilborg did undergraduate work at 

Colorado State University and received his J.D. from 

the University of Arizona College of Law in 1966. He 

served as a lieutenant colonel on the U.S. Air Force 

Reserve from 1974 to 1997 and on the Air National 

Guard from 1966 to 1974. Judge Teilborg maintains 

chambers in Phoenix.
17

Bankruptcy Judge James R. Grube, 71, of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for 

the Northern District of California died on December 1, 2013. Judge Grube 

was appointed a bankruptcy judge in 1988 and reappointed to a second term in 

2002. He maintained chambers in San Jose until retiring from the bench in 2006. 

Prior to coming onto the bench, Judge Grube had been a partner at Campeau & 

Grube in San Jose since 1980. He was a partner at Murray & Grube in Palo Alto, 

California, from 1975 to 1979 and served as an assistant district attorney for the 

City and County of San Francisco from 1970 to 1975. Judge Grube received his 

B.A. from the University of Santa Clara in 1964 and his J.D. from the University 

of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law, in 1967. Following law school, 

he entered active duty in the U.S. Army and served in Vietnam as a captain in the 

Army’s 11th Light Infantry Brigade from 1968 to 1969. Judge Grube is survived 

by his wife, Marilyn Morgan, who also served as a bankruptcy judge in the 

Northern District; his daughter, Annelise, and her husband, Rhamy; and stepsons, 

Terry and Mark, and their respective families.

Bankruptcy Judge Ross M. Pyle, 79, of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the 

Southern District of California died on April 23, 2013. Judge Pyle was appointed 

a bankruptcy judge in 1975 and served as chief bankruptcy judge of the district 

from 1983 to 1985. He also served on the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate 

Panel in 1983. Judge Pyle was active in the San Diego community and had served 

as a member of the Rotary Club of San Diego since 1975 and as a member of the 

Advisory Board of Trustees for Boys and Girls Clubs of San Diego, Inc., from 1975 

to 1987. Judge Pyle received his A.B. from Stanford University in 1955 and his 

J.D. from Stanford Law School in 1958. Since his admission to the California Bar 

in 1959, he had been an active member of the San Diego County Bar Association, 

where he served as chair of several committees. Judge Pyle is survived by his wife, 

Cynthia, four children, and 11 grandchildren.

IN MEMORIAM
18

Senior District Judge Edward C. Reed, Jr., 88, of the U.S. District Court 

for the District of Nevada, died on June 1, 2013. Judge Reed was confirmed by 

the Senate on September 25, 1979, and received his commission on September 26, 

1979. He served as chief judge of the district from 1986 to 1992 and assumed senior 

status on July 15, 1992. Prior to his appointment, Judge Reed served as special 

deputy attorney general for water rights litigation for the State of Nevada from 1967 

to 1979. He engaged in private practice in Reno, Nevada, from 1953 to 1979, and 

worked as a tax attorney for Arthur Andersen & Co., in Boston from 1952 to 1953. 

He served in the Army from 1943 to 1946. Judge Reed received his B.A. from 

the University of Nevada, Reno, in 1949 and his J.D. from Harvard Law School in 

1952. He is survived by his sons, Edward and John; his daughter, Mary Leon; and six 

grandchildren. He was preceded in death by another son, William.

Senior District Judge James A. von der Heydt, 94, of the U.S. District 

Court for the District of Alaska, died on December 1, 2013. Judge von der Heydt 

was confirmed by the Senate on October 20, 1966, and received his commission 

on November 3, 1966. He served as chief judge of the district from 1973 to 1984 

and assumed senior status on July 15, 1984. Prior to his appointment, he served as 

presiding judge of the Alaska Superior Court from 1959 to 1966 and represented 

the 2nd District in the Alaska House of Representatives from 1957 to 1959. Judge 

von der Heydt engaged in private practice in Nome, Alaska Territory, from 1953 

to 1959; as a commissioner of the U.S. District Court for the Alaska Territory in 

1951; and as the U.S. attorney for the territory from 1951 to 1953. He received 

his B.A. from Albion College in 1942 and his J.D. from Northwestern University 

School of Law in 1951. Judge von der Heydt is survived by his wife, Verna, and a 

number of nieces and nephews.

IN MEMORIAM continued
19

CIRCUIT

HIGHLI GHTS

Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy speaks to clerk’s 

office staff at the Robert T. Matsui United States Courthouse in 

Sacramento, California.
20

JUSTICE O’CONNOR SITS WITH NINTH CIRCUIT

In December, retired United 

States Supreme Court Justice 

Sandra Day O’Connor was back 

on the bench, sitting in Seattle 

with the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the Ninth Circuit.

Justice O’Connor served on a 

three-judge panel hearing oral 

arguments at the William K. 

Nakamura U.S. Courthouse. 

Joining her on the bench were 

Ninth Circuit Judges Richard C. 

Tallman of Seattle, center, who 

presided, and Carlos T. Bea of 

San Francisco.

Justice O’Connor later delivered 

the keynote address to the annual 

meeting of the Federal Bar 

Association of the Western District 

of Washington.

Justice O’Connor retired from 

active service in 2006. Since then, 

she has sat by designation on several 

federal appellate courts. She most 

recently sat with the Ninth Circuit 

Court of Appeals in 2011 at a special 

sitting in Missoula, Montana.

The “Appellate Lawyer 

Representatives’ Ninth Circuit 

Practice Guide,” released in October, 

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/

AppellateLawyerGuide.pdf 

provides a thorough outline of 

the appellate process and detailed 

information about many of the 

court’s procedures.

The guide was developed by the 

Ninth Circuit’s Appellate Lawyer 

Representatives, a group of highlyexperienced and well-respected 

practitioners appointed by Ninth 

Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski 

to advise the court on procedural 

and other matters. Anne M. Voigts, 

an assistant U.S. attorney in San 

Francisco, served as lead editor.

Even seasoned appellate 

lawyers may benefit from a new 

publication, which spans 112 pages 

and includes sections on motions 

practice, emergency proceedings, 

brief drafting, oral argument, 

the post-decisional process, 

habeas corpus proceedings, and 

checklists for drafting and filing 

motions and briefs.

Although intended for lawyers, 

the guide also would likely be of 

benefit to academics, journalists, 

students, pro se litigants and others 

interested in the workings of the 

nation’s largest appellate court. 

While not an official court 

publication, the guide was 

developed in consultation with 

court staff and is freely available 

to the public from the court’s 

website: www.ca9.uscourts.gov.

The guide is considered a work in 

progress and its authors welcome 

feedback. Comments and 

suggestions should be emailed to 

ALRPracticeguide@ca9.uscourts.gov.

APPELLATE LAWYER REPS PRODUCE PRACTICE GUIDE

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/

AppellateLawyerGuide.pdf
21

In October, the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Ninth 

Circuit convened for the first time 

an all-Alaskan appellate panel.

Circuit Judge Morgan Christen of 

Anchorage, Senior Circuit Judge 

Andrew J. Kleinfeld of Fairbanks, 

and Senior District Judge John 

W. Sedwick, also of Anchorage 

and who sat by designation, heard 

oral arguments on three cases 

on October 11, 2013, at the 

Richard H. Chambers U.S. Court 

of Appeals Building in Pasadena, 

California.

Appellate panels are randomly 

assigned and the all-Alaskan panel 

resulted from the luck of the draw.

“I was deeply honored to have been 

chosen to serve on this court and 

I have the greatest respect for my 

new colleagues. The opportunity 

to sit with two judges from my 

home state is truly special,” said 

Judge Christen, who felt “...very 

fortunate to be a part of this bit of 

Ninth Circuit history.”

“I think all of us who represent 

Alaska on the federal courts 

consider it an honor and privilege,” 

said Judge Kleinfeld. “It really feels 

like Alaska is coming into its own 

with this first all-Alaskan panel 

being convened by the court,” 

Judge Kleinfeld added.

Judges Kleinfeld and Christen 

are the second and third Alaskans 

to serve on the Ninth Circuit 

Court of Appeals. Nominated by 

the first President Bush, Judge 

Kleinfeld came onto the court 

in 1991. He served as an active 

judge until 2010, when he assumed 

senior status, creating a vacancy 

on the court. President Obama 

nominated Judge Christen to fill 

the vacancy. She came onto the 

court in January 2012 and is the 

first woman to represent Alaska on 

the Ninth Circuit bench.

Judge Sedwick has served for more 

than 20 years as a judge of the U.S. 

District Court for the District of 

Alaska. Also nominated by the first 

President Bush, he was confirmed 

in 1992 and served as chief judge 

of the district from 2002 to 2009. 

He assumed senior status in 2011.

The first Alaskan to sit on the 

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 

was the late Honorable Robert 

Boochever, who was nominated by 

President Carter and confirmed 

by the Senate in 1980. After 

serving as an active judge for six 

years, he assumed senior status in 

1986. Judge Boochever died in 

2011 at age 94.

NINTH CIRCUIT’S FIRST ALL-ALASKAN 

PANEL MAKES HISTORY

The first all-Alaskan panel includes, from left, Senior Circuit Judge Andrew J. 

Kleinfeld of Fairbanks, and Circuit Judge Morgan Christen and Senior District 

Judge John W. Sedwick, who are both from Anchorage.
22

Judges of the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Ninth 

Circuit and the U.S. District 

Court for the Northern District 

of California were recognized 

by the Northern California legal 

community at a gathering in 

March in San Francisco.

More than 400 members of 

the bench and bar attended the 

annual Ninth Circuit Luncheon 

sponsored by the Northern 

District of California Chapter of 

the Federal Bar Association. The 

event served to introduce judges 

to the bar and share news about 

the courts. Chief Judge Alex 

Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit 

Court of Appeals and Chief 

District Judge Claudia Wilken 

of the Northern District of 

California were featured speakers.

This was the 35th consecutive 

year in which the luncheon was 

held. It was started in 1978 at the 

suggestion of an attorney, the late 

G. Joseph Bertain, Jr., who served 

as an assistant U.S. attorney in 

the Northern District and as chair 

of the FBA Northern District of 

California Chapter.

In his remarks, Chief Judge 

Kozinski observed that the Ninth 

Circuit bench continues to be in 

transition with the passing of four 

of its most senior judges in 2012: 

Chief Judge Emeritus James R. 

Browning and Senior Judges Otto 

R. Skopil, Jr., Robert R. Beezer 

and Betty Binns Fletcher.

“We are diminished by their 

absence,” Judge Kozinski said. 

He also noted the passing earlier 

in 2013 of well-known appellate 

attorney Sanford “Sandy” Svetcov, 

who served as the volunteer 

coordinator of the Ninth Circuit’s 

Pro Bono Counsel Program 

for the Northern District of 

California.

The bench losses have been 

balanced somewhat by the 

confirmations of five new judges.

“We have been very fortunate. I 

just want to express my gratitude 

to the president and to the 

Senate,” said Judge Kozinski, 

singling out California Senator 

Dianne Feinstein in particular.

FEDERAL BAR HONORS NINTH CIRCUIT, NORTHERN 

CALIFORNIA JUDGES

Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, at the 

podium, top, introduces the Ninth 

Circuit’s newest appellate judges, 

from left: Judges Jacqueline H. 

Nguyen, Mary H. Murguia, Morgan 

Christen, Andrew D. Hurwitz, and 

Paul J. Watford. Chief District 

Judge Claudia Wilken, above, of the 

Northern District of California 

speaks to audience.
23

The United States Court of Appeals 

for the Ninth Circuit continues 

to be the leader among federal 

courts in using Internet technology 

to increase public access to the 

judicial process.

In December, the nation’s busiest 

federal appellate court began 

providing live video streaming of 

its quarterly en banc proceedings, 

enabling anyone with a sufficiently 

fast Internet connection to watch 

oral arguments live at home, work 

or elsewhere.

It was the first time a federal 

appellate court used its resources 

to deliver live video for general 

viewing over the Internet. 

Broadcast and cable news 

networks have previously provided 

live coverage of Ninth Circuit 

court proceedings, including 

Internet viewing.

Also in December, the court 

revealed plans to test live audio 

streaming of all cases being heard 

by three-judge panels.

In announcing video streaming, 

Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Alex 

Kozinski said the court has a long 

history of using technology to 

make proceedings more accessible 

and transparent.

“Video streaming opens the court’s 

doors ever wider so that more and 

more people can see and hear what 

transpires in the courtroom,” the 

chief judge said.

Although viewership is expected to 

grow slowly, likely audiences include 

lawyers, parties to cases, law school 

students and faculty, news media 

and the general public. The court 

is working with an outside provider 

to ensure sufficient bandwidth is 

available for satisfactory viewing. 

An 11-judge en banc court is used 

to resolve intra-circuit conflicts 

of law and other legal questions 

considered to be of exceptional 

importance. Only about 20 cases 

per year receive en banc review. 

The proceedings are held quarterly, 

usually in the James R. Browning 

U.S. Courthouse in San Francisco 

and the Richard H. Chambers 

U.S. Court of Appeals Building in 

Pasadena, California.

Since 2010, the court has video 

streamed en banc proceedings to 

all of its courthouses. Thus, an en 

banc court convened in Pasadena 

can be observed at the San Francisco 

courthouse, the William K. 

Nakamura U.S. Courthouse 

in Seattle and the Pioneer 

Courthouse in Portland, Oregon.

Considered a technology leader, the 

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is 

one of two federal appellate courts to 

allow the news media to use cameras 

in the courtroom. Since the early 

1990s, Ninth Circuit appellate panels 

have granted 378 media requests for 

still and video photography of often 

high-profile cases.

Since 2003, the court has been using 

its own technology to provide public 

access to digital audio recordings 

of all oral arguments heard at all 

locations on a next-day basis. Video 

recording capability was later added. 

Today, all 11 courtrooms in the four 

Ninth Circuit courthouses are video 

equipped. Three courtrooms – one 

each in San Francisco, Pasadena and 

Portland – are equipped with highdefinition video cameras.

Digital files containing audio and 

video recordings of court proceedings 

are available online at http://www.

ca9.uscourts.gov/media/.

INTERNET STREAMING COMES OF AGE 

AT COURT OF APPEALS 
24

In September, the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Ninth 

Circuit held its annual orientation 

program for newly-hired law 

clerks.

Over 130 law clerks participated 

in the intensive two-day program, 

which was held at the James R. 

Browning U.S. Courthouse in San 

Francisco. Court operations and 

procedures, brief writing, ethics 

and use of social media, appellate 

jurisdiction and standards of review, 

and criminal law issues were among 

the topics covered.

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, 

touching on workloads, opinion 

writing and interaction with other 

judges and their clerks.

In his remarks, Justice Kennedy 

made particular note of unpublished 

opinions, which are used to resolve 

a large majority of the court’s cases. 

He urged clerks to remember 

that, while not precedential, every 

unpublished decision applies to “a 

real case with real people.”

Also involved as presenters and 

panelists were judges of the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals and 

the U.S. District Court for the 

Northern District of California.

In addition to the 

program, the clerks also 

were able to observe rare 

en banc proceedings in 

which a special court of 11 

judges hears cases deemed 

to be of exceptional 

importance. Fewer than 

20 cases per year typically 

receive en banc review.

The Ninth Circuit Court 

of Appeals is authorized 

29 judgeships and ended 

2013 with 27 active judges 

and 16 senior judges. 

Active judges may have up 

to four law clerks while 

senior judges may have up 

to three.

The 2013-2014 law 

clerk contingent includes 

graduates of law schools 

across the country with 

Yale, Stanford and 

Harvard having the most 

representatives.

NEW CLERKS GATHER FOR ORIENTATION PROGRAM

Remarks by Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. 

Kennedy, above, highlights annual orientation 

program for newly-hired law clerks.
25

One of the nation’s busiest 

federal trial courts marked 

another milestone with the 

appointment of its first AfricanAmerican chief judge.

Judge Raner C. Collins became 

chief judge of the United States 

District Court for the District of 

Arizona on September 3, 2013. 

He succeeded Judge Roslyn O. 

Silver, who also made history 

as the first woman to lead the 

Arizona court in 2011. Elevated 

on the basis of seniority, Judge 

Collins can serve in the leadership 

post for up to seven years. 

Judge Collins was one of two black 

judges appointed to the Arizona 

federal bench in 1998. Glenda E. 

Edmonds was first, appointed in 

February 1998 to serve as an Article 

I magistrate judge. Judge Collins 

followed in August and has the 

distinction of being the first AfricanAmerican to be confirmed as an 

Article III district judge in Arizona.

He took the helm at a time of crisis 

for all of the federal courts, which 

have been cutting staff and services 

due to inadequate funding.

“I intend to add my voice to the 

chorus of other voices calling 

upon Congress to fully fund the 

Judiciary as an equal branch of 

government,” Judge Collins said. “I 

don’t think (full funding) has been 

the case for some time now.”

Along with other federal courts, 

the District of Arizona has been 

constrained by inadequate funding in 

prior years followed by indiscriminate 

cuts under sequestration in 2013. 

The Office of the Federal Public 

Defender, the clerk’s office and the 

court’s Probation and Pretrial Services 

divisions have been hardest hit, 

requiring furloughs and layoffs of staff.

“This has been an extremely 

difficult year for our court budgetwise. I am very concerned for 

our employees and about what is 

happening to court services,” Judge 

Collins said.

One of two southwest border 

courts in the Ninth Circuit, the 

Arizona court has a substantial 

criminal caseload driven by illegal 

immigration and drug smuggling 

over the U.S.-Mexico border. The 

court is authorized 13 judgeships 

and is eligible for up to six more 

judgeships based on its current 

caseload. New judgeships for 

Arizona are included in both a 

comprehensive national judgeship 

bill and special legislation intended 

to provide emergency assistance 

to particularly needy courts. It is 

unclear whether either effort will 

win passage in Congress due to costs.

“It would certainly give us the 

flexibility to handle whatever 

comes our way,” Judge Collins said.

Judge Collins has spent his entire 

career in public service in southern 

Arizona. He served in the Pima 

County Attorney’s Office as a law 

clerk and trial attorney from 1975 

to 1981, and as the county attorney 

from 1983 to 1985. He was a 

magistrate in the Tucson City Court, 

1981 to 1983, and a judge and 

judge pro tem on the Pima County 

Superior Court, 1985 to 1998.

Born in Malvern, Arkansas, Judge 

Collins earned in B.A. from 

Arkansas Polytechnic College 

(now Arkansas Tech University) 

in 1973, and his J.D. from the 

University of Arizona College of 

Law in 1975.

FIRST AFRICAN-AMERICAN LEADS 

ARIZONA FEDERAL COURT

Honorable Raner C. Collins, 

Chief District Judge, District of Arizona

Photo Credit: Tucson Citizen
26

“Planning Ahead: Thinking About 

Transitions Seminar,” a program 

sponsored in April by the Ninth 

Circuit Wellness Committee, 

focused on helping judges consider 

issues related to retirement, taking 

senior status, or serving in a 

recalled capacity.

The two-day program offered 

sessions on benefits, financial 

planning, tax and estate strategies, 

Medicare and Medicaid matters, 

and health and wellness issues.

Senior District Judge Helen W. 

Gillmor of the District of Hawaii 

and Bankruptcy Judge Patricia C. 

Williams of the Eastern District 

of Washington, who serve on the 

Wellness Committee, developed 

the program and served as cochairs of the seminar. Among the 

attendees were circuit, district, 

bankruptcy, and magistrate judges 

along with their spouses.

Dr. Sanford Finkle, founder of the 

American Association for Geriatric 

Psychiatry and co-founder of the 

International Psychogeriatric 

Association, gave the keynote address 

and made an engaging presentation 

focusing on the relationship of 

mind and body, sexuality, sleep and 

medical issues for individuals over 

65. He noted the growing number 

of multi-generational families and 

stressed the importance of being 

open to new experiences. 

Sharing their personal “transitions” 

were Senior Circuit Judge Michael 

Daly Hawkins of Phoenix, Arizona; 

Senior District Judge Consuelo B. 

Marshall of the Central District 

of California; and two judges who 

retired from the bench, Fern M. 

Smith and Louisa Porter.

For judges considering going senior 

or serving in a recalled capacity, 

Dr. Bob Rucker, an assistant 

circuit executive from the Office 

of the Circuit Executive, provided 

information about the availability of 

staff and workload requirements. 

Others who made presentations 

included Pamela J. Dudley, human 

resources specialist from the 

Administrative Office of the U.S. 

Courts; Tom O'Rourke, tax and 

estate planning specialist; and 

Richard Carlton, a professional 

counselor who staffs the Ninth 

Circuit Private Assistant Line 

Service (PALS).

The session also included a 

demonstration of how to prepare 

healthy meals, and a Zumba dance 

exercise program led by Bankruptcy 

Judge Erithe A. Smith of the Central 

District of California, who is a 

Wellness Committee member and 

certified Zumba instructor.

‘TRANSITIONS’ SEMINAR HELPS JUDGES PLAN AHEAD

Pictured above, from left, are Senior 

District Judge Helen W. Gillmor of the 

District of Hawaii, Senior District 

Judge Consuelo B. Marshall of the 

Central District of California, retired 

District Judge Fern M. Smith of the 

Northern District of California, 

Senior Circuit Judge Michael Daly 

Hawkins, and Magistrate Judge 

Louisa S. Porter of the Southern 

District of California. Dozens of 

attendees took part in the seminar.
27

The “50th Anniversary Reflection 

on the 1963 Civil Rights 

Movement,” a program held 

in November in San Francisco, 

featured the recollections of 

Senior District Judge Thelton E. 

Henderson of the United States 

District Court for the Northern 

District of California. 

In an engaging interview with his 

Northern District colleague, Judge 

William Alsup, Judge Henderson 

spoke of his days as a young U.S. 

Department of Justice lawyer 

working in the deep South. The 

program was organized by the 

Northern District of California 

Historical Society and drew an 

overflow crowd to the auditorium 

of the California State Building in 

San Francisco.

In 1962, Judge Henderson became 

the first African-American attorney 

in the U.S. Department of Justice. 

Assigned to monitor voting rights 

matters in the South, he came to 

know many civil rights leaders, 

including Dr. Martin Luther King, 

Jr., and Medgar Evers.

The approximately 90-minute 

program was videotaped and is 

available online at http://tinyurl.

com/henderson-interview.

Nominated by President Carter, 

Judge Henderson has served on the 

Northern District of California 

bench since 1980 and was chief judge 

of the court from 1990 to 1997. He 

assumed senior status in 1998 but 

continues to hear cases, including 

a number of high-profile matters 

involving civil rights. He currently 

sits on a special panel of three 

federal judges conducting oversight 

of the California prison system.

Born in Shreveport, Lousiana, 

Judge Henderson received his 

B.A. from the University of 

California, Berkeley, in 1956. 

After two years of military 

service, he returned to Berkeley 

to attend the Boalt Hall School of 

Law, where he received his J.D. 

in 1962. After leaving the justice 

department, he went into private 

practice, served as counsel to a 

neighborhood legal center in East Palo 

Alto, California, and was the assistant 

dean of Stanford Law School.

Judge Henderson has received 

numerous honors, including 

the American Bar Association’s 

Thurgood Marshall Award in 

2013 and the 2003 Ninth Circuit 

Professionalism Award from the 

American Inns of Court.

NORTHERN DISTRICT JUDGE RECALLS 

1963 CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

District Judge William Alsup, left, interviews Senior District Judge Thelton E. 

Henderson, who shared his recollections of the civil rights movement in the 1960s. 
28

The Ninth Circuit Jury Instructions 

Committee considers and adopts 

model criminal and civil jury 

instructions for use by federal trial 

courts in the western states. The 

committee also produces another 

publication, “A Manual on Jury 

Trial Procedures.”

The committee met four times 

in 2013, at the court of appeals 

courthouses in Pasadena, 

California, and San Francisco, and 

the district courthouse in Seattle.

In 2013, the committee focused 

its efforts on the review and 

revision of “A Manual on Jury Trial 

Procedures,” which focuses on the 

law, and procedures and practices 

in the Ninth Circuit governing jury 

trials. A revised version is available 

online at http://www.circ9.dcn/

publications/MJTP_June_2013.pdf. 

Printed versions are available by 

request.

The “Manual of Model Civil Jury 

Instructions” and the “Manual of 

Model Criminal Jury Instructions” 

also are available in print and online 

versions. The online version is being 

continually updated due to changes 

in case law or statutes. The model 

criminal and civil jury instructions, 

respectively, may be accessed online 

at http://www3.ce9.uscourts.gov/

web/sdocuments.nsf/crim and

http://www3.ce9.uscourts.gov/

web/sdocuments.nsf/civ.

Chief District Judge Susan Oki 

Mollway of Hawaii chairs the 

committee. Other members are 

Senior Circuit Judge A. Wallace 

Tashima of the Ninth Circuit Court 

of Appeals; District Judge Cormac 

J. Carney and Magistrate Judge 

Alicia G. Rosenberg of the Central 

District of California; and District 

Judges Benjamin Hale Settle of the 

Western District of Washington 

and Michael H. Simon of the 

District of Oregon; and Senior 

District Judges Robert H. Whaley 

of the Eastern District 

of Washington and Thomas J. 

Whelan of the Southern District 

of California.

COMMITTEE UPDATES JURY TRIAL 

PROCEDURES MANUAL

Jury Trial Committee members, pictured 

above standing from left, include Senior 

District Judges Robert H. Whaley 

and Thomas J. Whelan, Circuit Judge 

A. Wallace Tashima, District Judge 

Benjamin H. Settle, and seated from 

left, District Judge Cormac J. Carney, 

Magistrate Judge Alicia G. Rosenberg, 

Chief District Judge Susan Oki Mollway, 

and Debra T. Landis, research attorney, 

Office of the Circuit Executive.
29

The Ninth Circuit Pro Se Litigation 

Committee is using “webinars” 

to keep up with important 

developments in pro se litigation. 

The committee organized two 

webinars in 2013, including a wellreceived program in November 

focusing on the complex 

implications of the United States 

Supreme Court’s 2012 decision in 

Martinez v. Ryan.

The online programs were offered 

in lieu of the Ninth Circuit Pro Se 

Conference, an annual event last held 

in 2012 which is typically attended 

by more than 100 judges and court 

staff. The 2013 conference was 

called off due to reduced funding 

to the courts under sequestration. 

While a conference is planned in 

2014, the event will likely be held on 

a biannual basis thereafter.

Webinar technology delivers 

audio/video and data content using 

the Judiciary’s computer network 

and conventional telephone lines. 

Judges and court staff participate 

individually or in groups and 

can interact with the presenters 

over the telephone or by sending 

questions and comments from their 

computer keyboard.

The committee’s first webinar 

featured a video replay of a program 

offered at the 2012 Ninth Circuit 

Judicial Conference focusing on 

federal habeas corpus and the 

ramifications of the Supreme 

Court’s 2011 decision in Pinholster 

v. Cullen. Magistrate Judge James P. 

Donohue, the committee chair, and 

some of his clerks were available to 

answer questions.

The Martinez program was a live 

presentation by panelists in three 

states: Chief Magistrate Judge 

Candy W. Dale and pro se law 

clerk Janis Dotson of the District 

of Idaho; Kristine Fox, a death 

penalty law clerk in the District 

of Arizona; and Margaret Epler, 

a death penalty law clerk at the 

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 

San Francisco. The program was 

displayed at some 50 locations, but 

the actual number of participants is 

thought to be larger due to group 

viewing in several places.

Webinar organizers say the 

programs will not only fill in 

the information gaps resulting 

from holding the conference 

every other year but serve as an 

alternative source of news for 

those who are unable to attend 

the conference. The committee 

would eventually like to see all 

webinars recorded and made 

available through an online library.

Webinar technology is licensed 

by the Administrative Office of 

the U.S. Courts. The Office of 

the Circuit Executive provides 

technical support for webinars 

sponsored by the Pro Se Litigation 

Committee.

WEBINARS BRING LEGAL DISCUSSIONS TO 

THE DESKTOP

the Central District of California, pro se filers accounted 

for 27.6 percent of the cases filed in the district. 

Pro se debtors are often misinformed about bankruptcy law.

Many of them end up “operating on themselves” in the 

bankruptcy emergency room, sometimes with disastrous 

consequences. For example, pro se debtors frequently file

bankruptcy to stop a foreclosure. Without fully understanding

the consequences of the filing, a debtor may make things 

much worse for himself or herself. If it is a Chapter 7 case, 

the bankruptcy trustee may discover valuable assets that can 

be used to satisfy creditors. If this happens, it is likely that the 

trustee will resist the debtor’s efforts to dismiss the bankruptcy 

case, and the debtor will lose assets that he or she would not 

otherwise have lost. The debtor may have been better off in 

Chapter 13 where the debtor could have reorganized his or her 

debts and actually saved his or her home.

Did you know that at the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals last fiscal 

year, the number of appeals in which 

at least one party was unrepresented 

by counsel exceeded 50 percent of 

the total new filings? Lower courts 

of the Ninth Circuit are similarly 

deluged with pro se filings. In the 

district courts, 36 percent of civil 

filings involved one or more pro se 

litigants. In the bankruptcy courts, 

more than 19 percent of all filings 

came from pro se litigants, including 

nearly 30 percent of the Chapter 13 filings.

The Ninth Circuit Self-Represented Litigants 

Committee, also called the “Pro Se Committee,” was 

formed in 2006 to assist courts in responding to the 

challenges posed by pro se litigation. The scope of the 

committee’s work is broad and ranges from increasing 

unrepresented litigants’ access to pro bono services to 

case management issues specific to pro se litigants. For 

example, the committee is now taking a census of all 

Committee Chair 

James P. Donohue 

is a magistrate 

judge in Seattle 

With the largest percentage of 

pro se filings in the country by 

far, bankruptcy courts in the 

Ninth Circuit have become 

something akin to hospital 

emergency rooms serving 

individuals in dire financial 

straits.

We, here in the Ninth Circuit, are 

at the center of the bankruptcy 

pro se universe. In fiscal year 

2012, Ninth Circuit bankruptcy 

courts reported 58,372 pro se filings. Self-represented 

filers accounted for 19.1 percent of all new cases in the 

circuit, more than twice the national average. And, if 

you look at the busiest bankruptcy court in the country, 

Bankruptcy Courts: The Emergency Rooms of the Ninth Circuit

pro bono resources used by 

district and bankruptcy courts 

in the circuit. A catalog of these 

resources will then be stored 

on the Ninth Circuit Intranet 

website – www.circ9.dcn. If you 

have considered expanding your 

district’s pro bono resources, 

but felt overwhelmed about how 

to begin, this will be the place 

to start. Someone has probably 

done it before you, and there is 

a contact person at each district 

who can tell you how it was 

created, and the strengths and 

weaknesses of the approach. 

Why reinvent the wheel?

In addition, the committee sponsors a pro se law clerk 

conference with a breakout for judges specifically 

addressing pro se challenges. See page 4 for a summary. 

Ninth Circuit Committee Focuses on Pro Se Litigants

Also in this issue: 50 Years After Gideon v. Wainwright page 2 Pro Se ‘First Responders’ page 4

continued on page 2

continued on page 3

50.8

36.2 38.1

19.1

Appeals

Civil

Bankruptcy

Criminal

Percent of New Filings by Pro Se 

Lititgants

Committee member 

Catherine E. Bauer 

is a bankruptcy 

judge in Santa Ana 

Summer 2013 The Gideon The Pro Se Litigation Committee Newsletter

The Pro Se Litigation 

Committee, chaired by 

Magistrate Judge James P. 

Donohue of the Western 

District of Washington, 

published its inaugural 

newsletter, “The Gideon,” in 

the summer of 2013. The 

first issue of the quarterly 

newsletter included articles on 

interpreter use and managing 

pro se caseloads. Future 

editions will include articles on pro se debtors at reaffirmation 

hearings, recognition of pro se volunteers, pro bono clinics, pro 

bono recognition programs, and mediation efforts. Archived 

newsletters, committee information, case management resources 

for pro se cases are available on the committee’s website at 

http://www.circ9.dcn/committees/prose.aspx.

PRO SE NEWSLETTER
30

The Ninth Circuit Magistrate 

Judges Education Committee 

took part in a national workshop 

organized by the Federal Judicial 

Center, sponsoring an educational 

session on mental competency that 

drew more than 75 attendees.

Held in July at the United States 

District Courthouse Annex 

in San Diego, the session was 

entitled “How Competent Are You 

When It Comes to Competency 

Hearings?” Judges and other 

attendees explored various 

aspects of competency, including 

governing statute, the conduct 

of competency hearings, and 

issues related to involuntary 

medication, treatment, restoration 

of competency, speedy trial 

implications, and final disposition. 

The program involved a panel 

presentation by District Judge 

Anthony J. Battaglia of the 

Southern District of California; 

Magistrate Judge Charles R. 

Pyle of the District of Arizona; 

Nellie Klein, staff attorney at the 

Metropolitan Correctional Center 

in San Diego; and Craig Apker, 

complex warden at the Butner 

Federal Correction Complex in 

North Carolina, who appeared via 

video conference.

Judge Battaglia, a former 

magistrate judge in San Diego, 

described the legal framework 

for mental competency cases. 

Ms. Klein addressed the process 

of making a mental competency 

assessment, including use of 

psychologists at the federal 

Bureau of Prisons and placement 

in suitable facilities. Medical 

evaluation resources available at 

Butner and other federal facilities 

were described by Warden Apker. 

Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin of 

the Eastern District of California, 

who welcomed attendees and 

introduced the panelists, noted 

that this was thought to be the 

first time the Ninth Circuit has 

organized a session at a national 

workshop such as the FJC event.

MAGISTRATE JUDGES WORKSHOP FOCUSES ON 

COMPETENCY HEARINGS

Pictured from left are District Judge Anthony J. Battaglia of the Southern District of California, Magistrate Judge Gary S. 

Austin of the Eastern District of California; Nellie Klein, staff attorney, Metropolitan Correctional Center in San Diego; and 

Magistrate Judge Charles R. Pyle of the District of Arizona. 
31

The United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of California lays claim to the Ninth 

Circuit’s first judicial learning center. The Justice 

Anthony M. Kennedy Library and Learning Center 

is housed in the Robert T. Matsui U.S. Courthouse 

in Sacramento. It was dedicated in March during 

a gala program attended by scores of civic leaders, 

educators and members of the legal community.

The center will promote greater public 

understanding of the importance of an independent 

judiciary, the rule of law in American society, and 

the rich history of the federal courts. It will initially 

be used by elementary and secondary school 

teachers to develop curriculum and later host visits 

by area students.

“We are very honored to have the Kennedy 

Library and Learning Center located here in the 

Robert T. Matsui U.S. Courthouse,” said Chief 

District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr., of the 

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District 

of California. “We look forward to working 

with the community in making the center an 

important civics education resource.”

SACRAMENTO CELEBRATES JUSTICE KENNEDY 

LEARNING CENTER

Justice Kennedy with attorney Mac Goldsberry, center, president 

of the Sacramento Federal Judicial Library and Learning Center 

Foundation, and Gary Hart, a former California state senator and 

longtime education advocate. The justice speaks to students during 

the Open Doors program, below.
32

“The Justice Anthony M. Kennedy Library and Learning 

Center in the Robert T. Matsui U.S. Courthouse will be 

a fitting tribute to one of our nation’s foremost jurists,” 

said Rep. Doris Matsui of California’s Sixth Congressional 

District, the widow of the late Rep. Robert T. Matsui.

“Justice Kennedy’s profound commitment to the 

Constitution and the rule of law began in Sacramento, 

but his judicial service has touched communities 

throughout our country,” she said.

Except for public space in the courthouse provided by 

the Ninth Circuit Library, the learning center is privately 

funded and operated. The non-profit Sacramento Federal 

Judicial Library and Learning Center Foundation, formed 

in 2012, will oversee development of the learning center 

and raise funds for its operation. Contributions to the 

foundation are tax deductible.

Justice Kennedy, a Sacramento native, returned to his 

hometown to take part in the dedication ceremony 

and met with foundation members to discuss future 

programs and activities. He also participated in Open 

Doors to Federal Courts, the federal judiciary’s signature 

community outreach program, which brought nearly 600 

high school students to the Matsui Courthouse.

At least two other districts in the Ninth Circuit are 

currently considering the feasibility of learning centers.

U.S. Representative Doris Matsui of California’s Sixth 

Congressional District, at podium pictured above, 

addresses the audience, and seated from left to right 

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

District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. Justice Kennedy, 

pictured below, with students from McClatchy High 

School at the Open Doors program with their teacher, 

Mary Wong.
33

2013 NINTH CIRCUIT NEW JUDGES' ORIENTATION

New judges sitting on federal courts in the western states gathered in May at the Ninth Circuit headquarters 

in San Francisco for a two-day orientation program. District, bankruptcy and magistrate judges from Alaska, 

Arizona, California and Nevada were briefed on the workings of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and advised 

on case management, information technology, judicial ethics and other topics. Seated from left are Magistrate 

Judge Bruce G. Macdonald of the District of Arizona; Magistrate Judge Stanley Boone and District Judge Troy 

L. Nunley of the Eastern District of California; Chief Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski; Bankruptcy Judge Hannah 

L. Blumenstiel and District Judge John S. Tigar of the Northern District of California; and Magistrate Judge 

Allison Claire of the Eastern District of California. Standing from left are Bankruptcy Judge Christopher B. 

Latham of the Southern District of California; Magistrate Judge Bridget S. Bade of the District of Arizona; 

Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe of the District of Nevada; Bankruptcy Judge Gary Alan Spraker of the District 

of Alaska; District Judge Fernando M. Olguin of the Central District of California; Bankruptcy Judge Brenda 

Moody Whinery, Magistrate Judge Leslie Ann Bowman and Bankruptcy Judge Daniel P. Collins of the District of 

Arizona; and District Judge Andrew P. Gordon of the District of Nevada.
34

The United States Court of Appeals 

for the Ninth Circuit and a number 

of district courts in the circuit are 

contributing to the Government 

Printing Office’s Federal Digital 

System, or FDsys, a new system 

that provides free access to official 

government documents.

FDsys is an Internet-based 

repository of information from 

Congress, the executive branch 

and the Judiciary. Besides being 

free, FDsys offers advanced 

search capabilities not available 

from other federal court online 

resources. Most notably, users can 

conduct searches across multiple 

courts rather than having to search 

records from one court at a time. 

Complex searches can be conducted 

using metadata attached to the 

files. Once an opinion is located, 

associated opinions and published 

orders also can be quickly obtained.

The FDsys collection of thousands 

of court records dates back to 

April 2004, though searchable 

electronic files for some courts may 

be incomplete for earlier years. 

Most of the Ninth Circuit appellate 

opinions date back to January 2008, 

shortly before the court migrated to 

a fully electronic case management 

and filing system.

In addition to the Ninth Circuit 

Court of Appeals, participating 

district courts include Alaska, the 

Eastern District of California, Hawaii 

and Idaho. FDsys can be accessed at 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/.

NINTH CIRCUIT JOINS ONLINE REPOSITORY

Under the auspices of the Pacific 

Judicial Council, the Ninth Circuit 

organized its second training 

program for probation and 

pretrial services officers working 

in the Pacific islands.

Held in August on the island of 

Saipan in the Commonwealth of 

the Northern Mariana Islands, 

the program included special 

sessions for new probation 

officers as well as veterans. 

Participating were 40 officers 

from the federal courts in Guam 

and NMI and from “state level” 

courts of the U.S. territories of 

Guam and American Samoa, the 

Federated States of Micronesia, 

the CNMI and the republics of 

Palau and the Marshall Islands.

Chief Justice Alexandro C. Castro 

of the Supreme Court of the CNMI 

and CNMI Governor Eloy S. Inos 

welcomed the attendees. A group 

of local judges served on a panel 

entitled “What Do Judges Want?” 

and sessions included writing 

presentence reports. 

Other presenters were James 

M. Schloetter, assistant deputy 

chief probation officer, Northern 

District of California; Michelle 

Spidell, pretrial and probation 

administrator, Administrative Office 

of the U.S. Courts; and Christopher 

Hansen, chief probation officer, 

Solano County, California.

CIRCUIT OFFERS TRAINING FOR PACIFIC ISLAND COURTS
35

Colleagues, friends and family, 

and leaders of the Oregon legal 

community gathered in Portland in 

October for a special proceeding 

recognizing Circuit Judge Susan P. 

Graber of the United States Court 

of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

One of Oregon’s most accomplished 

jurists, 2013 marked Judge Graber’s 

25th year of combined service on 

the federal and state benches. She 

has served as a federal appellate 

judge since 1998 and was previously 

an associate justice of the Supreme 

Court of Oregon from 1990 to 

1998, and a presiding judge of the 

Oregon Court of Appeals from 

1988 to 1990.

The special proceeding 

commemorated the unveiling of 

a portrait of Judge Graber, which 

will hang in the historic Pioneer 

Courthouse, the Portland home of 

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Ninth Circuit Judge Barry G. 

Silverman of Phoenix presided over 

the session, joined on the bench by 

Judge Graber and Senior Circuit 

Judge Edward Leavy, also of Portland. 

Cathy A. Catterson, the circuit and 

court of appeals executive, served as 

clerk of court. Ninth Circuit Judges 

William A. Fletcher of San Francisco 

and Consuelo M. Callahan of 

Sacramento, California, also 

were present.

In attendance were Judge Graber’s 

husband, William June, and their 

daughter, Rachel 

June-Graber, and 

more than 100 

guests, including; 

judges of the U.S. 

District Court 

for the District of 

Oregon, justices of 

the Oregon Supreme 

Court, other state 

court judges and 

Oregon Attorney 

General Ellen F. 

Rosenblum. 

The program included remarks 

by Judge Leavy; Justice Edwin 

J. Peterson, retired chief justice 

of the Oregon Supreme Court; 

and a videotaped message of 

congratulations from former 

President Bill Clinton, who had 

nominated Judge Graber to the 

federal bench 15 years ago.

Judge Graber is one of the court’s 

most prolific jurists, participating in 

nearly 6,400 appeals and authoring 

nearly 1,300 majority opinions or 

dissents thus far in her career on the 

federal bench.

Prior to coming onto the bench, 

Judge Graber was in private 

practice in Oregon, Ohio and New 

Mexico from 1974 to 1988. She 

also has served as an assistant state 

attorney general in New Mexico. 

An Oklahoma native, she received 

her B.A. from Wellesley College in 

1969 and her J.D. from Yale Law 

School in 1972.

The portrait of Judge Graber 

was commissioned by her 

former law clerks. The painting 

was presented to the Pioneer 

Courthouse Historical Society, 

which, in turn, conveyed 

ownership to the Ninth Circuit 

Court of Appeals.

Done in oils on canvas by a local 

artist, Wayne Chinn, the portrait 

adorns a room immediately 

adjacent to the courtroom that is 

used by attorneys while waiting to 

present arguments.

The Pioneer Courthouse, 

which opened in 1875, is the 

oldest federal courthouse in the 

western states. It has served as 

the Portland home of the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals since 

1973. The portrait of Judge 

Graber joins those of eight other 

noteworthy jurists who have 

served the court since 1892.

PORTRAIT UNVEILING MARKS 

JURIST’S 25TH YEAR OF SERVICE
36

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Senior Circuit Judge J. Clifford 

Wallace, certificate of appreciation 

from the United States State 

Department for his “lifelong 

commitment to the Rule of Law and 

... many years of support for and 

participation in the public diplomacy 

rule of law-related programs of the 

U.S States Information Agency and 

the Department of State.” 

District of Arizona

Retired Magistrate Judge Glenda E. 

Edmonds, John M. Roll Award for 

Distinguished Service to the District 

of Arizona; Senior District Judge 

Roslyn O. Silver, for outstanding 

service to Veterans’ Program, Arizona 

Army National Guard, Arizona 

Coalition for Military Families, and 

Arizona Veterans Magazine, and for 

outstanding achievement, Federal 

Bar Association, Phoenix Chapter; 

Senior District Judge Frank R. Zapata, 

Public Service Award, University of 

Arizona, Alumni Association.

Central District of California

Senior District Judge Audrey B. 

Collins, co-recipient of Judge 

of the Year Award, Loyola Law 

School Fidler Institute Award for 

Excellence, and Meritorious Women 

Awardee, Los Angeles NAACP Youth 

Council; Bankruptcy Judge Barry 

Russell, Judge William L. Norton Jr. 

Judicial Excellence Award, Thomson 

Reuters; District Judge Christina 

A. Snyder, 2013 Ronald M. George 

Award for Judicial Excellence, 

Beverly Hills Bar Association.

Eastern District of California

Chief District Judge Morrison 

C. England, Jr., Martin Luther 

King Jr. Peace and Justice Award, 

University of the Pacific; Senior 

District Judge Anthony W. Ishii, 

President’s Award, Asian/Pacific 

Bar Association of Sacramento.

Northern District of California

District Judge William Alsup, Tara 

L. Riedley Barristers Choice Award, 

the Bar Association of San Francisco, 

and an award of recognition from 

Lewis and Clark Law School; Senior 

District Judge Saundra Brown 

Armstrong, honorary doctorate, 

University of San Francisco School 

of Law, Judicial Section Award, 

California Association of Black 

Lawyers, M’Lady Exemplary 

Service Award, Alpha Kappa 

Alpha Sorority, Inc.; District 

Judge Edward M. Chen, Federal 

Judge of the Year, San Francisco 

Trial Lawyers’ Association; Senior 

District Judge Samuel Conti, an 

award from the Veterans United 

for Truth; Senior District Judge 

Thelton E. Henderson, Thurgood 

Marshall Award, American Bar 

Association Section of Individual 

Rights and Responsibilities; District 

Judge Lucy H. Koh, IP Vanguard 

Award, Judiciary Award, California 

State Bar Intellectual Property Law 

Section; Bankruptcy Judge Arthur S. 

Weissbrodt, Fresh Start Award, San 

Jose Bar Association; Senior District 

Judge Ronald M. Whyte, Lifetime 

Achievement Award for his work in 

the patent field, Sedona Conference.

District of Idaho

Senior District Judge Edward J. 

Lodge, governor's declaration of 

July 1, 2013, as “Edward J. Lodge 

Day” marking Judge Lodge’s 50 

years on the bench; Chief District 

Judge B. Lynn Winmill, John Purce 

President’s Award, Pocatello NAACP.

District of Montana

Senior District Judge Donald W. 

Molloy, Honorary Doctor of Laws, 

University College Cork, Cork, 

Ireland.

District of Nevada

Chief District Judge Gloria M. 

Navarro, award recognizing 

exceptional accomplishments in 

advancing the standing of Hispanics 

in the legal profession, Las Vegas 

Latino Bar Association; inductee, 

William A. Blakey Diversity 

Pipeline Architects, Council on 

Legal Education Opportunity; and 

recognized for serving as the first 

judge in the law school’s Jurist in 

Residency Program, William S. 

Boyd School of Law.

Western District of Washington

District Judge Richard A. Jones, 

President’s Award, Washington 

Women Lawyers, King County 

Chapter; Bankruptcy Judge Karen 

A. Overstreet, Vanguard Award, 

Washington Women Lawyers, 

King County Chapter; Chief 

District Judge Marsha J. Pechman, 

Betty B. Fletcher Leadership and 

Justice Award, Mother Attorneys 

Association of Seattle.

JUDGES RECEIVING AWARDS IN 2013
37

In October, the Ninth Circuit 

ADR Committee announced the 

recipients of awards recognizing 

individual and institutional 

achievements in the field of 

alternative dispute resolution.

Susie Boring-Headlee, ADR 

coordinator for the United States 

District Court for the District of 

Idaho, was selected to receive the 

Robert F. Peckham Award for ADR 

Excellence, while the University 

of the Pacific, McGeorge School of 

Law, was honored with the Ninth 

Circuit ADR Education Award.

Ms. Boring-Headlee, who has 

served as the ADR coordinator in 

the District of Idaho for the past 

four years, was recognized for 

promoting use of ADR in both state 

and federal courts. She has served 

as a presenter and panelist at ADR 

workshops for judges; arranged for 

training of mediators in conjunction 

with the Northwest Institute of 

Dispute Resolution at the University 

of Idaho, College of Law; organized 

“settlement week” programs at the 

district court; and collaborated 

with information technology 

staff to streamline collection and 

management of ADR deadlines and 

other activities using the court’s 

electronic case filing system or ECF.

Since 2012, Ms. Boring-Headlee 

has served on the Federal Judicial 

Center's ADR Study Group, which 

is conducting an analysis of the 

costs, benefits, and effectiveness 

of ADR programs in the federal 

district courts. The study group 

will provide guidance to the 

national committees in determining 

best practices and future funding of 

court ADR programs. 

McGeorge Law School was 

recognized for its center for 

Advocacy and Dispute Resolution, 

which offers a full spectrum of 

dispute resolution course work, 

including mediation, negotiation and 

online dispute resolution strategies. 

The center has made significant 

contributions to the Sacramento, 

California, community through 

two unique mediation programs: 

the Prisoner Civil Rights Mediation 

Clinic and the Housing Mediation 

Clinic. The clinics serve as a publicprivate partnership model for other 

legal institutions, as well as mediation 

training for the clinical students.

Law students involved in prisoner 

mediation receive training in 

interviewing skills and the 

law of Section 1983 prison 

condition claims. They conduct 

prisoner interviews, draft bench 

memorandums and engage in 

co-mediation sessions led by a 

magistrate judge. Students are 

able to co-mediate 8 to 10 sessions 

during the clinic experience, 

and the magistrate judge gives 

them increasing responsibility for 

mediating the cases.

The Housing Mediation Clinic 

provides student mediators for 

disputes involving unlawful detainer 

and eviction actions. Training at 

the center includes participation in 

mock mediation sessions, observing 

housing mediation sessions, and comediating housing cases. Students 

attend a weekly seminar taught in 

addition to their hours at the center.

Both prisoner mediation and 

housing clinics provide a service 

to the community and a distinctive 

educational opportunity for the 

students. McGeorge Law School 

emphasizes the collaborative 

mediation model and the skill of 

working in teams as the goals their 

programs achieve. 

The Peckham and ADR Education 

awards were established in 2001 and 

2005, respectively, by the Judicial 

Council of the Ninth Circuit. The 

Peckham Award 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.

COURT STAFF, LAW SCHOOL RECOGNIZED 

FOR ADR EFFORTS

Susie Boring-Headlee, ADR 

Coordinator, District of Idaho
38

The Bay Area SuperStorm Training 

Symposium in March drew over 

150 representatives from federal, 

state and local government, and 

the private sector to consider how 

the Bay Area would weather a 

potentially paralyzing “superstorm.”

Held in San Francisco, the 

symposium was hosted by the 

Emergency Preparedness Working 

Group of the San Francisco 

Federal Executive Board. The 

training exercise, based on the 

United States Geological Survey’s 

ARkStorm Scenario, depicts 

impacts of a hypothetical storm 

similar in intensity to the winter 

storm that left California’s Central 

Valley virtually impassable in 1861 

and 1862. The exercise focused 

on readiness and preparedness, 

plan activation, continuity of 

operations, and reconstitution.

Keynote speakers included Rob 

Dudgeon, deputy director of the 

City of San Francisco Department 

of Emergency Management; 

Dale A. Cox, Region 9 lead of 

the Department of the Interior’s 

Regional Emergency Coordination 

Council and regional hazards 

coordinator for the USGS Pacific 

Southwest, which includes 

California, Nevada, Hawaii and the 

Pacific Islands; and Logan Johnson, 

warning coordination meteorologist 

for the U.S. National Weather 

Service San Francisco Bay Area in 

Monterey, California.

Organizers received highly positive 

feedback from attendees, most of 

who work with federal agencies. 

SFFEB’s Emergency Preparedness 

Working Group acknowledged FEB 

Executive Director Francine Roby, 

moderators and panelists, the event 

planning team, and Ninth Circuit 

COOP Coordinator Laudan Batino, 

who served as emcee for the event.

Prior training exercises have 

focused on a major earthquake, 

flooding, terrorist use of improvised 

explosive devices, pandemic 

influenza, cyber terrorism and 

disruption, and terrorist use of an 

improvised nuclear device, better 

known as a “dirty bomb.”

Training activities are open 

to federal and non-federal 

government organizations. SFFEB 

provides networking opportunity 

to help improve continuity and 

preparedness programs locally 

and nationwide.

GOVERNMENT, PRIVATE SECTOR CONFRONT 

‘SUPERSTORM’ CRISIS

Top right, from left, are Marie 

Jauregui from FEB, Rob Dudgeon 

from Department of Emergency 

Management in San Francisco, Dale A. 

Cox from USGS, and Logan Johnson 

from U.S. National Weather Service. 

Federal, state and local government, 

and private sector representatives 

above attend training symposium in 

San Francisco.
39

ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES

Willie “Will” 

Blasher, Jr., was 

appointed acting 

chief probation 

officer for 

the District 

of Oregon on 

March 25, 2013. Prior to his 

appointment, Mr. Blasher had 

previously served as deputy chief 

probation officer since 2008 and 

as a supervisory probation officer 

from 2001 to 2008. He began 

working as a probation officer in 

the District of Oregon in 1987. 

Prior to his federal experience, 

Mr. Blasher worked as an on-call 

juvenile caseworker in 1979, a 

corrections officer from 1979 to 

1982, and probation officer for 

the State of Oregon from 1982 to 

1987. He received his bachelor’s 

degree in psychology from the 

University of Oregon.

Heather L. 

Kennedy was 

appointed as 

clerk of court in 

April and sworn 

in as part-time 

magistrate 

judge for the United States District 

Court for the District of Northern 

Mariana Islands in June. Prior 

to joining the district court, Ms. 

Kennedy served as executive director 

of the Law Revision Commission 

and General Counsel to the 

Northern Mariana Islands, or 

NMI, Judiciary, as well as the mock 

trial coordinator for the NMI Bar 

Association. From 1999 to 2007, 

she worked as legal counsel and 

equal employment opportunity 

officer for the NMI Public School 

System. Before moving to the NMI, 

Ms. Kennedy worked as litigation 

associate for a corporate law firm 

in St. Louis, and as an assistant 

public defender in Charlotte, 

North Carolina. Born in NewYork 

and raised in Connecticut, she 

graduated from Guilford College 

in Greensboro, North Carolina, 

and earned her J.D. from 

Washington University School of 

Law in St. Louis.

Marianne 

Matherly was 

appointed 

the clerk of 

court for the 

U.S. District 

Court for the 

Eastern District of California 

on May 6, 2013. She began her 

federal government career in 

1979 with the U.S. Probation 

Office in Sacramento. In 1981, 

she transferred to the district 

court clerk’s office. During her 

32 years of service, she has been a 

civil and criminal docket clerk; a 

courtroom deputy to Magistrate 

Judge John F. Moulds, now 

retired, and Senior District Judge 

Lawrence K. Karlton; a judicial 

services supervisor and operations 

manager; and deputy-in-charge. 

Prior to her appointment, she 

had served as chief deputy since 

2005. Ms. Matherly holds a B.A. 

in political science and an M.P.A., 

both from Fresno State.

Sean McAvoy 

was appointed 

on January 1,

2013, to 

serve as the 

district court 

executive/

clerk of court for the U.S. District 

Court for the Eastern District 

of Washington. Prior to his 

appointment, Mr. McAvoy served 

as the bankruptcy clerk of court 

for the Northern District of Iowa, 

a position he held since September 

2000. Before joining the federal 

judiciary, Mr. McAvoy spent six 

years working within the Arizona 

State Court System in positions 

ranging from child support case 

administrator to director of 

Arizona’s third largest superior 

court. Prior to his career in court 

administration, Mr. McAvoy was 

a decorated Russian linguist in the 

United States Army. He received 

a B.A. from the University of 

Arizona and an M.B.A. from the 

University of Phoenix. He also is 

a fellow of the Institute for Court 

Management.

John Morrill 

is the acting 

clerk of court 

for the U.S. 

District Court 

for the Southern 

District of 

California. He was appointed in 

December 2013 to serve until 

recruitment of clerk of court 

is completed. Mr. Morrill has 

served in the Southern District 
40

of California for 23 years and 

has been the chief deputy of 

operations since 2005. He earned 

a B.A. degree in political science 

and a master’s degree in public 

administration from San Diego 

State University. Prior to serving 

with the U.S. district court, Mr. 

Morrill worked for the Washington 

State House of Representatives in 

Olympia, Washington.

Heather E. 

Williams was 

sworn in as the 

federal public 

defender for the 

Eastern District 

of California 

on May 6, 2013. She had served 

previously as an assistant federal 

public defender for the District 

of Arizona since 1994, eventually 

rising to the post of first assistant 

FPD. A graduate of Pittsburg 

State University, Kansas, and the 

University of San Diego School of 

Law, she worked first in San Diego 

then, in 1988, returned to Tucson, 

Arizona, where she worked at the 

Pima County Office of the Public 

Defender for more than 5 1⁄2 years. 

Ms. Williams speaks at seminars 

across the U.S. and teaches each 

summer at the National Criminal 

Defense College. She worked as 

an assistant adjunct faculty at the 

University of Arizona, James E. 

Rogers College of Law, where she 

taught legal ethics for criminal 

lawyers. In 2011, she received 

the Outstanding Assistant Federal 

Defender Award from the National 

Association of Federal Defenders.
41

SPACE &

FACILITIES

Construction is underway for the new U.S. Courthouse 

in Los Angeles.
42

COURTHOUSES UNDER CONSTRUCTION

Gross Square Footage: 23,000

Owner/Developer: Eureka Skyline 26 Partners

Occupancy Date: January 2015

U.S. Courthouse McKinleyville, California

U.S. Courthouse Los Angeles, California

Gross Square Footage: 600,000

Design/Build Team: Clark Construction & SOM

Occupancy Date: March 2016
43

COURTHOUSES UNDER CONSTRUCTION continued

COURTHOUSE COMPLETED

SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED (SBU) PROPERTY OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY - DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE - PROPERLY DESTROY OR RETURN DOCUMENTS WHEN NO LONGER NEEDED

entry lobby 

pavilion 

Prince Jonah Kuhio Kalaniana’ole Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse, Honolulu, Hawaii

Gross Square Footage: 862,269

Architects: Gensler and Associates

General Contractor: Swinerton

Completion Date: Courthouse (Phase I) 2014, 

Federal Building (Phase II) 2017

The John M. Roll United States Courthouse in Yuma, 

Arizona, opened for business on December 16, 2013. 

The courthouse is named in honor of the late 

Chief District Judge John M. Roll of the District 

of Arizona, who was killed in a mass shooting in 

Tucson in 2011. The 56,800-square-foot structure 

includes judges’ chambers, two courtrooms, and 

space for offices of the district and bankruptcy 

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

Marshals Service. Designed to be energy-efficient, 

the building uses electrical power from a canopy of 

solar panels that will generate 26,000 kilowatt-hours 

annually, equivalent to one-quarter of its anticipated 

energy needs. Other design features include living 

John M. Roll United States 

Courthouse Opens

walls, supporting snail vine and California grape; 

solar thermal collectors, which will heat one-third of 

domestic water; and a stormwater basin with 29,000 

cubic feet of capacity. A dedication ceremony will be 

held in April 2014.
44

GROUND BROKEN FOR 

NEW COURTHOUSE IN 

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA 

Judges of the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of California along with special 

guests and community leaders gathered on July 8, 

2013, for a groundbreaking ceremony marking the 

start of construction of a new federal courthouse 

near Eureka, California. The approximately 

23,000-square-foot courthouse in McKinleyville is 

scheduled for completion in 2014. It will include 

a courtroom and chambers for a magistrate judge 

along with space for the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, 

U.S. Probation Office, Office of the U.S. Attorney, 

and the U.S. Marshals Service. Pictured from left 

are Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas, who will be 

the resident judge; Senior District Judge Charles 

R. Breyer; U.S. Marshal Donald O’Keefe; Steve 

Moser, owner, Airport Business Park; Steven Doctor, 

president, C&SD Construction; and Ryan Sundberg, 

Fifth District supervisor, Humboldt County.

GROUND BROKEN FOR 

FEDERAL COURTHOUSE IN 

LOS ANGELES

Judges, community leaders, special guests and court 

staff gathered August 8, 2013, for a groundbreaking 

ceremony for the long-awaited United States 

Courthouse in downtown Los Angeles. The 

600,000-square-foot courthouse, scheduled to be 

completed in 2016, will house courtrooms and 

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

District of California, along with office space for the 

U.S. Marshals Service, Office of the U.S. Attorney, 

Office of the Federal Public Defender, Department 

of Homeland Security, Federal Protective Service, 

and the General Services Administration. Pictured 

from left are Chief District Judge George H. King and 

District Judge Margaret M. Morrow of the Central 

District of California; Craig Hartman, architect, 

SOM; Ruth Cox, GSA Region 9 administrator; 

U.S. Representative Lucille Roybal-Allard, 40th 

Congressional District; Los Angeles Mayor Eric 

Garcetti; and Richard Heim, president/CEO, Clark 

Construction.
45

WORK OF

THE COURTS

Circuit Judge Sidney R. Thomas speaks to new law clerks 

at an orientation held in San Francisco.
46

The United States Court of 

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 

continues to be the nation’s busiest 

federal appellate court. In fiscal 

year 2013, the court’s caseload 

remained virtually unchanged 

despite a slight increase in new 

filings. The court also reported 

another significant improvement in 

case processing times.

New appeals filed with the Ninth 

Circuit numbered 12,826 in FY 

2013, up 1.1 percent from the prior 

year. The Ninth Circuit had 22.7 

percent of all new appeals nationally, 

the most of any circuit. Appellate 

filings nationwide numbered 

56,475, down 1.8 percent overall. 

Eight circuits reported declines 

of between less than 1 percent to 

9 percent. Filings were up in four 

circuits, ranging as high as 5.8 

percent in the Sixth Circuit.

The Ninth Circuit disposed of 

12,779 cases in FY 2013, up 0.3 

percent, and ended the year with a 

pending caseload of 14,270 cases, 

also up 0.3 percent.

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 appeals were 

brought by litigants who were not 

represented by a lawyer.

Breakdown of New Appeals

District courts, which serve as 

trial courts in the federal judicial 

system, accounted for 61 percent 

of new filings in FY 2013. District 

courts generated 7,760 new 

appeals, down 4.1 percent from 

the prior year. Of the total, 

6,091were civil appeals and 1,669 

were criminal appeals. More than 

half of all new civil appeals from 

the district courts were prisoner 

petitions involving habeas corpus, 

capital habeas corpus, civil rights, 

Caseload Measure 2012 2013

Change

2012-13

Filings 12,684 12,826 1.1%

Terminations 12,735 12,779 0.3%

1Pending Cases 14,223 14,270 0.3%

1 APPELLATE CASELOAD PROFILE, 2012-2013

12012 pending cases revised.

Type of Appeal

Filings 

2012

Filings 

2013

Change

2012-13

% of Circuit

Total

Terminations 

2012

Terminations 

2013

Change

2012-13

Pending 

2012

Pending 

2013

Change

2012-13

Civil

U.S. Prisoner Petitions 513 549 7.0% 4.3% 628 584 -7.0% 375 343 -8.5%

Private Prisoner 

Petitions 2,777 2,519 -9.3% 19.6% 3,601 2,936 -18.5% 2,521 2,116 -16.1%

Other U.S. Civil 591 634 7.3% 4.9% 649 567 -12.6% 657 726 10.5%

Other Private Civil 2,538 2,389 -5.9% 18.6% 2,196 2,099 -4.4% 2,624 2,913 11.0%

Criminal 1,673 1,669 -0.2% 13.0% 1,705 2,099 -5.7% 1,783 1,846 3.5%

Other

Bankruptcy 196 273 39.3% 2.1% 164 206 25.6% 231 299 29.4%

Administrative Appeals 3,675 4,054 10.3% 31.6% 3,092 4,041 30.7% 5,785 5,870 1.5%

Original Proceedings 721 739 2.5% 5.8% 700 738 5.4% 156 157 0.6%

Circuit Total 12,684 12,826 1.1% 12,735 12,779 0.3% 14,132 14,270 1.0%

National Appellate Total 55,126 56,475 2.4% 57,357 58,393 1.8% 43,633 41,670 -4.5%

Ninth Circuit as % 

of National Total 23.0% 22.7% 0.3% 22.2% 21.9% 0.3% 32.4% 34.2% 1.9%

2 FILINGS, TERMINATIONS AND PENDING CASES BY APPEAL TYPE, 2012-2013

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

Federal Circuit. Beginning in 2007, the category entitled “reopened,” which includes all reopened appeals, has replace the category entitled “reinstated.” 

Therefore, data on reopened cases for 2007 and thereafter are not compatible to data published previously on reinstated cases. 

WITH CASELOAD STEADY, APPEALS COURT 

IMPROVES PROCESSING TIME
47

prison conditions and other matters. 

The U.S. government was a 

plaintiff or defendant in 1,183 new 

civil appeals, 19.4 percent of the 

total new cases commenced. 

Larger district courts produced 

greater numbers of appeals. The 

four district courts in California 

accounted for 64 percent of the new 

civil appeals and 48 percent of the 

new criminal appeals. The Central 

District of California, the busiest 

court in the circuit, generated 

2,323 new appeals, six fewer than 

the prior year. The Eastern District 

of California had the next largest 

number of new appeals with 941, 

down 14.8 percent. Nine district 

courts generated fewer appeals than 

the prior year.

On the criminal side, major 

categories include 495 appeals for 

property offenses, 485 for drug 

offenses, 418 for immigration 

offenses, 124 for offenses involving 

firearms and explosives, 113 for sex 

offenses and 79 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 were 

up for the second consecutive year 

with 4,054 new cases reported, an 

increase of 10.3 percent from FY 

2012. BIA appeals increased by 11 

percent to 3,881, which constituted 

30.3 percent of the court’s new 

filings. The Ninth Circuit had 53.7 

percent of the total BIA appeals filed 

nationally in FY 2013.

Original proceedings commenced 

in FY 2013 numbered 739 with the 

bulk involving second or successive 

habeas corpus petitions and 

mandamus appeals.

Terminations and Pending 

Cases

The court terminated 12,779, 

in FY 2013, up 0.3 percent from 

the prior year. Of the total, 

7,582 cases were terminated 

on the merits: 1,512 after oral 

argument, 5,735 after submission 

on the briefs, and 335 by 

consolidation. Merit terminations 

included 2,635 prisoner cases, 

1,216 criminal cases and 1,623 

administrative agency appeals. 

Another 5,197 cases were 

terminated on procedural grounds 

by judges and court staff. Judicial 

panels produced 589 published 

and 6,658 memorandum 

dispositions for the year.

Among cases terminated on the 

merits in FY 2013, 4,385 were 

affirmed or enforced, while 970 

cases were dismissed, reversed, 

remanded or disposed of by other 

means. Another 1,892 cases 

rejected on the basis of denial 

of a certificate of appealability. 

The court’s overall reversal rate 

was 8.3 percent, compared to a 

national average of 6.7 percent. 

By category, reversal rates were 3 

percent for prisoner appeals; 6.8 

percent for civil cases in which 

the government was a party; 19.7 

percent in other civil matters; 8.3 

percent in administrative agency 

appeals; and 11.5 percent in 

original proceedings.

The court’s pending caseload 

slightly increased by 0.3 percent 

to 14,270 in FY 2013. Among 

the pending cases, 41.1 percent 

involved administrative appeals; 

25.5 percent civil matters; 17.2 

percent prisoner petitions; and 13 

percent criminal matters. Of the 

pending caseload, 36.3 percent had 

been pending less than 6 months, 

22.2 percent pending 6 to 12 

By Stage of Appeal

Number of Months

Ninth Circuit National

2012 2013 2012 2013

1From Filing of Notice of Appeal or Docket Date to 

Filing or Appellee's Last Brief 7.8 8.2 6.0 5.8

From Filing of Appellee's Last Brief to Oral Argument 

or Submission on Brief 7.8 8.7 4.5 4.1

From Oral Argument to Last Opinion 

or Final Order 1.1 1.2 2.1 2.1

From Submission on Brief to Last Opinion 

or Final Order 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.4

1From Filing of Notice of Appeal or Docket Date to 

Last Option or Final Order 15.3 13.3 9.8 9.0

From Filing in Lower Court to Last Opinion 

or Final Order in Appeals Court 33.8 32.9 29.0 28.3

MEDIAN TIME INTERVALS IN MONTHS FOR MERIT

3 TERMINATIONS OF APPEALS, 2012-2013

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

1Docket date is used when computing the median time interval for original proceedings and appeals 

from administrative agencies.
48

JUDGES OF THE UNITED STATES COURT 

OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

1. Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge, Pasadena, CA 

2. Alfred T. Goodwin, Pasadena, CA* 

3. J. Clifford Wallace, San Diego, CA*

4. Procter Hug, Jr., Reno, NV*

5. Mary M. Schroeder, Phoenix, AZ

6. Jerome Farris, Seattle, WA*

7. Harry Pregerson, Woodland Hills, CA* 

8. Arthur L. Alarcón, Los Angeles, CA* 

9. Dorothy W. Nelson, Pasadena, CA*

10. William C. Canby, Jr., Phoenix, AZ*

11. Stephen Reinhardt, Los Angeles, CA

12. John T. Noonan, Jr., San Francisco, CA*

13. Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain, Portland, OR

14. Edward Leavy, Portland, OR*

15. Stephen S. Trott, Boise, ID*

16. Ferdinand F. Fernandez, Pasadena, CA*

17. Andrew J. Kleinfeld, Fairbanks, AK*

18. Michael Daly Hawkins, Phoenix, AZ*

19. A. Wallace Tashima, Pasadena, CA*

20. Sidney R. Thomas, Billings, MT

21. Barry G. Silverman, Phoenix, AZ*

22. Susan P. Graber, Portland, OR* 

23. M. Margaret McKeown, San Diego, CA

24. Kim McLane Wardlaw, Pasadena, CA

25. William A. Fletcher, San Francisco, CA

26. Raymond C. Fisher, Pasadena, CA

27. Ronald M. Gould, Seattle, WA

28. Richard A. Paez, Pasadena, CA 

29. Marsha S. Berzon, San Francisco, CA*

30. Richard C. Tallman, Seattle, WA

31. Johnnie B. Rawlinson, Las Vegas, NV

32. Richard R. Clifton, Honolulu, HI

33. Jay S. Bybee, Las Vegas, NV

34. Consuelo M. Callahan, Sacramento, CA

35. Carlos T. Bea, San Francisco, CA*

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

37. Sandra S. Ikuta, Pasadena, CA

38. N. Randy Smith, Pocatello, ID

39. Mary H. Murguia, Phoenix, AZ

40. Morgan Christen, Anchorage, AK

41. Jacqueline H. Nguyen, Pasadena, CA

42. Paul J. Watford, Pasadena, CA

43. Andrew D. Hurwitz, Phoenix, AZ 

*Not Pictured

5 1 11 20 24

37

26 42 32

30

43 38 36

33

34 41 23 28 31 39 40 25

27 13

Judges are listed in order of seniority.
49

months, and 41.4 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 2013. 

The median time interval from 

filing of a notice of appeal to 

final disposition of all cases was 

13.3 months, down from 15.3 

months in FY 2012 and 17.4 

months in FY 2011. Median time 

intervals varied by type of case, 

ranging from less than 1 month 

for BIA and other administrative 

agency appeals to 20 months for 

bankruptcy appeals. 

The median time interval 

from the filing of a case in a 

lower court to final appellate 

disposition was 32.9 months, 

down from 33.8 months in FY 

2012. The national median time 

intervals in FY 2013 were 9 

months from notice of appeal to 

final disposition by a circuit court 

of appeals, and 28.3 months from 

the filing of a case in a lower 

court to final disposition by a 

circuit court.

Once an appeal was fully 

briefed, Ninth Circuit judges 

decided cases fairly quickly. 

In FY 2013, the median time 

interval for panel decisions was 

1.2 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 2013, new appeals 

by pro se litigants numbered 

6,630, up 3 percent from the prior 

year. Pro se litigants accounted for 

52 percent of all appeals opened 

during the year. Prisoner petitions, 

2,713, and agency appeals, 1,743, 

made up 67.2 percent of the new 

pro se cases. The majority of pro 

se appeals, 4,104 cases, involved 

decisions of the district courts of

the circuit.

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

2013 832 32 17 15

2012 913 33 19 14

2011 826 128 13 14

2010 1,002 58 24 34

2009 1,014 36 14 22

NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS 

5 EN BANC BALLOTS, 2009-2013

1En banc call withdrawn in one case.

District Appeals % of Total

Alaska 87 0.7%

Arizona 841 6.6%

C. Calif. 2,323 18.1%

E. Calif. 941 7.3%

N. Calif. 843 6.6%

S. Calif. 588 4.6%

Guam 11 0.2%

Hawaii 136 1.1%

Idaho 159 1.2%

Montana 231 1.8%

Nevada 522 4.1%

Northern Mariana Islands 12 0.1%

Oregon 416 3.2%

E. Wash. 168 1.3%

W. Wash. 482 3.8%

Bankruptcy 273 2.1%

Administrative Agencies, Total 4,054 31.6%

IRS 49 0.4%

NLRB 29 0.2%

BIA 3,881 30.3%

Other Administrative Agencies 95 0.7%

Original Proceedings 739 12.9%

Circuit Totals 12,826

SOURCE OF APPEALS AND ORIGINAL 

4 PROCEEDINGS COMMENCED, 2013

Note: Totals include reopened and remanded appeals as well as original appeals. Administrative 

agency cases previously reported as immigration service (INS) are shown under Board of Immigration 

Appeals (BIA) and U.S. Tax Court is shown under IRS.
50

The court terminated 6,945 pro 

se appeals in FY 2013, down 

2 percent. Of that number, 

2,892 were closed on procedural 

grounds, while 4,053 were 

terminated on the merits either 

after oral argument or submission 

on the briefs. Of the total, 4,465 

were cases originated in the district 

courts. Prisoner petitions, 3,095, 

and agency appeals, 1,703, 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 

intra-circuit conflicts or other 

legal questions of exceptional 

importance. In FY 2013, 19 en 

banc courts were convened, each 

hearing one case. For the year, 

the court received 832 petitions 

seeking en banc review. Active 

judges of the court voted on 32 

en banc requests, granting en 

banc review in 17 cases. En banc 

decisions issued by the court in FY 

2013 numbered 11.

Death Penalty Cases

The court ended calendar year 2013 

with 107 pending death penalty cases 

from six states. Arizona and California 

had 44 and 40 pending cases, 

respectively. There were 13 pending 

cases in Nevada, six in Idaho, three 

in Washington and one in Oregon. 

Within the circuit, another 697 death 

penalty cases are pending before 

state supreme courts and federal trial 

courts of the circuit. Since 1976, 

there have been 74 executions by 

states within the circuit.

Contributions by Active, 

Senior and Visiting Judges

The court ended FY 2013 with 27 

active circuit judges and 16 senior 

circuit judges. During the year, 

active circuit judges participated in 

71 percent of all cases terminated 

on the merits, up slightly from 

prior year. Senior judges of the 

circuit were involved in 25 percent 

of the cases, while visiting judges 

helped decide 4 percent. Over 

the course of the year, 111 judges 

sat on the court by designation, 

including 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.
51

DISTRICT COURT CASELOADS DECLINE 

FOR SECOND YEAR

United States district courts, which 

serve as trial courts in the federal 

judicial system, have jurisdiction 

for nearly all civil and criminal 

matters. Of the 94 U.S. district 

courts nationwide, 15 are within the 

boundaries of the Ninth Circuit. 

District courts in the Ninth Circuit 

reported fewer new cases for the 

second consecutive year. New filings 

in fiscal year 2013 totaled 61,667, 

down 6.9 percent from the prior 

year. Ninth Circuit district courts 

accounted for 17. 4 percent of the 

353,522 new cases filed nationwide.

Criminal Caseload and 

Defendants 

Since FY 2012, the Administrative 

Office of the U.S. Courts has 

provided the following criminal 

statistics: the total number of new 

criminal cases commenced, the 

total number of new criminal 

defendants, and the number of 

new criminal defendants by type 

of offense. Data on criminal 

defendants takes into account 

that a single case may have 

multiple defendants.

District courts in the Ninth 

Circuit reported 16,136 new 

criminal cases, down 10.8 

percent from FY 2012. Criminal 

cases terminated during the 

year numbered 17,070, down 

15.8 percent, while the pending 

caseload at the end of the 

reporting period was 13,513, 

down 4.7 percent.

Ten of 15 courts in the circuit 

reported declines in new criminal 

case filings. The Ninth Circuit 

as a whole accounted for 23.4 

percent of the total criminal filings 

nationwide, which numbered 

68,918, down 3.3 percent from 

the prior year. 

In the Ninth Circuit, criminal 

defendants numbered 20,633, 

down 9.6 percent from prior fiscal 

year. Most defendants, 17,445, 

were charged with felony offenses. 

District courts reported 7,593 

defendants charged with drug 

offenses, constituting 37 percent 

of the total criminal defendants. 

Defendants charged with offenses 

involving marijuana numbered 

3,455, which constituted 51.1 

percent of the nationwide total of 

6,766. Defendants charged with 

all other drug offenses numbered 

4,138, or 18.5 percent of the 

nationwide total of 22,328.

Criminal defendants charged with 

immigration offenses numbered 

7,017 and accounted for 34.5 

percent of all criminal defendants 

in the circuit. Of the total, 5,697 

U.S. DISTRICT COURTS - TOTAL CRIMINAL AND CIVIL CASES 

FILED, TERMINATED AND PENDING, 2012-2013

Caseload Measure 2012 2013

1Change

2012-2013

Civil Filings 48,123 45,531 -5.4%

Criminal Filings 18,094 16,136 -10.8%

Total Filings 66,217 61,667 -6.9%

Civil Terminations 47,455 46,628 -1.7%

Criminal Terminations 20,277 17,070 -15.8%

Total Terminations 67,732 63,698 -6.0%

2Pending Civil Cases 39,972 38,875 -2.7%

Pending Criminal Cases 14,179 13,513 -4.7%

2Total Pending Cases 54,151 52,388 -3.3%

Civil Case Termination Index (in months) 10.11 10.00 -1.1%

Criminal Case Termination Index (in months) 8.38 9.50 13.4%

2Overall Case Termination Index 9.59 9.87 2.9%

Median Months (from filing to disposition) Civil Cases 6.70 7.30 9.0%

Median Months (from filing to disposition) Criminal Felony 

Defendants

5.70 5.20 -8.8%

Median Months National Total (from filing to disposition) 

Civil Cases 

7.80 8.50 9.0%

Median Months National Total (from filing to disposition) 

Criminal Felony Defendants

7.20 6.80 -5.6%

6

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. Median computed only for 10 or more defendants.

1Percent change not computed when fewer than 10 cases reported for the previous period.

22012 total pending civil cases and total pending cases revised.
52

AK AZ

C. 

Calif.

E. 

Calif.

N. 

Calif.

S. 

Calif. GU HI ID MT NMI NV OR

E. 

Wash.

W. 

Wash.

Total

2012

Total

2013

Change

2012-13

Violent Offenses

Homicide 1 39 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 5 0 0 4 3 5 59 61 3.4%

Robbery 2 13 21 4 14 16 0 2 2 2 0 29 35 0 8 126 148 17.5%

Assault 1 104 11 5 8 20 2 4 11 37 0 14 15 3 10 273 245 -10.3%

Other 1 40 15 5 9 1 0 17 1 12 0 18 6 13 4 107 142 32.7%

Property Offenses

Burglary, 

Larceny & 

Theft 4 37 67 39 24 11 19 17 6 20 0 16 38 33 131 468 462 -1.3%

Embezzlement 8 17 5 5 2 9 1 4 7 20 1 1 7 2 6 80 95 18.8%

Fraud 26 344 341 134 112 348 10 41 18 26 4 113 74 129 74 2,240 1,794 -19.9%

Forgery & 

Counterfeiting 2 4 14 11 7 0 0 12 4 2 0 5 6 8 10 140 85 -39.3%

Other 0 6 4 2 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 2 2 0 7 36 26 -27.8%

Drug Offenses

Marijuana 13 2,688 52 72 36 360 0 16 46 16 0 3 30 25 98 3,395 3,455 1.8%

All Other 

Drugs

82 418 512 315 220 1,523 19 156 92 130 0 201 108 174 188 4,335 4,138 -4.5%

Firearms and 

Explosives 

Offenses 35 159 47 84 143 41 5 20 23 57 2 107 87 73 76 1,142 959 -16.0%

Sex Offenses 8 95 56 93 37 68 7 12 20 60 3 62 49 29 32 575 631 9.7%

Justice System 

Offenses 1 39 11 13 12 27 0 6 1 2 2 9 15 9 3 166 150 -9.6%

Immigration 

Offenses

Improper 

Reentry by 

Alien 4 2,329 340 246 127 2,118 1 3 74 2 0 126 152 77 98 6,890 5,697 -17.3%

Other 1 414 13 3 13 859 3 1 1 0 0 3 1 1 7 1,596 1,320 -17.3%

General Offenses 33 37 75 19 18 52 4 28 12 15 1 14 13 29 50 370 400 8.1%

Regulatory 

Offenses 27 85 66 22 27 74 6 21 9 6 6 8 14 10 24 409 405 -1.0%

Traffic Offenses 0 1 1 12 32 0 5 17 0 0 0 0 3 0 310 355 381 7.3%

All Offenses Total 249 6,869 1,652 1,084 841 5,528 82 377 332 412 19 731 659 618 1,141 22,762 20,594 -9.5%

7 U.S. DISTRICT COURTS - CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS COMMENCED BY OFFENSE AND DISTRICT, 2012-2013

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.

offenders were charged with 

improper reentry into the country. 

District courts reported 2,462 

defendants charged with property 

offenses. Of the total, 1,794 were 

charged with fraud; 462 with 

burglary, larceny or theft; 95 with 

embezzlement; 85 for forgery 

and counterfeiting; and 26 

for other property offenses. 

Defendants charged with 

firearms and explosive offenses 

numbered 959, while violent 

offenses, including homicide, 

robbery, assault, and other 

violent offenses numbered 596. 

The District of Arizona, one of 

two district courts on the U.S.-

Mexico border, had the largest 

numbers of defendants charged 

with drug offenses and the second 

highest number of immigration 

offenses. Arizona defendants with 

drug-related offenses rose by 7.9 

percent to 3,106 and accounted 

for 41 percent of the circuit total. 

Defendants with immigration 

offenses declined by 22.5 percent 

to 2,743 but still accounted for 

39.1 percent of the circuit total.
53

Weighted Filings Per Judgeship Unweighted Filings Per Judgeship

District

 

Authorized

 Judgeships 

 

Civil Criminal

Supervision

Hearings

2013

Total

2012

Total

Change

2012-13 Civil Criminal

Supervision

Hearings

2013

Total

Alaska 3 111 77 0.56 189 196 -3.7% 97 82 4.00 183

Arizona 13 331 295 17.90 644 712 -9.6% 341 527 127.62 996

C. Calif. 28 596 52 4.28 652 691 -5.6% 504 59 30.07 593

E. Calif. 6 754 157 8.53 920 1,132 -18.7% 754 180 60.33 994

N. Calif. 14 562 52 4.36 618 675 -8.4% 426 60 30.14 516

S. Calif. 13 286 264 16.18 566 602 -6.0% 232 424 114.85 771

Hawaii 4 203 90 5.49 298 304 -2.0% 168 94 37.50 300

Idaho 2 320 158 5.74 484 577 -16.1% 287 166 41.00 494

Montana 3 235 142 7.54 385 380 1.3% 216 137 49.67 403

Nevada 7 454 98 5.04 557 547 1.8% 404 105 34.86 544

Oregon 6 413 96 8.47 517 533 -3.0% 385 110 60.33 555

E. Wash. 4 182 155 17.45 354 312 13.5% 193 153 122.75 469

W. Wash. 7 528 99 6.82 634 660 -3.9% 490 164 46.86 701

Circuit Total 110 4,975 1,735 108.36 6,818 7,321 -6.9% 4,497 2,261 759.98 7,519

Circuit Mean *** 383 133 8.34 524 563 -6.9% 346 174 58.46 578

Circuit Median *** 331 99 6.82 557 577 -3.5% 341 137 46.86 544

National Mean *** 413 113 5.81 531 478 11.2% 398 136 38.71 573

National Total 673 432 107 5.58 545 520 4.8% 400 135 37.86 573

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.

The circuit’s other border 

court, the Southern District of 

California, had 2,977 defendants 

charged with immigration 

offenses, the most in the circuit 

although down 12.4 percent from 

prior fiscal year. The district 

ranked second in the circuit in 

number of defendants with drugrelated offenses, 1,883, down 

14.9 percent in FY 2013. The 

district had 24.8 percent of all 

defendants with drug-related 

offenses in the circuit.

With fewer new cases, eight 

courts were able to reduce their 

pending criminal caseloads. 

Notable reductions were seen in 

the District of Arizona, which 

reported 344 fewer pending cases, 

a decrease of 13.7 percent, and the 

Southern District of California, 

which had 250 fewer pending 

cases, a 9.5 percent decrease.

Civil Caseload

In fiscal year 2013, district courts of 

the Ninth Circuit reported 45,531 

new civil filings, down 5.4 percent 

from the prior year. Civil matters 

made up 73.8 percent of the district 

courts’ total caseload. Civil filings 

increased nationally by 2.2 percent 

over the prior fiscal year.

District courts of the Ninth Circuit 

closed 46,628 cases, ending the 

fiscal year with a pending caseload 

of 38,875 cases.

Private civil cases, which 

numbered 35,978, accounted for 

79 percent of all new civil filings 

in FY 2013. Within this category, 

prisoner petitions were most 

numerous, numbering 9,413, up 

2.3 from the prior year. Prisoner 

petitions accounted for 26.2 percent 

of all new private civil cases.

Other major categories of new 

private civil filings were civil 

rights, 5,616 cases or 15.6 
54

percent; contracts, 3,925 cases or 

10.9 percent; intellectual property 

suits, 2,994 or 8.3 percent; real 

property suits, 2,784 cases or 7.7 

percent; labor suits, 2,494 cases 

or 6.9 percent; and other personal 

injury, 2,392 or 6.6 percent.

Civil cases in which the U.S. 

government was a party numbered 

9,553, accounting for 21 percent 

all civil filings. The government 

acted as a plaintiff in 2,071 cases 

and as a defendant in 7,482 cases. 

Among matters involving the 

government, social security cases 

were most numerous, rising 12.4 

percent to 4,023 and accounting 

for 42.1 percent of the total. 

Other major categories were 

prisoner petitions 1,798 cases or 

18.8 percent, and contracts, 1,136 

cases or 11.9 percent.

Civil filings increased in four 

district courts in fiscal year 2013. 

The District of Arizona reported 

the largest increase, up 11 percent 

to 4,500 new cases. Civil filings 

numbered 2,371 in the District of 

Oregon, up 1.4 percent; 2,932 in the 

District of Nevada, up 0.8 percent; 

and 3,558 in the Western District of 

Washington, up 0.7 percent.

Civil filings were down in 10 district 

courts. The Central District of 

California, which had the highest civil 

caseload in the circuit and second in 

the nation, reported 14,733 filings, 

down 6.4 percent from FY 2012. 

Other districts reporting decreased 

filings were Alaska, Eastern 

California, Northern California, 

Southern California, Hawaii, Idaho, 

Montana, Northern Mariana Islands, 

and Eastern Washington.

Civil case terminations in the Ninth 

Circuit numbered 46,628, down 

1.7 percent in FY 2013. Civil 

terminations nationwide decreased 

by 6 percent to 255,260. Pending 

civil cases were down 2.7 percent 

to 38,875 in the circuit, while 

pending civil cases nationwide rose 

by 10.8 percent to 300,485. 

Case Processing Times 

Case processing times in the 

district courts of the Ninth Circuit 

held steady or increased in fiscal 

year 2013. The Case Termination 

Index, which computes how long 

it would take to clear the pending 

caseload if the current termination 

rate remained constant, was 9.87 

months compared to 9.59 months 

the prior fiscal year.

The median time from filing to 

disposition of civil cases in the 

Ninth Circuit increased to 7.3 

months from 6.7 months the 

prior fiscal year, while the national 

median increased from 7.8 to 8.5 

months in FY 2013.

For criminal defendants, the 

median time from filing to 

disposition in the Ninth Circuit 

was 5.2 months compared to 5.7 

months in FY 2012. The national 

median time was 6.8 months, 

down from 7.2 months the prior 

fiscal year.
55

Bankruptcy filings in the Ninth 

Circuit declined for the third 

consecutive year. The 15 districts 

within the circuit reported 237,750 

new filings in FY 2013, down 22.2 

percent from the prior fiscal year. A 

rebounding economy and declining 

unemployment in states within the 

circuit contributed to the downturn.

Overall, 14 out of 15 districts in 

the circuit saw bankruptcy filings 

decline in FY 2013. They were led 

by Nevada and California, where 

unemployment rates declined 

modestly. The United States 

Bankruptcy Court for the Central 

District of California, the nation’s 

busiest bankruptcy court, reported 

82,861 filings, down 26 percent 

from FY 2012. The District of 

Nevada reported 14,483 filings, 

down 25.5 percent from the 

prior fiscal year. Total bankruptcy 

filings in all four California judicial 

districts numbered 149,203, down 

24.9 percent from FY 2012.

Declines in filings also were reported 

elsewhere in the circuit. The District 

of Arizona reported 24,046 new 

cases, down 20.2 percent. Filings 

were down by 10.8 percent to 

20,477 in the Western District of 

Washington; by 14.8 percent to 

13,677 in the District of Oregon; by 

8.3 percent to 5,253 in the Eastern 

District of Washington; by 15.7 

percent to 5,643 in the District of 

Idaho; by 14.9 percent to 1,851 in 

the District of Montana; by 13.4 

percent to 2,313 in the District 

of Hawaii; by 24.1 percent to 638 

in the District of Alaska; and by 

36.4 percent to 7 in the District of 

Northern Mariana Islands. Filings in 

the District of Guam increased by 6 

cases to 159.

Chapter 7 cases were most 

numerous throughout the circuit 

and accounted for 79 percent of 

all new filings. Chapter 13 filings 

amounted to nearly 20.2 percent of 

the circuit total with Chapters 11 

and 12 making up the remainder. 

Nonbusiness filings involving 

individual debtors accounted for 

96.6 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. Some courts 

have established self-help centers 

for these 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.

The Central District of California 

reported 21,097 pro se filings. The 

district accounted for 49.8 percent 

of the 42,334 pro se filings in the 

Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit, 

in turn, accounted for 43.3 percent 

of pro se filings nationwide.

Also reporting large numbers of 

pro se bankruptcy filings were 

the Eastern District of California, 

5,513 or 13 percent of all pro se 

filings in the circuit; the District of 

Caseload Measure 2012 2013 Change 2012-2013

Filings

 Business Chapter 7 7,394 5,885 -20.4%

 Business Chapter 11 1,912 1,522 -20.4%

 Business Chapter 12 108 69 -36.1%

 Business Chapter 13 792 627 -20.8%

 Nonbusiness Chapter 7 228,217 181,606 -20.4%

 Nonbusiness Chapter 11 836 660 -21.1%

 Nonbusiness Chapter 13 66,250 47,359 -28.5%

 Total 305,509 237,728 -22.2%

Terminations 329,107 274,593 -16.6%

1Pending Cases 280,822 243,981 -13.1%

BUSINESS AND NONBUSINESS BANKRUPTCY CASES COMMENCED, 

9 BY CHAPTER OF THE U.S. BANKRUPTCY CODE, 2012-2013

12012 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 2012

Arizona (Chapter 15 = 3); Central Calif. (Chapter 9 = 1, Chapter 15 = 2); Eastern Calif. (Chapter 9 = 3, 

Chapter 15 = 3); Northern Calif. (Chapter 9 = 1, Chapter 15 = 1); Nevada (Chapter 15 = 1)

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)

BANKRUPTCY FILINGS DOWN FOR THIRD YEAR
56

Arizona, 5,144 or 12.2 percent; and 

the Northern District of California, 

3,713 or 8.8 percent.

Terminations and Pending 

Cases

Cases terminated by bankruptcy 

courts in the Ninth Circuit numbered 

274,593, which accounted for 23 

percent of the 1,197,918 cases 

terminated nationally. The Central 

District of California, had the highest 

number of cases terminated in the 

circuit with 96,424 or 35.1 percent 

of all cases terminated in the circuit. 

The Eastern District of California 

followed with 35,146 cases or 

12.8 percent; the District of 

Arizona, 28,595 cases or 10.4 

percent; the Northern District 

of California, 24,455 cases or 9 

percent; the Western District of 

Washington, 22,598 cases or 8.2 

percent; the District of Nevada, 

18,829 cases or 7 percent; and the 

Southern District of California, 

15,212 cases or 5.5 percent.

Bankruptcy courts in the circuit 

reported 243,981 pending cases in 

fiscal year 2013, down 13.1 percent. 

The Central District of California 

saw its pending caseload decrease by 

19.9 percent to 54,555 cases. The 

District of Arizona reported 37,572 

pending cases, down 10.8 percent. 

Pending cases were up slightly in the 

District of Hawaii.

Municipal Bankruptcies

Since 2008, four municipalities in 

California have filed for bankruptcy. 

They include Vallejo, which sought 

bankruptcy protection in 2008, and 

Mammoth Lakes, Stockton and San 

Bernardino in 2012.

Bankruptcy exit 

plans for Vallejo 

and Mammoth 

Lakes were 

approved by the 

U.S. Bankruptcy 

Court for the 

Eastern District 

of California in 

2011 and 2012, 

respectively, while 

San Bernardino 

struggles to get 

its plan approved 

amid dispute with 

the California 

Public Employees’ 

Retirement Sytem, 

or CalPERS, over 

the city’s pension 

obligation to 

its employees. 

In December 

2013, a district court judge for 

the Central District of California 

granted CalPERS’ bid to appeal the 

bankruptcy court judge’s ruling 

directly to the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the Ninth Circuit. Stockton’s 

bankruptcy exit plan is also on hold 

due to one creditor objecting to its 

proposed plan. In November 2013, 

a judge from the Eastern District of 

California bankruptcy court allowed 

all creditors to consider Stockton’s 

plan by voting on whether to accept 

or reject its plan. At year’s end, 

San Bernardino and Stockton’s plan 

remain pending.

Appointments, Transitions

In 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the Ninth Circuit appointed seven 

new bankruptcy judges. The new 

judges were Eddward P. Ballinger, 

Daniel P. Collins, and Brenda Moody 

Whinery, in Arizona district ; Hannah 

L. Blumenstiel, in the Northern 

District of California; Frederick P. 

Corbit, in the Eastern District of 

Washington; and Laurel E. Davis and 

August B. Landis in Nevada district.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the 

District of Arizona saw a change of 

leadership in 2013. Elevated to chief 

bankruptcy judge in February was 

Judge Randolph J. Haines of Tucson.

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. In FY 2013, 15 recalled 

bankruptcy judges were serving in 

11 districts.

District

Total Filings 

2012

Total Filings 

2013

Change

2012-2013

Alaska 841 638 -24.1%

Arizona 30,135 24,046 -20.2%

C. Calif. 111,909 82,861 -26.0%

E. Calif. 39,481 30,685 -22.3%

N. Calif. 28,935 21,841 -24.5%

S. Calif. 18,359 13,816 -24.7%

Guam 153 159 3.9%

Hawaii 2,672 2,313 -13.4%

Idaho 6,690 5,643 -15.7%

Montana 2,175 1,851 -14.9%

Nevada 19,434 14,483 -25.5%

N. Mariana Is. 11 7 -36.4%

Oregon 16,048 13,677 -14.8%

E. Wash 5,726 5,253 -8.3%

W. Wash. 22,955 20,477 -10.8%

Circuit Total 305,524 237,750 -22.2%

NINTH CIRCUIT BANKRUPTCY COURTS, 

10 2012-2013

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

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

2013, 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.
57

Based in the Richard H. Chambers 

U.S. Court of Appeals Building in 

Pasadena, California, the Ninth 

Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate 

Panel hears appeals of decisions 

made by bankruptcy courts in the 

western states.

The BAP operates under the 

authority of the Judicial Council 

of the Ninth Circuit. Judges 

of the United States Court of 

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 

appoint BAP judges, who serve 

seven-year terms and may be 

reappointed to an additional 

three-year term. They are 

precluded from hearing appeals 

arising from their own districts.

The BAP is authorized seven 

bankruptcy judges but has kept 

one seat vacant since 2003 to 

reduce costs. 

All district courts within the 

Ninth Circuit have issued 

general orders providing 

for the automatic referral of 

bankruptcy appeals to the BAP 

for disposition. However, if 

any party files a timely election 

to have the appeal heard by 

a district court, the appeal is 

transferred according to the 

consent rule.

New Filings

After four years of steady 

increase, total BAP filings 

declined in fiscal year 2013. 

New appeals numbered 944, 

down 7 percent from FY 

2012. The BAP handled 57 

percent of all bankruptcy 

appeals, and the district 

courts handled 43 percent. 

Historically, the percentage 

of appeals that the BAP has 

handled has ranged between 

49 percent and 60 percent. 

District

Bankruptcy 

Appellate 

Panel

District 

Court1 Total

Alaska 2 1 3

Arizona 57 43 100

C. Calif. 234 191 425

E. Calif. 71 16 87

N. Calif. 55 51 106

S. Calif. 26 16 42

Hawaii 2 12 14

Idaho 7 8 15

Montana 6 7 13

Nevada 43 32 75

Oregon 3 6 9

E. Wash. 14 1 15

W. Wash. 18 22 40

Total 538 (57%) 406 (43%) 944

NEW BANKRUPTCY APPEAL 11 FILINGS, 2013

1The 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.

APPEALS TO BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL

The BAP consists of, seated from left, 

Bankruptcy Judge Randall L. Dunn of the 

District of Oregon, new chair of the BAP; 

Bankruptcy Judges Jim D. Pappas of the 

District of Idaho, Meredith A. Jury of the 

Central District of California; and standing 

from left, Bankruptcy Judges *Eileen W. 

Hollowell of the District of Arizona, *Bruce A. 

Markell of the District of Nevada, and Chief 

Bankruptcy Judge Ralph B. Kirscher of the 

District of Montana. 

Not pictured: Chief Bankruptcy Judge Frank 

L. Kurtz of the Eastern District of Washington 

and Chief Bankruptcy Judge Laura S. Taylor of 

the Southern District of California.

*Term expired
58

Dispositions

In fiscal year 2013, the BAP 

disposed of 678 appeals, down 

6 percent the prior fiscal 

year. Of those, 192 appeals 

were merits terminations. 

Oral argument was held in 

151 appeals and 41 appeals 

were submitted on briefs. Of 

the 192 merits decisions, 24 

were published opinions. The 

reversal rate was 5 percent. 

The median time for an appeal 

decided on the merits was 

11.2 months.

Of the remaining 486 closed cases, 

6 were terminated by consolidation; 

112 were transferred to the district 

courts after appellee elections or in 

the interest of justice; and 368 were 

terminated on procedural grounds, 

such as for lack of prosecution, 

lack of jurisdiction or voluntary 

dismissal. The BAP ended fiscal year 

2013 with 295 appeals pending, 

down 9 percent from FY 2011.

Appeals to the Ninth Circuit

The Ninth Circuit Court of 

Appeals has jurisdiction for 

second-level appellate review 

of bankruptcy decisions made 

by either the BAP or a district 

court. There were 268 secondlevel appeals filed in fiscal year 

2013. Of these, 131 were 

appeals from decisions by the 

BAP and 137 were from decisions 

by the district courts. Thus, 

of the 678 appeals that were 

disposed of by the BAP, roughly 

81 percent were fully resolved, 

with only about 19 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 

caseload. In fiscal year 2013, the 

BAP used eight pro tem appointees 

to assist with oral arguments and 

merits decisions. The BAP reached 

out to seven of the Ninth Circuit’s 

newly appointed bankruptcy judges 

to provide them the opportunity 

to review trial work from the 

appellate perspective.

BAP Transitions

Chief Bankruptcy Judge Laura S. 

Taylor of the Southern District 

of California joined the BAP on 

January 1, 2013. She succeeded 

Bankruptcy Judge Eileen W. 

Hollowell of the District of 

Arizona, who had served on 

the panel since 2008. Chief 

Bankruptcy Judge Frank L. 

Kurtz of the Eastern District of 

Washington commenced his term 

on the BAP on July 10, 2013, 

when Bankruptcy Judge Bruce A. 

Markell of the District of Nevada 

retired from the bench.

 

Bankruptcy Judge Randall L. Dunn 

of the District of Oregon, who has 

served on the BAP since 2006, was 

reappointed to a three-year term, 

which commenced on July 30, 2013. 

Judge Dunn also was selected by 

his BAP colleagues to serve as chief 

judge of the panel. He succeeded 

Bankruptcy Judge Jim D. Pappas 

of Boise, Idaho, who stepped down 

after serving as chief judge since 

2010. Judge Dunn assumed the 

gavel on August 1, 2013, and will 

serve as chief judge until 2016.

Year

Appeals 

Total

Raw Appeals

Received by BAP

2Net 

Appeals 

BAP

3Net Appeals 

District Court

4Election 

Rate

Percentage of 

Appeals

Heard by BAP

FY 2011 1,011 698 597 417 41% 59%

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

FY 2013 944 650 538 406 43% 57%

12 NINTH CIRCUIT BANKRUPTCY APPEAL FILINGS, 2011-2013

1Number 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.)

2The number of raw bankruptcy appeals received by BAP less the number of appeals transferred from 

BAP to district court by election or other transfer.

3Includes the number of all bankruptcy appeals received by district court either referred directly from 

the bankruptcy court or transferred from the BAP.

4Percentage of bankruptcy appeals where one or more parties timely elected to have their appeals 

heard in district court.

Chief Bankruptcy Judge Laura S. 

Taylor and Bankruptcy Judge Frank 

L. Kurtz
59

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 2013, the Administrative Office of 

the United States Courts has used a 

new software program to recalculate 

2013 statistics and previous years. 

In some categories, statistics differ 

in this report compared to those in 

previous reports.

In 2013, 103 full-time and 11 

part-time magistrate judges along 

with 18 recalled magistrate judges 

served in 15 district courts of the 

Ninth Circuit. They disposed of a 

combined 253,748 judicial matters 

during the year. Their dispositions 

were down 6.2 percent from fiscal 

year 2012. 

Preliminary proceedings is the 

largest category of matters 

presided over by magistrate 

judges. These proceedings include 

arraignments, initial appearances, 

detention hearings and warrants 

for searches and arrests. 

Preliminary proceedings in fiscal 

year 2013 numbered 93,783, 

down 6.8 percent from FY 

2012. Among all categories only 

warrants for searches and arrests 

showed increases in FY 2012. 

Search warrants rose 14.7 percent 

to 14,971, while arrest warrants 

were up .6 percent to 7,651. 

Additional duties related to 

criminal matters were down 

5.4 percent to 46,465. This 

category includes non-dispositive 

and dispositive motions, pretrial 

conferences, hearings on probation 

revocations and supervised release, 

and guilty plea proceedings. Nondispositive motions numbered 

15,967, up 9.1 percent from FY 

2012 total of 14,630.

Additional duties related to civil 

matters were down 4.4 percent to 

49,102 from 51,363 in FY 2012. 

Non-dispositive motions/grants of 

in forma pauperis, or IFP, status, 

pretrial conferences and settlement 

conferences made up the bulk of 

this work.

Trial jurisdiction cases, which 

include Class A misdemeanors and 

petty offenses, numbered 37,804, 

MAGISTRATE JUDGES FULFILL KEY DUTIES
60

Activity 2012 2013

Percent Change

2012-2013

Total Matters 270,415 253,748 -6.2%

Preliminary Proceedings 100,598 93,783 -6.8%

Search Warrants 13,057 14,971 14.7%

Arrest Warrants 7,609 7,651 0.6%

Summonses 1,226 1,119 -8.7%

Initial Appearances 25,741 23,341 -9.3%

Preliminary Hearings 8,550 7,307 -14.5%

Arraignments 20,643 17,306 -16.2%

Detention Hearings 15,474 14,489 -6.4%

Bail Reviews/Forfeitures/Nebbia Hearings 1,846 1,788 -3.1%

Other 6,452 5,811 -9.9%

Trial Jurisdiction Cases 40,264 37,804 -6.1%

Class A Misdemeanors 2,542 2,889 13.7%

Petty Offenses 37,722 34,915 -7.4%

Civil Consent Cases 4,627 4,760 2.9%

Without Trial 4,562 4,693 2.9%

Jury Trial 51 51 0.0%

Nonjury Trial 14 16 14.3%

Additional Duties

Criminal 49,097 46,465 -5.4%

Non-Dispositive Motions 14,630 15,967 9.1%

Dispositive Motions 180 219 21.7%

Evidentiary Proceedings 124 139 12.1%

Pretrial Conferences 18,866 15,879 -15.8%

Probation and Supervised Release

Revocation Hearings 1,470 1,933 31.5%

Guilty Plea Proceedings 12,137 9,669 -20.3%

Other 1,690 2,659 57.3%

 Civil 51,363 49,102 -4.4%

Settlement Conferences/Mediations 2,667 2,977 11.6%

Other Pretrial Conferences 4,942 4,095 -17.1%

1Non-Dispositive Motions/Grants 

of IFP Status 37,425 35,974 -3.9%

Other Civil Dispositive Motions 2,334 2,195 -6.0%

Evidentiary Proceedings 93 86 -7.5%

Social Security 702 719 2.4%

Special Master References 1 2 100.0%

Other 3,199 3,054 -4.5%

Prisoner Petitions 7,463 6,734 -9.8%

State Habeas 3,381 2,973 -12.1%

Federal Habeas 449 355 -20.9%

Civil Rights 3,611 3,383 -6.3%

Evidentiary Proceedings 22 23 4.5%

2Miscellaneous Matters 17,003 15,100 -11.2%

MATTERS DISPOSED OF BY NINTH CIRCUIT MAGISTRATE 

13 JUDGES, 2012-2013

1In 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. Total matters disposed of by Ninth Circuit magistrate 

judges in fiscal year 2012 revised

2Due to a reporting problem, CJA fee applications, a 

component of Miscellaneous Matters are estimated at their 

2009 level.

down 6.1 percent from FY 2012. Petty 

offenses were down 7.4 percent to 

34,915 while Class A misdemeanors 

were up 13.7 percent to 2,889.

Civil consent cases, in which a 

magistrate judge presides at the consent 

of the parties, increased by 2.9 percent 

to 4,760. The great majority of cases 

were disposed of without trial. 

Prisoner petitions numbered 6,734, 

down 9.8 percent from the prior fiscal 

year. State habeas and civil rights 

petitions made up the bulk of this work.

New Magistrate Judges and 

Governance

Four new full-time magistrate judges 

were sworn into office in 2013. They 

were Douglas F. McCormick and 

Alka Sagar of the Central District of 

California; Nancy J. Koppe of the 

District of Nevada; and John T. Rodgers 

of the Eastern District of Washington. 

Clerk of Court Heather L. Kennedy of 

the District of the Northern Mariana 

Islands took the oath of office as a 

magistrate judge in June 2013. She 

was the district’s first magistrate judge 

and is only the third in the nation to 

hold a combined position of part-time 

magistrate judge and clerk of court. 

Chief Magistrate Judge Candy W. Dale 

of the District of Idaho succeeded 

Magistrate Judge David K. Duncan 
61

of the District of Arizona as 

chair of the Magistrate Judges 

Executive Board. Judge Dale 

serves as an official observer at 

meetings of the Judicial Council 

of the Ninth Circuit. Her term 

began in 2012 and will expire in 

2014. Appointed to the board 

in 2013 were Magistrate JudgeClerk Kennedy, Chief Magistrate 

Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte of the 

Northern District of California and 

Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke 

of the District of Oregon.

New magistrate judges attending 

the New Judges Orientation held 

May 2-3, 2013, at the James R. 

Browning U.S. Courthouse in San 

Francisco, had the opportunity 

to meet the Magistrate Judges 

Executive Board. During an 

informal session, board members 

offered advice and encouragement 

and shared their own experience in 

dealing with complex matters. 

Educational Program

The Magistrate Judges Education 

Committee sponsored a 

program in conjunction with 

the Federal Judicial Center’s 

national program for magistrate 

judges. Held July 2013 at 

the U.S. District Court in 

San Diego, the Ninth Circuit 

program, “How Competent 

Are You When It Comes to 

Competency Hearings?” 

focused on mental competency, 

including government statute, 

competency hearings, and 

issues related to treatment, 

restoration of competency, 

involuntary medication, speedy 

trial implications, and final 

disposition. 
62

Offices of the Federal Public 

Defenders open fewer cases in 

fiscal year 2013, a decline due 

in part to the staff reductions 

resulting from sequestration. 

Total cases opened numbered 

32,539, down by 3.3 percent 

from FY 2012. 

Between October 2012 and 

June 2013, staffing levels at 

federal defender offices in the 

nation declined by 6 percent 

according to 87 chief district 

judges, who sent a collective 

letter to the president, 

expressing their concern 

over the $50 million budget 

shortfall for defender services.

Federal defenders in eight districts 

reported reduced caseloads in FY 

2013. The sharpest decline, both 

numerically and percentage-wise, 

was in the Southern District of 

California, which reported 6,636 

new cases, down 15.8 percent 

from the prior fiscal year. The 

Central District of California 

followed with 3,441 cases, down 

6.7 percent; District of Oregon, 

1,337 cases, down 5.8 percent; 

District of Montana, 629 cases, 

down 7.2 percent; District of 

Hawaii, 483 cases, down 7.3 

percent; District of Nevada, 1,064 

cases, down 3.3 percent; District 

of Idaho, 279 cases, down 7.9 

percent; and the District of Guam, 

114 cases, down 8.1 percent.

 

Elsewhere in the circuit, federal 

defenders in six districts reported 

an increase in new cases. The 

Cases 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Change

2012-2013

Opened 30,552 31,691 33,929 33,664 32,539 -3.3%

Closed 29,316 31,508 33,733 33,376 33,192 -0.6%

Pending 10,580 10,753 10,950 11,236 10,120 -9.9%

NINTH CIRCUIT FEDERAL DEFENDER ORGANIZATIONS:

14 CASES OPENED, CLOSED AND PENDING, 2009-2013

District

Opened

2012

Opened

2013

Change

2012-2013

Closed

2012

Closed

2013

Change

2012-2013

Pending

2013

Alaska 302 347 14.9% 348 312 -10.3% 125

Arizona 12,033 12,085 0.4% 12,297 11,681 -5.0% 1,270

C. Calif. 3,688 3,441 -6.7% 3,323 3,256 -2.0% 1,843

E. Calif. 1,700 1,744 2.6% 1,776 1,822 2.6% 712

N. Calif. 1,761 1,944 10.4% 1,671 1,880 12.5% 656

1S. Calif. 7,881 6,636 -15.8% 7,525 7,692 2.2% 2,586

Guam 124 114 -8.1% 131 107 -18.3% 82

Hawaii 521 483 -7.3% 551 622 12.9% 322

1Idaho 303 279 -7.9% 289 286 -1.0% 137

1Montana 678 629 -7.2% 716 617 -13.8% 222

Nevada 1,100 1,064 -3.3% 1,110 1,061 -4.4% 714

Oregon 1,420 1,337 -5.8% 1,445 1,484 2.7% 653

1E. Wash. 811 1,025 26.4% 839 977 16.4% 359

W. Wash. 1,342 1,411 5.1% 1,355 1,395 3.0% 439

Circuit Total 33,664 32,539 -3.3% 33,376 33,192 -0.6% 10,120

National Total 137,764 138,039 0.2% 135,579 140,260 3.5% 45,228

Circuit Total as % 

of National Total 24.4% 23.6% -0.9% 24.6% 23.7% -1.0% 22.4%

15 FEDERAL DEFENDER ORGANIZATIONS: SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS BY DISTRICT, 2012-2013

1Community Defender Organizations

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

In addition to handling criminal defenses and appeals, public defenders are assigned to court-directed prisoner and witness representations, bail/pre-sentencing, 

supervised release, and probation and parole revocation hearings. 

FEDERAL DEFENDERS COPE WITH 

SEQUESTRATION
63

Eastern District of Washington had 

the biggest increase, percentagewise, reporting 1,025 cases, up 

26.4 percent. Other offices with 

increases were the Northern 

District of California, 1,944 cases, 

up 10.4 percent; the Western 

District of Washington, 1,411 

cases, up 5.1 percent; the District 

of Arizona, 12,085 cases, up 0.4 

percent; the District of Alaska with 

347 cases, up 14.9 percent; and 

the Eastern District of California, 

1,744 cases, up 2.6 percent.

Despite staff losses, federal public 

defenders in the circuit worked 

efficiently, closing 33,192 cases, 

down only 0.6 percent from the 

prior year. And for the first time 

since 2001, pending caseloads, 

which numbered 10,120, have 

decreased by 9.9 percent.

The Southern District of California 

had the highest number of cases 

closed with 7,692 cases, up 2.2 

percent. Higher terminations also 

were reported by the Northern 

District of California, with 1,880 

cases, up 12.5 percent; the Eastern 

District of California, 1,822 

cases, up 2.6 percent; the District 

of Oregon, 1,484 cases, up 2.7 

percent; the Western District of 

Washington, 1,395 cases, up 3 

percent; the Eastern District of 

Washington, 977 cases, up 16.4 

percent; and the District of Hawaii, 

622 cases, up 12.9 percent. 

New cases opened nationally 

numbered 138,039, a slight increase 

of .2 percent from FY 2012.

Cases closed nationally numbered 

140,260, up 3.5 percent. The 

pending caseload nationally 

totaled 45,228, down 6.1 percent.

Congress created the Office of the 

Federal Public Defender to fulfill 

the constitutional requirement 

that indigents charged with federal 

crimes be provided with no-cost, 

professional legal representation. 

Congress funds public defender 

and community defender offices 

through the Defender Services 

Division of the Administrative 

Office of the U.S. Courts.

Community defender 

organizations are non-profit legal 

service organizations staffed by 

non-government employees, 

while public defender offices 

are federal agencies 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 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 May 2013, Heather E. Williams 

took office as the new federal 

public defender for the Eastern 

District of California. She 

succeeded Daniel Broderick, who 

retired in December 2012.
64

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 oneperson 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, identifying 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 14,997 

reports in fiscal year 2013, down 

17 percent from the prior year. The 

circuit accounted for 20 percent 

of the national total of 73,663 

submitted 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 and mental 

health treatment, medical care, 

employment assistance, literacy and 

training programs, and cognitivebehavioral 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 22,034 persons in 

FY 2013, up slightly from the prior 

fiscal year. The circuit accounted for 

16.7 percent of the national total of 

131,869 persons under supervision.

Among those under supervision, 

3,667 were on probation, 18,213 

were on supervised release, 139 

persons were on parole, and 15 

individuals adhered to Bureau of 

Prisons custody standards. 

Offenders with convictions for 

drugs, property crimes, firearms and 

immigration offenses are the largest 

group of persons under supervision 

in the Ninth Circuit. These offenders 

numbered 18,137, accounting for 

82.3 percent of persons under 

supervision in the Ninth Circuit.

Revocations and Early 

Terminations

Ninth Circuit cases that were 

revoked and closed after postconviction supervision numbered 

3,355, down 17.4 percent from 

FY 2012. Of the revocations, 199 

were from probation sentences and 

3,146 were from supervised release 

terms. The Ninth Circuit had 21.8 

percent of the 15,362 cases revoked 

nationally. The national revocation 

rate for FY 2013 was 28 percent, 

while the Ninth Circuit’s revocation 

rate was 33 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. 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 2013, there were 7,055 cases 

Persons Under Supervision 2012 2013 Change 2012-2013

1From Courts 3,895 3,667 -5.9%

2From Institutions 17,994 18,367 2.1%

Total 21,889 22,034 0.7%

NINTH CIRCUIT FEDERAL PROBATION SYSTEM:

16 PERSONS UNDER POST-CONVICTION SUPERVISION, 2012-2013

1Includes judge and magistrate judge probation.

2Includes parole, special parole, mandatory release, and military parole. Fiscal year 2012 total for 

persons under supervision from institutions revised.

PROBATION OFFICERS CARRY ON DESPITE 

BUDGET SHORTFALL
65

terminated early, resulting in a 

savings to the Judiciary of over 

$32 million.

Evidence Based Practices

Federal 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 PostConviction Risk Assessment, or 

PCRA, is undertaken to improve 

post-conviction 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, including 

reentry drug courts and cognitive 

behavioral therapy programs. 

STARR, the acronym for Strategic 

Techniques Aimed at Reducing Rearrest program, focuses on those 

skills most helpful to an officer in 

trying to change offender behavior.

Disruption Caused by 

Sequestration

The budget sequestration in fiscal 

year 2013 was devastating to the 

probation and pretrial services 

system. Salary funding was reduced 

by 14 percent, resulting in a major 

disruption to overall operations. 

Many offices experienced mass 

layoffs and furloughs, causing a 

workload management crisis. 

Presentence reports often could 

not be prepared in a timely manner, 

while supervision of offenders, 

particularly those considered 

high risk, was sometimes 

compromised, resulting in a 

possible threat to public safety.

Operations funding was reduced 

by 20 percent. Law enforcement 

funding, which pays for aftercare 

treatment and drug testing services, 

location monitoring and officer 

travel, was reduced by 40 percent, 

resulting in many offenders not 

receiving much needed services. 

Second Chance Act funding, used to 

assist offenders with reentry services 

following their incarceration, was 

eliminated. Many probation offices 

continue to deal with the impact 

of post-sequestration issues, and 

recovery efforts are underway to 

rebuild our overall infrastructure.

Transitions 

Willie Blasher, Jr., was appointed 

acting chief probation officer for 

the District of Oregon on 

March 1, 2013.

From Courts 4Referred by Institutions

District 1Probation Supervised Release 2Parole 3BOP Custody

Persons Under

Supervision, 2012

Persons Under

Supervision, 2013

Change

2012-2013

Alaska 85 260 0 4 323 349 8.0%

Arizona 688 3,068 10 7 3,668 3,773 2.9%

C. Calif. 845 4,679 32 0 5,697 5,556 -2.5%

E. Calif. 218 1,472 19 0 1,674 1,709 2.1%

N. Calif. 364 1,359 15 0 1,816 1,738 -4.3%

S. Calif. 311 2,225 11 0 2,465 2,547 3.3%

Guam 58 92 2 0 166 152 -8.4%

Hawaii 99 668 1 0 775 768 -0.9%

Idaho 106 398 3 1 489 508 3.9%

Montana 109 671 4 3 706 787 11.5%

Nevada 232 849 7 0 1,073 1,088 1.4%

N. Mariana Is. 11 26 0 0 39 37 -5.1%

Oregon 263 828 12 0 1,090 1,103 1.2%

E. Wash 72 481 4 0 529 557 5.3%

W. Wash. 206 1,137 19 0 1,379 1,362 -1.2%

Circuit Total 3,667 18,213 139 15 21,889 22,034 0.7%

NINTH CIRCUIT FEDERAL PROBATION SYSTEM: PERSONS UNDER 

17 POST-CONVICTION SUPERVISION BY DISTRICT, 2012-2013

1Includes judge and magistrate judge probation.

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

3BOP (Bureau of Prisons)

4Fiscal year 2012 total for persons under supervision from institutions revised.
66

United States pretrial services 

officers contribute significantly to 

the federal judicial system. In the 

Ninth Circuit, officers contribute 

to the fair administration of 

justice, protect the community, 

and bring about positive 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 

pending trial. While defendants 

are presumed innocent until 

proven guilty, pretrial services 

officers balance this presumption 

with the realization that some 

persons, if not detained, are likely 

to flee or engage in criminal 

activity that may pose a danger to 

the community or individuals. 

Officers 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. 

Challenges

In 2013, pretrial services 

offices across the Ninth Circuit 

and throughout the Judiciary 

were severely and adversely 

affected by loss of funding under 

sequestration, resulting in serious 

challenges to their mission of 

achieving criminal justice and 

protecting the community.

In recent, pretrial services offices 

have lost officers and support 

staff. By the end of 2013, staffing 

losses ran as high as 30 percent. 

Although severely understaffed and 

underfunded, the Ninth Circuit 

pretrial services offices continued 

to provide a high level of service to 

the courts and the community. 

Case Activations

Pretrial services offices in the 

Ninth Circuit continue to rank first 

nationally in new cases activated. 

In fiscal year 2013, case activations 

in the circuit numbered 38,690, a 

slight decrease of 0.2 percent from 

FY 2012. New case activations 

nationwide totaled 108,002, down 

0.3 percent from the prior year. 

The Ninth Circuit continues to 

account for just over 35 percent of 

all case activations. 

Bail Reports, Supervision 

Pretrial services officers in the 

Ninth Circuit prepared 37,842 

written pre-bail reports and 435 

post-bail reports over the course 

of the fiscal year. Bail reports were 

prepared in 97.8 percent of the 

cases activated. Officers conducted 

9,671 pretrial bail interviews.

Excluding immigration, officers 

recommended pretrial release in 

42.8 percent of cases. U.S. attorneys 

recommended release in 34.1 

percent of cases during this period.

During FY 2013, a total of 5,693 

defendants were received for 

supervision which was down 2 

percent from 5,810 in FY 2012. 

Of these, 4,195 were received for 

regular supervision; 1,337 were 

supervised on a courtesy basis from 

another district or circuit; and 161 

were on pretrial diversion caseloads.

Detention Summary

Pretrial services officers in the 

Ninth Circuit detained a total of 

28,075 defendants in fiscal year 

2013, the highest in the nation. 

Defendants were detained an 

average of 202 days. The Ninth 

Circuit accounted for 21.7 percent 

of the total days of defendant 

incarceration nationally.

Caseload Measure 2012 2013 Change 2012-2013

1Reports 38,454 38,277 -0.5%

Interviews 10,035 9,671 -3.6%

Cases Activated 38,765 38,690 -0.2%

PRETRIAL SERVICES CASES ACTIVATED IN NINTH CIRCUIT 

18 COURTS, 2012-2013

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.”

1Fiscal year 2012 reports revised.

PRETRIAL SERVICES OFFICERS ENDURE 

FUNDING CUTS
67

Defendant Contact Written Reports

District Interviewed

1Not

 Interviewed 2Pre-bail Post-bail

No Reports

Made

Total Cases

Activated 2012

Total Cases

Activated 

2013

Change

2012-2013

Alaska 119 104 219 0 4 218 223 2.3%

Arizona 1,699 21,285 22,913 32 39 22,037 22,984 4.3%

C. Calif. 1,287 837 2,114 6 4 2,488 2,124 -14.6%

E. Calif. 410 674 1,051 7 26 1,149 1,084 -5.7%

N. Calif. 455 461 679 234 3 1,058 916 -13.4%

S. Calif. 3,651 3,200 6,756 44 51 7,592 6,851 -9.8%

Guam 66 22 83 1 4 130 88 -32.3%

Hawaii 324 50 372 0 2 315 374 18.7%

Idaho 86 278 297 5 62 373 364 -2.4%

Montana 201 216 413 0 4 398 417 4.8%

Nevada 471 335 800 5 0 789 806 2.2%

N. Mariana Is. 25 2 27 0 1 44 27 -38.6%

Oregon 255 435 663 12 15 748 690 -7.8%

E. Wash 224 378 400 13 189 379 602 58.8%

W. Wash. 398 742 1,055 76 9 1,047 1,140 8.9%

Circuit Total 9,671 29,019 37,842 435 413 38,765 38,690 -0.2%

National 

Total

58,222 49,780 101,709 2,853 3,440 108,273 108,002 -0.3%

Circuit % of 

National

16.6% 58.3% 37.2% 15.2% 12.0% 35.8% 35.8% 0.0%

19 PRETRIAL WORKLOAD, 2012-2013

Note: This table excludes data for the District of Columbia and includes transfers received.

1Includes 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.

2Includes prebail reports both with recommendations and without, and includes types of reports categorized in previous periods as “other reports.”

Violations

Of 12,092 cases in release status, 

violations were reported in 1,248. 

They included 86 violations for 

felony re-arrests, 90 violations 

for misdemeanor re-arrests, 24 

for “other” violations, and 107 for 

failure to appear. The remainder 

were for technical violations, 

including positive urine tests for 

illegal substances, violation of 

electronic monitoring conditions, 

possession of contraband, and failure 

to report to a supervising officer.

Evidence-Based Practices

All districts in the Ninth Circuit 

now use Pretrial Services Risk 

Assessment. This “evidence-based” 

tool helps officers make informed 

decisions about supervision risks 

posed by defendants released to 

the community. Many districts 

also use this tool to contain costs, 

ensuring that the majority of 

alternatives to detention funding 

is being utilized on higher risk 

defendants, who demonstrate 

more needs under supervision.

In FY 2013, some districts 

implemented or continued 

new diversion courts which 

allow successful defendants to 

have their cases dismissed or to 

have their sentences reduced. 

These include the “Alternative 

to Prison Solutions,” or APS, a 

pilot diversion program, in the 

Southern District of California, 

and the “Conviction and 

Sentencing Alternatives Program,” 

or CASA, a post-conviction/

presentence diversion program in 

the Central District of California.

Each of these forward-thinking 

and teamwork-related diversion 

programs were hailed as national 

models by the attorney general 

of the United States. In just 

their first couple of years, these 

programs have already saved 

millions in tax-payer dollars, 

while also improving the lives of 

the graduating defendants. 
68

1Petit Juror Utilization Rate

Percent Not Selected or Challenged

District

Grand Juries

Empaneled, 2012

Petit Juries

Selected, 2013 2012 2013

Change 

2012-2013

Alaska 2 13 27.5 32.9 5.4

Arizona 14 109 33.8 30.3 -3.5

C. Calif. 31 159 47.2 47.4 0.2

E. Calif. 9 82 43.8 42.5 -1.3

N. Calif. 6 60 43.6 38.2 -5.4

S. Calif. 8 117 42.6 38.1 -4.5

Guam 2 4 30.8 74.7 43.9

Hawaii 3 12 37.3 33.5 -3.8

Idaho 6 18 21.2 20.0 -1.2

Montana 6 34 27.6 34.8 7.2

Nevada 6 53 44.0 30.1 -13.9

N. Mariana Is. 3 38 49.2 71.7 22.5

Oregon 8 40 28.1 39.0 10.9

E. Wash. 6 20 22.8 26.6 3.8

W. Wash. 4 41 32.0 31.0 -1.0

Circuit Total 114 800 *** ***

Circuit Average 14 100 35.4 39.4 4.0

National Total 778 4,656 *** ***

National 

Average

8 49 37.3 37.5 0.2

20 JUROR UTILIZATION, 2012-2013

JUROR UTILIZATION

Note: This table includes data on jury selection days only. Data on juror service after the selection day are not 

included. 

1Jurors who completed pre-screening questionnaires or were in the courtroom during the conducting of voir dire but 

were not selected or challenged.

2Other jurors, not selected or challenged, who were not called to the courtroom or otherwise did not participate in 

the actual voir dire.
69

Language AK AZ CAC CAE CAN CAS GU HI ID MT NV NMI OR WAE WAW

2012

Total

2013

Total

Change

2012-13

Arabic 0 0 18 8 4 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 69 46 -33.3%

Armenian 0 0 138 23 0 3 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 1 103 171 66.0%

Cantonese 0 4 78 156 97 5 0 0 0 0 5 0 2 0 14 305 361 18.4%

Farsi 0 0 34 2 19 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 68 88.9%

Japanese 0 0 7 0 8 6 6 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 18 32 77.8%

Korean 10 0 169 4 4 3 23 30 0 0 7 0 0 0 35 390 285 -26.9%

Mandarin 0 11 104 8 64 23 27 17 0 4 19 0 2 0 22 414 301 -27.3%

Navajo 

(Certified)

0 74 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 67 74 10.4%

Navajo 

(NonCertified)

0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -

Russian 9 0 52 72 17 3 0 0 4 0 11 0 6 0 24 227 198 -12.8%

Sign 

(American)

0 4 3 6 0 2 0 1 2 2 2 0 1 0 7 50 30 -40.0%

Sign 

(Mexican)

0 1 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 6 -

Spanish 

Staff

34 59,854 2,027 849 414 21,619 0 0 0 0 410 0 540 0 0 81,892 85,747 4.7%

Spanish 

(Certified)

0 8,042 2,245 1,570 1,208 239 0 16 174 1 293 0 400 688 955 29,996 15,831 -47.2%

Spanish 

(NonCertified)

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 200 17 150 0 26 76 12 622 521 -16.2%

Tagalog 3 0 9 0 32 1 6 6 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 29 60 106.9%

Vietnamese 0 1 42 19 52 9 1 2 0 0 0 0 9 0 98 346 233 -32.7%

All Others 4 242 80 200 126 143 5 33 0 0 37 0 1 3 68 944 942 -0.2%

Total 60 68,249 5,006 2,917 2,045 22,090 68 149 380 24 942 0 987 767 1,238 115,512 104,906 -9.2%

21 INTERPRETER USAGE BY DISTRICT COURTS, 2013

COURT INTERPRETERS
70

Caseload Measure

 

2012 2013 Change 2012-2013 Per Judgeship Unweighted 2013

District Court

 Filings 462 471 1.9% 157

 Terminations 499 496 -0.6% 165

 1Pending 497 497 0.0% 166

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 841 638 -24.1% 319

 Terminations 1,166 723 -38.0% 362

 Pending 767 682 -11.1% 341

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

12012 total pending cases revised.

Caseload Measure

 

2012 2013 Change 2012-2013 Per Judgeship Unweighted 2013

District Court

 Filings 10,364 9,777 -5.7% 752

 Terminations 11,643 9,887 -15.1% 761

 1Pending 5,352 5,237 -2.1% 403

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 30,135 24,046 -20.2% 3,435

 Terminations 33,444 28,595 -14.5% 4,085

 Pending 42,106 37,572 -10.8% 5,367

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Authorized Judgeships

2District 13

Bankruptcy 7

Magistrate

Full-time 14

Part-time 1

Authorized places of holding court: 3Bullhead City, Flagstaff, Kingman, Phoenix, Prescott, Tucson, Yuma

12012 total pending cases revised.

2Includes one authorized temporary judgeship.

3Bullhead City and Kingman apply only to the bankruptcy court.

12012 total pending cases revised.

2Includes one authorized temporary judgeship.

3Includes three authorized temporary judgeships.

4San Fernando Valley and Santa Barbara apply only to the bankruptcy court.

DISTRICT CASELOADS

Caseload Measure

 

2012 2013 Change 2012-2013 Per Judgeship Unweighted 2013

District Court

 Filings 17,086 15,798 -7.5% 564

 Terminations 16,986 16,393 -3.5% 585

 1Pending 12,867 12,268 -4.7% 438

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 111,909 82,861 -26.0% 3,453

 Terminations 120,433 96,424 -19.9% 4,018

 1Pending 68,124 54,555 -19.9% 2,273

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Authorized Judgeships

2District 28

Bankruptcy 24

Magistrate

Full-time 24

Part-time 1

Authorized places of holding court: Los Angeles, Riverside, 4San Fernando Valley, Santa Ana, 4Santa Barbara
71

Caseload Measure

 

2012 2013 Change 2012-2013 Per Judgeship Unweighted 2013

District Court

 Filings 6,235 5,456 -12.5% 909

 Terminations 6,590 5,858 -11.1% 976

 1Pending 7,988 7,614 -4.7% 1,269

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 6,235 5,456 -12.5% 909

 Terminations 6,590 5,858 -11.1% 976

 1Pending 7,988 7,614 -4.7% 1,269

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Authorized Judgeships

2District 6

Bankruptcy 7

Magistrate

Full-time 12

Part-time 0

Authorized places of holding court: Bakersfield, Fresno, 3Modesto, Redding, Sacramento, Yosemite National Park

12012 total pending cases revised.

2Includes one authorized temporary judgeship.

3Modesto applies only to bankruptcy court.

Caseload Measure

 

2012 2013 Change 2012-2013 Per Judgeship Unweighted 2013

District Court

 Filings 7,851 6,854 -12.7% 490

 Terminations 7,359 7,272 -1.2% 519

 1Pending 6,949 6,504 -6.4% 465

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 28,935 21,841 -24.5% 2,427

 Terminations 28,985 24,455 -15.6% 2,717

 1Pending 36,756 34,137 -7.1% 3,793

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

12012 total pending cases revised.

Caseload Measure

 

2012 2013 Change 2012-2013 Per Judgeship Unweighted 2013

District Court

 Filings 8,935 8,190 -8.3% 630

 Terminations 9,564 8,594 -10.1% 661

 1Pending 5,541 5,321 -4.0% 409

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 18,359 13,816 -24.7% 3,454

 Terminations 19,239 15,212 -20.9% 3,803

 Pending 13,155 11,759 -10.6% 2,940

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Authorized Judgeships

District 13

Bankruptcy 4

Magistrate

Full-time 11

Part-time 0

Authorized places of holding court: 2El Centro, San Diego

Note: The Guam district judge also handles all bankruptcy cases.

12012 total pending cases revised.
72

Caseload Measure

 

2012 2013 Change 2012-2013 Per Judgeship Unweighted 2013

District Court

 Filings 115 106 -7.8% 106

 Terminations 141 113 -19.9% 113

 1Pending 155 161 3.9% 161

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 153 159 3.9% 385

 Terminations 125 170 36.0% 271

 Pending 172 161 -6.4% 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 Guam district judge also handles all bankruptcy cases.

12012 total pending cases at district court revised.

Caseload Measure

 

2012 2013 Change 2012-2013 Per Judgeship Unweighted 2013

District Court

 Filings 1,065 968 -9.1% 242

 Terminations 1,132 1,085 -4.2% 271

 1Pending 1,144 1,047 -8.5% 262

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 2,672 2,313 -13.4% 2,313

 Terminations 2,868 2,307 -19.6% 2,307

 Pending 2,731 2,737 0.2% 2,737

DISTRICT OF HAWAII

Authorized Judgeships

2District 4

Bankruptcy 1

Magistrate

Full-time 3

Part-time 1

Authorized place of holding court: Honolulu

12012 total pending cases revised.

2Includes one temporary judgeship.

Caseload Measure

 

2012 2013 Change 2012-2013 Per Judgeship Unweighted 2013

District Court

 Filings 1,005 850 -15.4% 425

 Terminations 928 937 1.0% 469

 1Pending 1,067 980 -8.2% 490

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 6,690 5,643 -15.7% 2,822

 Terminations 7,634 7,033 -7.9% 3,517

 1Pending 6,385 4,996 -21.8% 2,498

DISTRICT OF IDAHO

Authorized Judgeships

2District 2

Bankruptcy 2

Magistrate

Full-time 2

Part-time 0

Authorized places of holding court: Boise, Coeur d’Alene, Moscow, Pocatello, 2Twin Falls

12012 total pending cases revised.

2Twin Falls applies only to the bankruptcy court. One of the bankruptcy judges also holds court in Twin Falls 

once a month.
73

Caseload Measure

 

2012 2013 Change 2012-2013 Per Judgeship Unweighted 2013

District Court

 Filings 980 973 -0.7% 324

 Terminations 921 1,019 10.6% 340

 1Pending 839 800 -4.6% 267

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 2,175 1,851 -14.9% 1,851

 Terminations 2,483 2,302 -7.3% 2,302

 Pending 3,318 2,867 -13.6% 2,867

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

12012 total pending cases at district court revised.

Caseload Measure

 

2012 2013 Change 2012-2013 Per Judgeship Unweighted 2013

District Court

 Filings 3,419 3,485 1.9% 498

 Terminations 3,413 3,276 -4.0% 468

 1Pending 3,973 4,190 5.5% 599

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 19,434 14,483 -25.5% 3,621

 Terminations 24,026 18,829 -21.6% 4,707

 1Pending 24,531 20,181 -17.7% 5,045

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

Authorized Judgeships

District 7

2Bankruptcy 4

Magistrate

Full-time 7

Part-time 0

Authorized places of holding court: Carson City, Elko, Ely, Las Vegas, Lovelock, Reno

12012 total pending cases revised.

2Includes one authorized temporary judgeship.

Authorized Judgeships

District 1

Bankruptcy 0

Magistrate

Full-time 0

Part-time 0

3Combination 1

Caseload Measure

 

2012 2013 2Change 2012-2013 Per Judgeship Unweighted 2013

District Court

 Filings 63 45 -28.6% 45

 Terminations 39 60 53.8% 60

 1Pending 129 103 -20.2% 103

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 11 7 -36.4% 1

 Terminations 7 12 - 2

 1Pending 15 10 -33.3% 1

DISTRICT OF NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS

Authorized place of holding court: Saipan

Note: The Northern Mariana Islands district judge also handles all bankruptcy cases.

12012 total pending cases revised.

2Percent change not computed when fewer than 10 cases reported for the previous period.

3Heather L. Kennedy serves as part-time magistrate judge and clerk of court. 
74

Caseload Measure

 

2012 2013 Change 2012-2013 Per Judgeship Unweighted 2013

District Court

 Filings 2,978 2,924 -1.8% 487

 Terminations 3,054 2,909 -4.7% 485

 1Pending 2,885 2,903 0.6% 484

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 16,048 13,677 -14.8% 2,735

 Terminations 16,653 15,203 -8.7% 3,041

 Pending 19,841 18,316 -7.7% 3,663

DISTRICT OF OREGON

Authorized Judgeships

District 6

Bankruptcy 5

Magistrate

Full-time 6

Part-time 1

Authorized places of holding court: 2Bend, 2Coos Bay, Coquille, Eugene, Klamath Falls, Medford, Pendleton, Portland, 2Redmond, 2Roseburg, 2Salem

12012 total pending cases revised.

2Bend, Coos Bay, Redmond, Roseburg, and Salem apply only to the bankruptcy court.

Caseload Measure

 

2012 2013 Change 2012-2013 Per Judgeship Unweighted 2013

District Court

 Filings 1,271 1,236 -2.8% 309

 Terminations 1,192 1,292 8.4% 323

 1Pending 1,165 1,120 -3.9% 280

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 5,726 5,253 -8.3% 2,627

 Terminations 6,098 5,584 -8.4% 2,792

 1Pending 5,741 5,410 -5.8% 2,705

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

Authorized Judgeships

District 4

Bankruptcy 2

Magistrate

Full-time 2

Part-time 0

Authorized places of holding court: 2Richland, Spokane, 2Walla Walla, Yakima

12012 total pending cases revised.

2Richland and Walla Walla apply only to the district court.

Caseload Measure

 

2012 2013 Change 2012-2013 Per Judgeship Unweighted 2013

District Court

 Filings 4,388 4,534 3.3% 648

 Terminations 4,271 4,507 5.5% 644

 1Pending 3,600 3,643 1.2% 520

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 22,955 20,477 -10.8% 4,095

 Terminations 24,486 22,598 -7.7% 4,520

 1Pending 23,056 20,936 -9.2% 4,187

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

12012 total pending cases revised.

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