2016 

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

the 2016 Ninth Circuit Annual Report:

Chief Judge Sidney R. Thomas, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

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

Shiela Adkins, Chief Pretrial Services Officer, District of Nevada

Chad R. Boardman, Chief Probation Officer, District of Nevada

Rollins Emerson, Archivist, Ninth Circuit

Kathleen Butterfield, Staff Attorney, Ninth Circuit

Ninth Circuit Library Staff
MISSION STATEMENT

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.

JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF THE 

NINTH CIRCUIT

The Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit

Seated from left; Circuit Judge N. Randy Smith, Circuit Judge Consuelo M. Callahan, Chief Circuit Judge Sidney R. Thomas, Circuit 

Judge Richard A.Paez, Chief District Judge George H. King. Standing from left: Bankruptcy Clerk Mary Ann Schott, Chief District 

Judge Raner C. Collins, District Clerk Mary Moran, Chief Pretrial Services Officer Gina L. Faubin, District Judge Ann L. Aiken, 

Chief District Judge Ramona Villagomez Manglona, District Judge Anna J. Brown, Senior District Judge Claudia Wilken, Chief 

Probation Officer David J. Sultzbaugh, Bankruptcy Judge Laura S. Taylor, Senior District Judge Susan Y. Illston, Chief District Judge 

B. Lynn Winmill.

Not present: Senior Circuit Judge William C. Canby, Circuit Judge Mary H. Murgia, District Judge Virginia A. Phillips, 

Chief Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Smith.
TABLE OF CONTENTS

NINTH CIRCUIT OVERVIEW

Court of Appeals Reports Slight Decrease 

in New Appeals 44

Civil Litigation Drives Caseload Increase 

in District Courts 47

Bankruptcy Filings Decline, But Pro Se Filer Rate 

Steady 51 

Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Sees Dip 

in New Appeals 53

Magistrate Judges 55

Federal Public Defenders 57

Probation Officers See Supervisory Caseloads 

Hold Steady 59

Pretrial Services Officers Open Fewer Cases, 

While Officers Supervise More Defendants 61

Juror Utilization 64

Court Interpreters 65

District Caseloads 66

JUDICIAL TRANSITIONS

Foreword 1

Ninth Circuit Overview 3

Judicial Council, Advisory Groups 

and Administration 4

New Judges 8

Senior Judges 11

In Memoriam 14

Central District of California Celebrates 

Opening of 'The Cube' 36

Courthouse Projects in Design Phase 38

Out of Reach for Decades, Courtroom Mosaics 

Finally Get a Close Look 39

Magistrate Judges Maintain Focus on Technology 

with Updated Guide and Newsletter 16

2016 TUG Conference Convenes in Phoenix 16

Judges of Eastern and Southern Districts of

California Mark 50th Anniversaries 17

Oregon Judge Brings Financial Literacy to 

Women Inmates 18

Northern California Bar Recognizes Judges 18

Awards Recognize Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Emeriti 19

Awards to Judges in 2016 20

Idaho Clerk Selected for Highest Employee Honor 20

Ninth Circuit Hosts Two Hearings on 

Criminal Justice Act 21

ADR is Firmly Rooted in Bankruptcy Courts 22

Ninth Circuit Contributes to Pro Se Law Clerk Study 22

Court of Appeals Offers Immigration, 

Habeas Training Programs 23

Ninth Circuit Plays Frequest Host to 

International Visitors 24

Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference Convenes in Montana 25

Circuit Conference Awards Recognize a Dean of the

Immigration Bar and Longtime Federal Defender 27

Ninth Circuit Civics Contest Draws Widespread 

Interest from Students, Teachers 29

Ninth Circuit Judge Takes Part in 

Nuremberg Remembrance 30

Ninth Circuit Judges to Lead National Committees 30

Los Angeles Judge Marks 50th year on the Federal Bench 31

Pacific Island Judges Complete Legal Institute 32

Administrative Changes 33

SPACE & SECURITY

NINTH CIRCUIT HIGHLIGHTS

WORK OF THE COURTS
1

FOREWORD

In the 15 federal trial courts of the circuit, new 

case filings were up overall. Civil filings rose by 

11.5 percent, offsetting a 5.2 percent drop in 

the number of criminal filings brought by the 

government. However, the Circuit’s federal public 

defenders and community defenders saw an 

increased demand for representation of indigent 

defendants with new case openings up 15.8 percent. 

Civil cases comprise almost 80 percent of the 

total caseload of the district courts. For the sixth 

consecutive year, new bankruptcy filings declined, 

with an 11.1 percent drop in fiscal year 2016. 

I was pleased to host the 2016 Circuit Conference 

in my home state of Montana. The Conference 

sessions and numerous committee meetings at 

it resulted in a number of initiatives that will 

continue to improve the administration of justice 

in the West. Let me highlight the work of some of 

our Judicial Council committees. 

Our Fairness Committee produced significant 

guidance on how judges can avoid implicit bias. 

Our Wellness Committee continued its excellent 

work in preventing and coping with disability 

and maintaining health. Our Space and Security 

Committee continued its space reduction initiative, 

saving taxpayers over $1 million a year. Our 

Information Technology Committee continued 

its work in cybersecurity and improving our 

electronic information systems. The Jury Trial 

Improvement Committee completed two major 

sets of recommended jury reforms, following a 

five year effort which included the largest poll 

of jurors ever conducted in federal courts. The 

Pacific Islands Committee continued to partner 

with the Pacific Judicial Council to deliver training 

for judges, administrators, and security personnel. 

Our Circuit continues to emphasize and vigorously 

promote civics education and community 

outreach, led by our Courts and Community 

Committee. The Committee organizes a highly 

successful circuit-wide essay and video contest 

for high school students. The Justice Anthony 

M. Kennedy Library and Learning Center in 

Sacramento, California, has emerged as the 

linchpin of our future efforts. All of our courts 

are working with students and teachers to improve 

public understanding of and confidence in the 

Judicial Branch.

All of our courts continue to respond in 

innovative ways to the special challenges posed by 

pro se litigation. Pro se litigants now account for 

48 percent of new appeals, almost 32 percent of 

the new civil cases opened in the district courts, 

and almost 17 percent of new bankruptcy filings. 

The Judicial Council’s Pro Se Litigation and 

Alternative Dispute Resolution committees focus 

CHIEF JUDGE

SIDNEY R. THOMAS

I am pleased to provide you with the 2016 Ninth Circuit Annual Report, which includes statistical workload 

summaries and also highlights events and activities involving 

and affecting the federal courts in the nine western states and 

two Pacific Island jurisdictions.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit remains 

the nation’s busiest federal appellate court. Our Court faced 

particular challenges with the volume of immigration cases. On a 

national basis, the Ninth Circuit received 58.7 % of all new petitions 

for review of decisions by the Board of Immigration Appeals. 

Nonetheless, with our innovative case management techniques, we 

still made significant progress in reducing our pending caseload. 
2

on issues of equal access to justice for pro se litigants 

and alternative ways to settle pro se cases. In 2016, the 

Committees organized the biennial Ninth Circuit Pro 

Se Conference to discuss effective management of 

prisoner and non-prisoner pro se cases. As a result of 

the summit, we have saved money and improved case 

processing throughout the Circuit. The United States 

Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California 

has developed effective electronic self-representation 

systems to aid pro se bankruptcy filers.

In October, the Central District of California celebrated 

the opening of a new courthouse in downtown Los 

Angeles, a project which has been a Circuit priority for 

two decades. Our staff continues working on design 

of a new building on the island of Saipan, which will 

house the district court for the Northern Mariana 

Islands. 

We had a number of changes to our bench in 2016. 

Circuit Judges Barry G. Silverman, Diarmuid F. 

O’Scannlain, and Richard R. Clifton assumed senior 

status, leaving the Court of Appeals with 4 vacancies 

at year’s end. The district courts of the circuit ended 

the year with 15 vacancies. Eight district judges took 

senior status during the year. Only one Article III judge 

was confirmed in 2015. In 2016, no new Article III 

judges were confirmed. Five judicial nominations – one 

appellate and four district – were awaiting Senate action 

and expired at the end of the congressional session. 

Fortunately, the federal courts have been able to rely on 

senior circuit and senior district judges to assist with the 

workload. The Court of Appeals benefitted from the 

work of 16 senior circuit judges, and the district courts 

were assisted by the work of 67 senior judges were at 

work. We are grateful to all of them.

The Court of Appeals reappointed Bankruptcy Judges 

Peter Carroll and Vincent P. Zurzolo in the Central 

District of California, and Bankruptcy Judge Robert 

J. Faris in the District of Hawaii. The Judicial Council 

also selected Bankruptcy Judge Meredith A. Jury of 

the Central District of California as the new chief 

bankruptcy judge of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel.

Magistrate judges continue to make a significant 

contribution. In fiscal year 2016, magistrate judges 

decided nearly 219,000 criminal and civil matters. Nine 

new full-time magistrate judges were appointed by 

district courts during the year. The Magistrate Judges 

Executive Committee produced a comprehensive guide 

to the review of government applications to access 

electronic data.

A number of our judges received honors during the 

year. A complete list is found in the report, but I want 

to highlight honors given to two former chief judges 

of the Ninth Circuit. Chief Judge Emeritus J. Clifford 

Wallace received the American Inns of Court’s A. 

Sherman Christensen Award, recognizing his many 

contributions to the organization, which promotes 

collegiality and professionalism among members of 

the bar. Chief Judge Emeritus Proctor Hug, Jr., was 

honored by the State Bar of Nevada. He received the 

bar’s 2016 Presidential Award, recognizing his tireless 

efforts to preserve the Ninth Circuit.

A San Francisco immigration attorney who has done 

outstanding work in the Court of Appeals, Robert Jobe, 

was the 2016 recipient of the prestigious American 

Inns of Court’s Ninth Circuit Professionalism Award. 

Bob has not only given exceptional service to his 

clients, but has undertaken a great number of pro 

bono assignments. Anthony R. "Tony" Gallagher, the 

executive director of Federal Defenders of Montana, 

received the Circuit’s prestigious 2016 Ninth Circuit 

John P. Frank Award. Tony is recognized as one of the 

deans of defender services, not just in the Ninth Circuit 

but the nation.

We lost two distinguished jurists in 2016. The Honorable 

Shirley Ann M. Hufstedler, who died in March at age 

90, was the first woman to sit on the Ninth Circuit 

Court of Appeals. Nominated by President Johnson, 

she served from 1968 to 1979, when she left the bench 

to become the first secretary of the newly-created U.S. 

Department of Education under President Carter. The 

other departed colleague was retired Bankruptcy Judge 

William J. Lasarow of the Central District of California, 

who died in November at age 94.

I congratulate all of our judges and staff for their 

outstanding contributions to the administration of 

justice, and I hope you find this report useful in 

providing information about the work of our federal 

courts.
3

The United States Courts for the Ninth 

Circuit consists of the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the federal 

district and bankruptcy courts in the 

15 judicial districts within the circuit, 

and associated administrative units that 

provide various services to the courts.

Judicial districts within the Ninth Circuit 

include the districts of Alaska, Arizona, 

Central California, Eastern California, 

Northern California, Southern California, 

Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, 

Eastern Washington, Western Washington, 

the U.S. Territory of Guam and the 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 

Islands. The establishment of the Ninth 

Circuit in 1866 began the development of 

the federal judicial system for the western 

United States. It is the largest and busiest 

federal circuit in the nation.

Judges serving on the circuit and district courts are 

known as Article III judges, a reference to the article 

in the Constitution establishing the federal judiciary. 

Nominated by the president and confirmed by the 

Senate, Article III judges serve lifetime appointments 

upon good behavior. The Ninth Circuit Court of 

Appeals is authorized 29 judgeships and ended 2016 

with four vacancies. For most of the year, the district 

courts of the circuit were authorized 112 judgeships, 

15 of which were vacant at the end of 2016.

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 for most of the year, sitting 

on motions and merits panels, serving on circuit and 

national judicial committees, and performing a variety 

of administrative tasks. In the district courts within 

the circuit, 67 senior judges were at work, hearing 

cases, presiding over procedural matters, serving on 

committees and conducting other business in 2016.

 

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 after the court conducts a performance 

review and considers public comment..

In 2016, bankruptcy courts in the Ninth Circuit were 

authorized 68 permanent and five temporary judgeships. 

The district courts were authorized 105 full-time and 9 

part-time magistrate judges, and one combined position 

of part-time magistrate judge/clerk of court. Several 

courts also utilized recalled bankruptcy and recalled 

magistrate judges.

Overall, the Ninth Circuit courts experienced 

reduced caseloads in 2016. Unless otherwise noted, 

statistics in this report cover fiscal year 2016 ending 

September 30. 

NINTH CIRCUIT OVERVIEW

MONTANA

IDAHO

NEVADA

ARIZONA

OREGON

ALASKA

HAWAII

GUAM

NORTHERN

MARIANA 

ISLANDS

SOUTHERN 

CENTRAL 

CALIFORNIA

NORTHERN

EASTERN

WASHINGTON

EASTERN

WESTERN
4

The Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit is the 

governing body for federal district and bankruptcy 

courts in nine western states and two Pacific 

island jurisdictions. The judicial council’s statutory 

mission is to support the effective and expeditious 

administration of justice and the safeguarding 

of fairness in the administration of the courts. It 

has statutory authority to “make all necessary and 

appropriate orders for the effective and expeditious 

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

§ 332(d)(1)]. 

The judicial council also has been delegated 

responsibilities by the Judicial Conference of the 

United States, the national governing body for 

the federal courts. These responsibilities include 

authorizing senior judge staffing levels and pay, and 

managing the judicial misconduct complaint process.

The judicial council is chaired by the chief judge of the 

circuit and relies on advisory groups and committees 

to accomplish its governance goals. Chairs of three 

advisory groups attend council meetings as observers 

and sometimes as voting members. Committee chairs 

report to the council as needed.

Newly appointed in 2016 as voting members of the 

judicial council were Circuit Judge Milan D. Smith, 

Jr., Senior District Judge Susan Oki Mollway of the 

District of Hawaii, and Chief District Judge Barry 

Ted Moskowitz of the Southern District of California. 

Newly appointed in 2016 as observers were Chief 

Bankruptcy Judge Brian D. Lynch and Chief Magistrate 

Judge James P. Donohue of the Western District of 

Washington, District Court Clerk Libby Smith of the 

District of Idaho, Bankruptcy Court Clerk Barry K. 

Lander of the Southern District of California, Chief 

Probation Officer Chad R. Boardman and Chief 

Pretrial Services Officer Shiela Adkins, both from the 

District of Nevada. 

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

Circuit considers petitions for review of the chief judge’s 

orders in judicial misconduct complaints. In 2016, there 

were 22 petitions for review filed and 22 petitions were 

resolved by the judicial council. 

Conference of Chief District Judges

The Conference of Chief District Judges advises the 

Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit regarding the 

administration of justice in the circuit’s 15 district 

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

comprised of the chief district judges of each district. 

Chief District Judge Ramona Villagomez Manglona 

of the District of the Northern Mariana Islands has 

served as chair since January 2016 and will chair the 

conference until February 2017. She will be succeeded 

by Chief District Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz of the 

Southern District of California.

Elevated to chief district judge during the year were 

Judges Timothy M. Burgess of the District of Alaska, 

Ricardo S. Martinez of the Western District of 

Washington, Michael W. Mosman of the District of 

Oregon, Lawrence J. O’Neill of the Eastern District 

of California, Virginia A. Phillips of the Central 

District of California, and Thomas O. Rice of the 

Eastern District of Washington. 

Conference of Chief Bankruptcy Judges

The Conference of Chief Bankruptcy Judges advises 

the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit on the 

administration of the bankruptcy courts within the 

circuit. The conference, which also meets twice per 

year, consists of chief bankruptcy judges from each 

district, the chief bankruptcy judge of the Ninth 

Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel and a recalled 

bankruptcy judge representative. Chief Bankruptcy 

JUDICIAL COUNCIL, ADVISORY 

GROUPS & ADMINISTRATION
5

ADVISORY & STANDING COMMITTEES

• Advisory Board

• Alternative Dispute Resolution

• Capital Case

• CJA Oversight

• Court-Council Committee on 

Bankruptcy Judge Appointments

• Courts and Community

• Federal Public Defenders

• Fairness

• Information Technology

• Jury Instructions

• Jury Trial Improvement

• Ninth Circuit Judges Education

• Pacific Islands

• Pro Se Litigation

• Space & Security

• Wellness

JUDICIAL COUNCIL of the NINTH CIRCUIT

Chief Judge Sidney R. Thomas

LIAISON COMMITTEES

• District Clerks

• Bankruptcy Clerks

• Chief Probation & 

Pretrial Services Officers

ASSOCIATIONS OF 

JUDICIAL OFFICERS

• Conference of Chief District Judges

• Magistrate Judges Executive Board

• Conference of Chief Bankruptcy Judges

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE 

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

• Lawyer Representatives 

Coordinating Committee

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

OFFICE of the CIRCUIT EXECUTIVE

Cathy A. Catterson, Circuit and

Court of Appeals Executive

Judge Laura S. Taylor of the Southern District of 

California, chaired the conference from September 

2015 to September 2016. She was succeeded by Chief 

Bankruptcy Judge Brian D. Lynch of the Western 

District of Washington, who will chair the conference 

until September 2017.

Elevated to chief bankruptcy judge of the Bankruptcy 

Appellate Panel in 2016 was Bankruptcy Judge 

Meredith A. Jury of the Central District of California.

Magistrate Judges Executive Board

The Magistrate Judges Executive Board communicates 

to the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit on behalf 

of the more than 120 full-time, part-time and recalled 

magistrate judges serving in the district courts. The 

15-member board meets twice a year and holds a 

session with all magistrate judges at the Ninth Circuit 

Judicial Conference. The board is chaired by Chief 

Magistrate Judge James P. Donohue of the Western 

District of Washington. He assumed the gavel in July, 

succeeding Chief Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Smith 

of the District of Alaska, who had served as chair 

since August 2014. 

Clerks of Court

Daily 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 
6

process new cases and appeals, handle docketing 

functions, respond to procedural questions from the 

public and bar, and provide adequate judicial staff 

resources. The clerk of court for the court of appeals 

also supervises the work of the Circuit Mediation Office 

and the Office of the Staff Attorneys, which includes the 

research, motions, case management and pro se 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 critical 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 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

JUDICIAL 

TRANSITIONS
8

 Deborah L. Barnes was appointed 

a magistrate judge for the Eastern 

District of California on August 1, 

2016. Prior to her appointment, she 

had worked in the California Office 

of the Attorney General since 2003. 

Prior to that, Judge Barnes worked 

for the California Environmental 

Protection Agency from 2000 to 

2003; the California Office of the Attorney General 

from 1993 to 2000; and the Office of the Federal Public 

Defender for the Eastern District of California from 

1988 to 1993. She engaged in private practice with the 

law firm of Weintraub, Genshlea, Hardy, Erick & Brown 

from 1987 to 1988. Judge Barnes worked for the 

Sacramento County (California) District Attorney’s 

Office from 1986 to 1987. She received her B.A. from 

the University of California, Berkeley, in 1981 and her 

J.D. from the University of the Pacific, McGeorge 

School of Law, in 1986. Judge Barnes maintains 

chambers in Sacramento.

 Timothy J. Cavan was appointed a 

magistrate judge for the District of 

Montana on December 1, 2016. 

Prior to his appointment, he had 

served as an assistant U.S. attorney 

for the District of Montana since 

2002. Prior to that, he worked as an 

assistant federal public defender for 

the Federal Defenders of Montana 

from 1996 to 2002. He engaged in private practice with 

the law firm of Sandall, Cavan & Smith in Billings, 

where he became a partner in 1988. Judge Cavan 

received his bachelor’s degree from Montana State 

University in Billings in 1981 and his J.D., with honors, 

from the University of Montana, School of Law, in 

1984. He maintains chambers in Billings.

Mary K. Dimke was appointed a 

magistrate judge for the Eastern 

District of Washington on January 

14, 2016. Prior to her appointment 

to the bench, she served as an 

assistant U.S. attorney for the 

Eastern District of Washington, 

from 2012 to 2016, and for the 

Western District of Washington, 

from 2008 to 2012. She served as an Honors Program 

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

Criminal Division, Fraud Section, from 2004 to 2007. 

Judge Dimke received her B.A., magna cum laude, from 

Pepperdine University in 1999 and her J.D., Order of 

the Coif, from Vanderbilt University, School of Law, in 

2002. Following law school, she clerked for Judge Alan 

B. Johnson of the U.S. District Court for the District 

of Wyoming from 2002 to 2003 and for Judge Richard 

C. Tallman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth 

Circuit from 2003 to 2004. Judge Dimke maintains 

chambers in Yakima.

Steve Kim was appointed a 

magistrate judge for the Central 

District of California on April 11, 

2016. Prior to his appointment, 

Judge Kim had worked as the 

regional managing director at Stroz 

Friedberg LLC since 2007. He 

served as an assistant U.S. attorney 

for the Central District of 

California from 2003 to 2007. Prior to that, he was a 

civil litigator at Munger, Tolles & Olson, LLP, from 

2000 to 2003. Judge Kim received his B.A., with special 

distinction, in 1996 from the University of Oklahoma. 

He received his J.D., magna cum laude, in 1999 from 

the Georgetown University Law Center, where he was 

elected to the Order of the Coif and served on the law 

review. Following law school, Judge Kim clerked for 

Circuit Judge Sidney R. Thomas of the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and for District Judge 

Stephen V. Wilson of the U.S. District Court for the 

Central District of California. He maintains chambers 

in Los Angeles.

JUDICIAL TRANSITIONS

Magistrate Judges
9

Lynnette C. Kimmins was 

appointed a magistrate judge for the 

District of Arizona on April 5, 2016. 

Prior to her appointment, Judge 

Kimmins held several positions in the 

Office of the U.S. Attorney for the 

District of Arizona including senior 

litigation counsel, interim first 

assistant, deputy chief in the Tucson 

Office, criminal chief and chief assistant, and assistant 

U.S. attorney from 1999 to 2016. She worked as a deputy 

county attorney for the Pima County (Arizona) Attorney’s 

Office from 1993 to 1999. Judge Kimmins was a juvenile 

probation officer for Maricopa County, Arizona, from 

1988 to 1989. She received her B.S. from Arizona State 

University in 1988 and her J.D. from the University of 

Arizona, College of Law, in 1992. Judge Kimmins 

maintains chambers in Tucson.

Kenneth J. Mansfield was 

appointed a magistrate judge for the 

District of Hawaii on April 1, 2016. 

Prior to his appointment, Judge 

Mansfield was the co-managing 

partner of McCorriston Miller Mukai 

MacKinnon LLP, where he had 

practiced law since 1998. Prior to 

that, he was a civil litigator at 

Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith & Davis LLP from 1997 to 

1998. Judge Mansfield’s private practice focused on 

commercial litigation, health care, insurance and 

government contracting. He received his B.A., cum laude, 

from Middlebury College in 1994 and his J.D. from the 

University of Pennsylvania Law School in 1997. He 

maintains chambers in Honolulu.

Jolie A. Russo was appointed as a 

magistrate judge for the District of 

Oregon on February 25, 2016. Prior 

to her appointment, Judge Russo had 

served as a senior staff attorney to 

Judges Ann Aiken and James Redden 

of the U.S. District Court for the 

District of Oregon since 1988. She 

has served as an assistant professor 

and adjunct faculty member for the University of Oregon, 

School of Law, since 2004, and as an assistant professor 

for Lewis and Clark School of Law from 2006 to 2008. 

Judge Russo received her B.S. from the Lewis and Clark 

College and her J.D. from the Lewis and Clark School of 

Law. She clerked for Judge Otto R. Skopil of the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. She maintains 

chambers in Eugene.

Andrew G. Schopler was appointed 

a magistrate judge for the Southern 

District of California on September 

30, 2016. Prior to his appointment, 

he had served as the deputy chief of 

the Major Frauds and Special 

Prosecutions Section at the Office of 

the U.S. Attorney in San Diego since 

2014. He joined the office as an 

assistant U.S. attorney in 2004. Judge Schopler began his 

legal career as an assistant public defender in Carrboro, 

North Carolina, in 1998. He engaged in private practice as 

an associate with the law firm of Rudolf Maher 

Widenhouse & Fialko PA from 1998 to 2004. Judge 

Schopler served as co-chair of the Lawyer Representatives 

Committee for the Southern District of California. He 

serves as captain in the U.S. Army National Guard. Judge 

Schopler maintains chambers in San Diego.
10

 Youlee Yim You was appointed a 

magistrate judge for the District of 

Oregon on March 1, 2016. Prior to 

her appointment to the federal 

bench, she had served as a circuit 

court judge for Multonomah County 

(Oregon) Circuit Court, since 2007. 

Prior to that, she was a senior 

assistant attorney general for the 

Trial and Appellate Divisions in the Oregon Department 

of Justice in Salem from 2004 to 2007. Judge You served 

as a staff attorney for the U.S. District Court for the 

Central District of California from 1998 to 2004. She 

was deputy bureau chief and senior assistant district 

attorney for Kings County (New York) District 

Attorney’s Office in Brooklyn from 1994 to 1998; an 

assistant attorney general in the Appellate Division of 

the Oregon Department of Justice from 1992 to 1994; 

and a staff attorney for the Metropolitan Public 

Defender in Portland, Oregon, from 1989 to 1992. Judge 

You received her B.A. from Wellesley College in 1986 

and her J.D. from the University of Washington, School 

of Law, in 1989. She maintains chambers in Portland.

JUDICIAL TRANSITIONS

Magistrate Judges continued
11

Susan R. Bolton was appointed a 

district judge for the District of 

Arizona on October 13, 2000, and 

assumed senior status on September 

1, 2016. Prior to her appointment to 

the federal bench, she had served as 

a judge of the Maricopa County 

(Arizona) Superior Court since 1989. 

Judge Bolton engaged in private 

practice in Phoenix from 1977 to 1989. She received her 

B.A. from the University of Iowa in 1973 and her J.D. 

from the University of Iowa, College of Law, in 1975. 

She maintains chambers in Phoenix.

 Richard R. Clifton was appointed a 

circuit judge for the Ninth Circuit 

Court of Appeals on July 30, 2002, 

and assumed senior status on 

December 31, 2016. Prior to his 

appointment to the bench, Judge 

Clifton engaged in private practice in 

Honolulu, Hawaii, since 1977. He 

was an adjunct professor at the 

University of Hawaii, Richardson School of Law, from 

1979 to 1980 and from 1983 to 1989. Judge Clifton 

received his A.B. from Princeton University in 1972 and 

his J.D. from Yale Law School in 1975. He maintains 

chambers in Honolulu.

Marilyn L. Huff was appointed a 

district judge for the Southern 

District of California on May 14, 

1991, and assumed senior status 

on September 30, 2016. Prior to 

her appointment to the bench, 

Judge Huff had engaged in 

private practice in San Diego 

since 1976. Judge Huff received 

her B.A. from Calvin College in 1972 and her J.D. 

from the University of Michigan Law School in 

1976. She maintains chambers in San Diego.

 Robert C. Jones was appointed a 

district judge for the District of 

Nevada on November 30, 2003, and 

assumed senior status on February 

1, 2016. Prior to his appointment, he 

served as a judge of the Ninth 

Circuit Bankruptcy Panel from 1986 

to 1999. Judge Jones engaged in 

private practice from 1976 to 1982. 

He received his B.S. from the Brigham Young University 

in 1971 and his J.D. from the University of California, 

Los Angeles, School of Law, in 1975. Following law 

school, he clerked for Judge J. Clifford Wallace of the 

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

maintains chambers in Reno.

Robert S. Lasnik was appointed a 

district judge for the Western District 

of Washington on October 22, 1998, 

and served as chief judge of his court 

from 2004 to 2011. He assumed 

senior status on January 27, 2016. 

Prior to his appointment to the 

federal bench, Judge Lasnik had 

served as a judge of the King County 

(Washington) Superior Court since 1990. He worked for 

the King County Prosecutor’s Office, where he was chief 

of staff from 1983 to 1990; a senior deputy prosecutor 

from 1981 to 1983; and a deputy prosecutor from 1978 to 

1981. Judge Lasnik received his A.B. from Brandeis 

University in 1972; his M.S. and M.A. from Northwestern 

University in 1973 and 1974, respectively; and his J.D. 

from the University of Washington, School of Law, in 

1978. He maintains chambers in Seattle.

JUDICIAL TRANSITIONS

Senior Judges
12

Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain was 

appointed a circuit judge of the 

United States Court of Appeals for 

the Ninth Circuit on September 26, 

1986. He assumed senior status on 

December 31, 2016. Prior to his 

appointment, Judge O’Scannlain 

served as a chairman of the 

Advisory Panel to the Secretary for 

the U.S. Department of Energy from 1983 to 1985. He 

was a team leader, President’s Private Sector Survey on 

Cost Control (Grace Commission) from 1982 to 1983, 

and a consultant, Office of the President-Elect of the 

U.S., from 1980 to 1981. Judge O’Scannlain engaged in 

private practice in Portland from 1975 to 1986 and 

from 1965 to 1969. He served as director of the 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality from 

1973 to 1974; as public utility commissioner for the 

State of Oregon from 1971 to 1973; and as deputy 

attorney general for the state of Oregon from 1969 to 

1971. He retired from the U.S. Army Reserve in 1978 

at the rank of major after 23 years Reserve and 

National Guard service, including four years as an 

enlisted man. Judge O’Scannlain received his B.A. from 

St. John’s University in 1957, his J.D. from Harvard 

Law School in 1963, and his LL.M. from the University 

of Virginia Law School in 1992. He was awarded an 

honorary LL.D. degrees from the University of Notre 

Dame in 2002, from Lewis & Clark College in 2003, 

and from the University of Portland in 2011. Judge 

O’Scannlain maintains chambers in Portland.

 Marsha J. Pechman was appointed 

a district judge for the Western 

District of Washington on 

September 9, 1999, and served as 

chief judge of her court from 2001 

to 2016. She assumed senior status 

on February 6, 2016. Prior to her 

appointment to the federal bench, 

Judge Pechman had served as judge 

of King County (Washington) Superior Court since 

1988. She was an adjunct professor at University of 

Puget Sound from 1983 to 1987. Judge Pechman 

engaged in private practice in Seattle from 1981 to 1988. 

Before that, she was an instructor and staff attorney for 

the University of Washington, School of Law, from 

1979 to 1981. She was deputy prosecutor for King 

County from 1976 to 1979. Judge Pechman received her 

B.A. from Cornell University in 1973 and her J.D. from 

Boston University School of Law in 1976. She maintains 

chambers in Seattle.

Dean D. Pregerson was appointed 

a district judge for the Central 

District of California on August 1, 

1996, and assumed senior status on 

January 28, 2016. Prior to coming 

onto the bench, he had served as vice 

president and general counsel for 

The Torrance Company in 1985. He 

engaged in private practice in Los 

Angeles from 1986 to 1996 and from 1983 to 1985; in 

Napa, California in 1982; in Agana, Guam, in 1982; and in 

Ventura, California, in 1978. Judge Pregerson was an 

assistant public defender in Agana from 1978 to 1981 and 

was a parole hearing officer for the California Department 

of Corrections in 1977. Judge Pregerson received his B.A. 

from the University of California, Los Angeles, in 1972 

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

School of Law, in 1976. He maintains chambers in Los 

Angeles.

 James L. Robart was appointed a 

district judge for the Western 

District of Washington on June 21, 

2004, and assumed senior status on 

June 28, 2016. Prior to his 

appointment to the bench, he had 

been in private practice with the law 

firm of Lane Powell Spears 

Lubersky LLP, as a managing 

partner from 1998 to 2004; a partner from 1980 to 1998; 

and as an associate from 1973 to 1980. Judge Robart 

received his B.A. from Whitman College in 1969 and his 

J.D. from the Georgetown University Law Center in 

1973. He maintains chambers in Seattle.

JUDICIAL TRANSITIONS

Senior Judges continued
13

Barry G. Silverman was appointed 

a circuit judge of the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Ninth 

Circuit on February 4, 1998. He 

assumed senior status on October 11, 

2016. Prior to his appointment, Judge 

Silverman served as a magistrate 

judge for the District of Arizona 

since 1995. Before coming onto the 

federal bench, Judge Silverman served as a judge and 

served as a commissioner of the Maricopa County 

(Arizona) Superior Court from 1984 to 1995 and from 

1979 to 1984, respectively. Judge Silverman worked as a 

deputy county attorney for Maricopa County from 1977 

to 1979, and as an assistant city prosecutor in Phoenix 

from 1976 to 1977. He received his B.A. from Arizona 

State University in 1973 and his J.D. from ASU College of 

Law in 1976. He maintains chambers in Phoenix.

 Christina A. Snyder was appointed 

as a district judge for the Central 

District of California on November 

10, 1997, and assumed senior status 

on November 23, 2016. Prior to her 

appointment to the bench, she had 

engaged in private practice in Los 

Angeles since 1972. Judge Snyder 

served as president of Public 

Counsel and as a board member of the Western Center 

of Law and Poverty, and was a member of the board of 

visitors for Stanford Law School. Judge Snyder received 

her B.A. from Pomona College in 1969 and her J.D. 

from Stanford Law School in 1972. She maintains 

chambers in Los Angeles.

 Neil V. Wake was appointed as a 

district judge for the District of 

Arizona on March 15, 2004, and 

assumed senior status on July 5, 

2016. Prior to coming onto the 

bench, Judge Wake had been in 

private practice since 1974. He 

served as a judge pro tempore on 

the Arizona Court of Appeals from 

1996 to 1998, in 1992, and in 1985. Judge Wake received 

his B.A. from Arizona State University in 1971 and his 

J.D. from Harvard Law School in 1974. He maintains 

chambers in Phoenix.
14

Circuit Judge Shirley Ann M. 

Hufstedler, 90, of the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Ninth 

Circuit died on March 30, 2016. She 

was nominated by President Lyndon 

Johnson on July 17, 1968, confirmed 

by the Senate on September 12, 

1968, receiving her judicial 

commission the same day. She 

served the court until 1979, when she was appointed as 

the first secretary of the U.S. Department of Education. 

Judge Hufstedler was appointed to the Los Angeles 

County Superior Court in 1962 and to the California 

Court of Appeal in 1966. She was the Phleger professor 

of law in 1982 at Stanford Law School, where she was 

one of the first women to graduate and was at the top 

of her class in 1949. She had her own private practice in 

Los Angeles in 1950 which merged in 1995 with 

Morrison & Foerster, where she had worked as senior of 

counsel for the past 20 years. 

Bankruptcy Judge William J. 

Lasarow, 94, of the United States 

Bankruptcy Court for the Central 

District of California died on 

November 18, 2016. He was 

appointed to the bankruptcy bench 

in 1973 and reappointed in 1986. 

He served as chief judge of his 

court from 1978 to 1990. He 

retired from active service in 1992 but continued to 

serve in a recalled capacity until 1994. He served as 

judge of the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel 

from 1979 to 1982. Prior to coming onto the bench, 

Judge Lasarow had been in private practice in Los 

Angeles from 1953 to 1973. He began his law career in 

1951 as counsel to the Judiciary Committee of the 

California State Assembly and was the deputy district 

attorney for Stanislaus County, California, from 1952 

to 1953. He received his B.A. from the University of 

Florida in 1943 and his J.D. in 1950 from Stanford Law 

School, where he was a member of the Stanford Law 

Review. Judge Lasarow is survived by his wife of many 

years, Marilyn. 

JUDICIAL TRANSITIONS

In Memoriam
15

CIRCUIT 

HIGHLIGHTS
16

In 2016, the Ninth Circuit’s Magistrate Judges Executive Board 

published the second edition of “Carpe Data: A Guide for Ninth 

Circuit Magistrate Judges When Reviewing Government Applications 

to Obtain Electronic Information.” While the guide will be 

appreciated by all judges, it is especially helpful to newly appointed 

magistrate judges who are grappling with complicated legal issues in 

the context of woefully outdated statutes.

Also in 2016, the Magistrate Judges Executive Board gave the green 

light to a new newsletter focusing on the legal complexities of 

eDiscovery. “Bits and Bytes,” a biannual publication prepared by the 

board’s Technology Subcommittee focuses on how eDiscovery issues 

now figure into virtually civil and criminal cases. The subcommittee hopes to assist magistrate judges and others 

judicial officers in this ever-changing field. The inaugural edition provided a review of guidelines for electronically 

stored information, or ESI, including a categorized collection of key ESI cases. 

Magistrate Judges Maintain

Focus on Technology with 

Updated Guide and Newsletter

The 27th annual Technology Users Group Conference, held August 

16-18, 2016, in Phoenix, Arizona, drew nearly 250 judges and 

judiciary staff. In addition to Ninth Circuit particpants, the 

conference drew attendees from five other federal circuits. Staff from 

the Administrative Office of the United States Courts attended and 

made presentations focusing on judicial security, cloud based services, 

SharePoint and courtroom technology, Office 365 and current AO 

initiatives. Vendors were on site to showcase and discuss latest 

products and innovations, and were available to assist the courts with 

their information technology related questions. 

2016 TUG Conference Convenes in Phoenix
17

Two federal courts in California marked a 

half-century of service to their communities 

in 2016. The United States District Courts 

for the Eastern District of California and the 

Southern District of California celebrated their 

golden anniversaries with special programs and 

historical exhibits.

Through most of its history, California was 

served by two federal courts. In 1860, Congress 

created the Northern District of California, 

with headquarters in San Francisco, and the 

Southern District of California, based in Los 

Angeles. Significant growth in population and 

commerce eventually led Congress to expand 

the number of federal courts serving the 

state. In 1966, the boundaries of the existing 

Northern and Southern districts were redrawn 

to allow for the creation of the Eastern 

District of California and the Central District 

of California.

The Eastern District, which takes in 34 

counties, encompasses the largest jurisdiction 

geographically of the California districts. 

While technically “new” in 1966, the Central 

District was large and well established from 

the start, comprising seven of the nine 

counties that had originally made up the 

Southern District. The true newcomer then 

was the much smaller Southern District, 

consisting of two counties. Over the past 

half-century, however, the Southern District 

has grown from judicial outpost to one of the 

nation’s busiest federal courts.

In Sacramento, the Eastern District anniversary 

was observed on September 16, 2016, with a 

special sitting that drew several hundred people 

to the ceremonial courtroom of the Robert 

T. Matsui U.S. Courthouse. On the bench, 

were U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. 

Kennedy, who was born in Sacramento and 

practiced law there, and Senior District Judge 

William B. Shubb. In a conversation moderated by one of 

Judge Shubb’s law clerks, the two jurists traded anecdotes 

related to memorable cases, judges and lawyers, and even 

courthouses.

In San Diego, Southern District judges and the local bar 

association observed the anniversary on September 19, 

2016, with a program and reception at the James M. 

Carter and Judith N. Keep U.S. Courthouse. The district 

also unveiled an elaborate exhibit titled "Then and Now: 

A History of the Southern District of California Since 

1966.” It is permanently on display in the courthouse's 

jury assembly room. 

The special sitting in the Eastern District, above, featured a 

conversation between Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, center, and Senior 

District Judge William B. Shubb, left, moderated by law clerk 

Breann M. Moebius. The Southern District exhibit, below, consists 

of a time line stretching some 25 feet, divided into five panels, each 

depicting 10 years in the district history. It is now on permanent 

display in a jury assembly room.

California Judicial 

Districts Mark 50

Years of Service 
18

A bankruptcy judge in Oregon is helping bring financial 

literacy to inmates in the state’s only prison for women.

Judge Trish Brown of the United States Bankruptcy Court 

for the District of Oregon regularly visits the Coffee 

Creek Correctional Facility south of Portland. Her classes 

on personal finance and bankruptcy basics have proved 

popular among the facility’s 1,300 female prisoners.

Judge Brown’s presentations are based on the Credit 

Abuse Resistance Education, or CARE, program, which 

was originally intended to prepare high school seniors 

for the responsible use of credit. She has modified the 

presentation to focus on issues relevant to incarcerated 

people, such as prepaid cards, tax compliance, and 

communicating with creditors while in prison. The 

judge also designed a special hour-long presentation on 

bankruptcy, including a focus on whether or not to file a 

petition.

Coffee Creek came to Judge Brown’s attention as a 

result of an uptick in bankruptcy filings from inmates. 

She noticed frequent mistakes and often wondered if 

a bankruptcy filing was in the prisoner’s interest. Her 

offer to provide practical information about a topic 

that impacts most of the facility’s residents was eagerly 

accepted by prison officials.

Judge Brown’s prison outreach also includes providing 

books to children who visit their mothers during the 

holidays. She and her staff have received donated 

children’s books from friends and colleagues. She has 

delivered some 1,800 books, enough for every child to 

have visited the prison in December over the last two 

years.

“It’s a small gesture, but it makes a big difference and we 

all hope that we’re inspiring a new generation of readers,” 

said prison librarian Angele Wheeler. 

Oregon Judge Brings Financial Literacy to Women Inmates

The Federal Bar Association, Northern District of 

California Chapter, held its 38th annual Ninth Circuit 

luncheon on March 23, 2016, in San Francisco. The 

luncheon serves to recognize the work done by 

federal judges of the United States Court of Appeals 

for the Ninth Circuit and the U.S. District Court 

for the Northern District of California. Speakers 

included Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Sidney R. Thomas 

and Chief District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton. The 

program also featured an informal conversation with 

Ninth Circuit Judges Consuelo M. “Connie” Callahan 

of Sacramento, California; Morgan Christen of 

Anchorage, Alaska; and Mary H. Murguia of Phoenix, 

Arizona. The judges shared stories about some of the 

more humorous moments in their careers. The annual 

gathering draws hundreds of lawyers practicing in 

federal courts in Northern California. 

Northern California Bar Recognizes Judges

Bankruptcy Judge Trish Brown and her law clerk, Stephen Raher,

teach a class on personal finance and bankruptcy basics at Coffee

Creek Correctional Facility near Portland, Oregon.

Making remarks were, from left, Ninth Circuit Judges Consuelo M. 

“Connie” Callahan of Sacramento, California; Morgan Christen of 

Anchorage, Alaska; and Mary H. Murguia of Phoenix, Arizona.
19

Senior Circuit Judge J. Clifford 

Wallace of the United States 

Court of Appeals for the 

Ninth Circuit, an esteemed 

jurist, judicial administrator and 

advocate for the rule of law, was 

honored in November by the 

American Inns of Court.

Judge Wallace received the 

prestigious A. Sherman 

Christensen Award, which is 

“bestowed upon a member of an 

American Inn of Court who, at 

the local, state or national level has provided distinguished, 

exceptional, and significant leadership to the American Inns 

of Court movement.” The award was presented at the 2016 

American Inns of Court Celebration of Excellence held 

November 5, 2016, at the U.S. Supreme Court. Associate 

Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., hosted the event.

Judge Wallace was influential in developing the 

idea of the American Inns of Court and advocated 

enthusiastically for its establishment. He had 

accompanied Chief Justice Warren Burger on the 1977 

Anglo-American Legal Exchange and served as keynote 

speaker at the organizational dinner of the first Inn of 

Court in Provo, Utah. Judge Wallace served as a regular 

adviser to Judge A. Sherman Christensen, for whom the 

award is named. 

Judge Wallace was nominated by President Nixon to the 

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on May 22, 1972. He 

was confirmed by the Senate and received his judicial 

commission on June 28, 1972. He served as chief judge 

from 1991 to 1996 and assumed senior status in 1996. 

Judge Wallace served in the U.S. Navy from 1946 to 1949. 

He received his B.A., with honors, from San Diego State 

College in 1952 and his LL.B. in 1955 from the University 

of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law, where 

he was an editor of the California Law Review.

The American Inns of Court, a national organization 

with 360 chapters and more than 130,000 active and 

alumni members, is dedicated to excellence, civility, 

professionalism, and ethics in the practice of law. An inn 

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

professors and law students. More information is available 

at http://home.innsofcourt.org.

The State Bar of Nevada has 

awarded its highest honor to 

Chief Judge Emeritus Procter 

Hug, Jr., of the United States 

Court of Appeals for the 

Ninth Circuit. The bar’s 2016 

Presidential Award was presented 

to Judge Hug on June 8, 2016, 

at the Washoe County Bar 

Association’s annual meeting.

Judge Hug is in his 39th year 

of service on the nation’s 

busiest federal appellate court. 

Nominated by President Carter, he came onto the Ninth 

Circuit bench on September 15, 1977. He served as chief 

judge of the circuit from 1996 to 2000 and assumed senior 

status in 2002. 

In announcing the selection of Judge Hug for the 

prestigious award, the state bar noted his tireless efforts 

to preserve the geographic and organizational integrity of 

the Ninth Circuit. The state bar announcement quoted 

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, who expressed his 

admiration of Judge Hug as “a great Nevadan.”

“His impact upon the law in the western United States is 

unsurpassed by any other Nevada lawyer,” Senator Reid 

said. “He can truly be described as the man who saved the 

Ninth Circuit.” 

Prior to coming onto the federal bench, Judge Hug 

had been in government service as a civilian aide to the 

secretary of the Army in 1977; as general counsel to the 

University of Nevada System, from 1972 to 1976; and as 

a deputy attorney general for the State of Nevada. He had 

practiced law in his native Reno from 1958 to 1977.

Judge Hug received his B.S. from the University of Nevada, 

Reno, in 1953 and his LL.B. from Stanford Law School in 

1958. He served in the Navy from the 1954 to 1955.

The State Bar of Nevada’s Presidential Award is 

presented annually to a member practicing 20 years or 

more whose conduct, honesty and integrity represents 

the highest standards of the legal profession. Award 

recipients are those who inspire by example, advance the 

administration of justice, and bring honor and integrity 

to the profession. 

Awards Recognize Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Emeriti

Chief Judge Emeritus

 J. Cliff ord Wallace

Chief Judge Emeritus 

Protcer Hug, Jr.
20

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Circuit Judge Jacqueline H. Nguyen, 2017 Great Immigrants: 

The Pride of America, Carnegie Corp. of New York.

District of Arizona

Senior District Judge Stephen M. McNamee, the John 

Roll Award for Distinguished Service to the District of 

Arizona, Arizona Lawyer Representatives to the Ninth 

Circuit Judicial Conference, and the Mark Santana Award 

for Exceptional Contributions in Law Related Education, 

Arizona Bar Foundation.

Central District of California

Chief District Judge Virginia A. Phillips, Erwin 

Chemerinsky Defender of the Constitution Award, 

Inland Chapter of the Federal Bar Association, and 

The James H. Krieger Meritorious Service Award, 

Riverside Bar Association. District Judge Andrew J. 

Guilford, Distinguished Public Service Award, Los 

Angeles Intellectual Property Law Association, the Judge 

Alicemarie H. Stotler Award, Orange County Federal Bar 

Association, and the Distinguished Judge Award, Orange 

County Intellectual Property Law Association. Bankruptcy 

Judge Thomas B. Donovan, Central District Consumer 

Bankruptcy Attorneys Association Achievement Award, 

Public Counsel Service Award; 23 Years of Service Award. 

Bankruptcy Judge Maureen A. Tighe, inducted as a Fellow, 

American College of Bankruptcy. Recalled Magistrate 

Judge Victor Bianchini, Ninth Circuit Excellence in Pro 

Se Case Management Strategies Award. Magistrate Judge 

Kenly Kiya Kato, Stephen K. Tamura Award, Asian Pacific 

American Lawyers of the Inland Empire. Magistrate 

Judge Karen Scott, Mock Trial Alumni of the Year Award, 

Constitutional Rights Foundation of Orange County.

Eastern District of California

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

Excellence Award, University of the Pacific.

Southern District of California

Chief District Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz, award from 

American Bar Association, National Conference of 

Federal Trial Judges. District Judge John A. Houston, 

Chancellor’s Recognition of Invaluable Service, Board 

of Visitors, North Carolina A & T State University, and 

Recognition for Outstanding Public Service, California 

Black Lawyers Association.

District of Idaho

Senior District Judge Edward J. Lodge, Leaders in Action 

Award, Concordia University School of Law. Magistrate 

Judge Candy W. Dale, Faculty Award of Legal Merit, 

University of Idaho College of Law.

 

District of Oregon

Bankruptcy Judge Frank R. Alley, III, the William N. Stiles 

Award of Merit, Debtor-Creditor Section of the Oregon 

State Bar. Bankruptcy Judge Randall L. Dunn (retired), 

the William N. Stiles Award of Merit, Debtor-Creditor 

Section of the Oregon State Bar.

Eastern District of Washington

Recalled Magistrate Judge Cynthia Imbrogno, 2016 

William O. Douglas Judicial Service Award, Washington 

State Association of Justice.

Western District of Washington

Senior District Judge Marsha J. Pechman, 

Jurisprudence Champion Award, American Society 

for Public Administration, Section on Public Law and 

Administration. 

Awards to Judges in 2016

Idaho Clerk Selected for

Highest Employee Honor

Elizabeth A. "Libby" Smith, 

clerk of court for the District 

of Idaho, was named a recipient 

of the Director’s Award for 

Outstanding Leadership, the 

highest honor for Judicial 

Branch employees.

Ms. Smith manages a consolidated clerk’s office that 

provides administrative services to both the U.S. 

District Court and U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the 

District of Idaho. She assumed the post in 2009.

In announcing the award, the Administrative Office 

of the United States Courts credited Ms. Smith with 

innovative changes that improved court efficiency and 

cut costs, her office's support for visiting judges, and 

her contributions at the national level as the chair of 

the District Clerks Advisory Group.

Elizabeth A. Smith
21

A special committee studying possible reforms to the 

federal system for indigent defense held two public 

hearings in the Ninth Circuit in 2016, taking testimony 

from dozens of lawyers, judges, academics and leaders of 

advocacy groups.

The Ad Hoc Committee to Review the Criminal Justice 

Act Program met February 3-4 in Portland, Oregon, and 

March 2-3 in San Francisco. Additional hearings were 

held during the year in Miami and Philadelphia, Santa Fe, 

New Mexico, Birmingham, Alabama, and Minneapolis, 

Minnesota.

Committee members, who were appointed by Chief Justice 

John G. Roberts, Jr., include District Judge Dale S. Fischer of 

the United States District Court for the Central District of 

California, Reuben Cahn, executive director of the Federal 

Defenders of San Diego, Inc., and Dr. Robert E. Rucker, 

assistant circuit executive for Court Policy and Research for 

the Ninth Circuit Office of the Circuit Executive.

The committee has undertaken a two-year study of the 

CJA system, which provides legal counsel to indigent 

defendants facing criminal prosecution in federal courts. 

About 66 percent of all federal criminal defendants in the 

U.S. are found to be indigent.

In addition to judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys, 

law professors and advocates, witnesses testifying at the 

Ninth Circuit hearings included a number of former 

defendants.

Judicial oversight of the CJA program was of particular 

concern to some witnesses. Judges of the court of appeals 

for each circuit appoint chief federal public defenders, 

while CJA panel attorneys are often selected and paid by the 

district courts in which they serve. The Defender Services 

Office is part of the 

Administrative Office of 

the U.S. Courts.

A number of attorneys 

testified that involving 

judges in defense decisions 

represents an inherent 

conflict of interest in the 

system and potentially 

limits their ability to 

zealously represent their 

clients.

Also addressed during 

the hearings were 

compensation for panel attorneys and payments for 

services necessary for an adequate defense, which varies 

among courts and judges. In their testimony, attorneys 

noted that the government routinely makes use of more 

resources than are available to the defense, whose access 

to outside expertise may be limited. 

Attorneys and judges both spoke favorably about the 

increasing use by courts of case “budgeting” and case 

budgeting attorneys, who work with the defense attorneys 

to estimate and review proposed budgets for individual 

cases. The Ninth Circuit was the first to make use of 

case budgeting attorneys and currently has three of these 

specialists on staff.

The Criminal Justice Act (“CJA”), 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, 

secures the Sixth Amendment right to counsel for 

federal criminal defendants. Enacted in 1964, the CJA 

provides a system for appointing and compensating 

lawyers to represent defendants financially unable to 

retain counsel. 

Ninth Circuit Hosts Two Hearings on Criminal Justice Act 

District Judges Yvonne Gonzalez 

Rogers and David Carter were 

among the witnesses at a hearing 

held in San Francisco.
22

An ad hoc subcommittee drawn from the Ninth 

Circuit Pro Se Litigation Committee and the 

Magistrate Judges Executive Board is helping to 

gather data for a study focusing on the work of pro 

se law clerks, who assist magistrate judges and district 

judges in handling habeas cases and prisoner pro se 

litigation.

Conducted by the Administrative Office of the 

United States Courts, the study will affect the 

availability of funding to retain current pro se law 

clerks and possibly expand their number.

The ad hoc subcommittee includes Magistrate 

Judge Brian A. Tsuchida, who serves as chair, and 

Chief Magistrate Judge James P. Donohue, both 

of the Western District of Washington; Magistrate 

Judge Suzanne H. Segal of the Central District of 

California; and William Stansfield, pro se law clerk in 

the Southern District of California.

The Administrative Office last conducted a work 

measurement study of pro se law clerks in 2012. The 

formulas produced by the study would have led to a 

significant reduction in clerk positions nationwide in 

fiscal year 2017. Nine of the 15 district courts in the 

Ninth Circuit would have been affected.

District courts utilize pro se law clerks in various 

ways, from basic screening of cases through 

preparation of dispositive motions under the 

direction of judges. The subcommittee is seeking a 

more formal and uniform methodology for tracking 

and labeling time spent by clerks. Among the ideas 

being considered for gathering data is an online diary 

that would allow clerks to record their daily work. 

The new work measurement study is tentatively 

scheduled for review in late 2017 by the Committee 

on Judicial Resources of the Judicial Conference of 

the United States. 

Ninth Circuit Contributes to Pro Se Law Clerk Study

Alternative dispute resolution programs are usually 

associated with federal district courts. But ADR is also 

firmly rooted in bankruptcy courts of the Ninth Circuit.

Bankruptcy Dispute Resolution Programs, or BDRPs, 

were established more than 20 years ago in the Central, 

Eastern and Northern districts of California. The types of 

disputes most frequently referred to BDRPs are (1) debt 

dischargeability; (2) preferences and fraudulent conveyance 

matters; (3) breach of contract, particularly involving 

real estate; (4) claim objections; (5) plan confirmation 

objections; and (6) recovery of estate property.

In the Central District of California, the BDRP works 

through a court-sponsored mediation panel, consisting 

of attorneys and non-attorney professionals such as 

accountants, real estate brokers, physicians, and professional 

mediators. Mediators are added on an on-going basis. 

Surveys indicate a large majority of respondents were 

satisfied and would use the mediation process again.

The Eastern District of California’s BDRP allows 

participants to utilize a wide variety of ADR methods, 

including mediation, early neutral evaluation and settlement 

facilitation. All adversary proceedings, contested matters, 

and other disputes are eligible for referral to the program. 

Not included are employment and compensation of 

professionals; compensation of trustees and examiners; 

objections to discharge under 11 U.S.C. §727; and contempt 

or other types of sanctions.

The Northern District’s BDRP utilizes the services of 

trained resolution advocates, or RAs, who are appointed 

annually to the panel. Litigant participation is voluntary. 

Litigants mutually agree to use the BDRP and select a 

suitable RA from the panel. The RA conducts a conference, 

a mediation, negotiation or early neutral evaluation 

format. Upon conclusion of the conference, the RA files 

a confidential report, indicating whether a settlement was 

reached and providing statistical information regarding the 

time invested in the matter.

From a judicial perspective, BDRP programs have 

consistently served as a useful alternative tool for courts and 

litigants to reach a final settlement, often early in the case 

or matter at hand, or at least to narrow the disputed issues. 

The end result is often significant savings in litigants’ time, 

emotional stress, and attorney fees. It also serves as a targeted 

way to save or better utilize the court’s limited judicial resources.

All three districts provide more information about BDRPs 

on their court websites. 

ADR is Firmly Rooted in Bankruptcy Courts
23

In 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth 

Circuit provided appellate training for hundreds of lawyers 

who practice before the court.

The Richard H. Chambers U.S. Court of Appeals Building 

in Pasadena, California, hosted an immigration law training 

program in January, and a habeas law training program in 

October. Immigration training also was offered in March at 

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

in May at the William K. Nakamura U.S. Courthouse in 

Seattle, Washington; and in October at the Sandra Day 

O'Connor U.S. Courthouse in Phoenix, Arizona.

The programs included presentations by court staff 

attorneys, private practitioners, U.S. Department of 

Justice lawyers and federal defenders. Resident appellate 

judges at the various locations also participated offering 

observations and advice on how to most effectively 

present their cases. Two of the programs were video 

recorded and video streamed live to attorneys who were 

unable to attend. Video recordings and presentation 

materials are available on the “Legal Guides” page of the 

court’s website: www.ca9.uscourts.gov. 

While of value to experienced attorneys, the immigration 

training was particularly helpful to lawyers new to the 

practice. Among the topics addressed were motions practice 

and jurisdictional issues; mediation; prosecutorial discretion; 

remand; preparing briefs in support of petitions for review 

of removal orders; and best practices for oral argument.

All of the immigration sessions delved into Ninth Circuit 

case law with summaries provided for numerous decisions. 

Also covered was applicable law in cases involving social 

groups and the convention against torture.

The habeas training session focused on jurisdiction and 

motions practice; establishing the case record; standards 

of review and legal framework; brief preparation; and 

oral argument. 

Court of Appeals Oers Immigration, Habeas Training Programs

Immigration atttorneys flocked to training programs offered at the Ninth Circuit courthouses in Pasadena, above, and San Francisco, below.
24

Circuit Judge M. Margaret McKeown, top, speaks to a group of Eastern European 

officials. A delegation of Egyptian judges and state prosecutors, center, hear a 

presentation on mediation by Howard Herman, ADR director for the Northern 

District of California. Japanese students pose for a picture with Ninth Circuit Judge 

William A. Fletcher in the elaborately adorned Courtroom One. 

Ninth Circuit Plays 

Frequent Host to 

International Visitors

The United States Court of Appeals 

regularly hosts visits by judges and 

lawyers, government officials and 

students from around the world. 

In 2016, at the James R. Browning 

U.S. Courthouse in San Francisco, 

the court hosted visitors from 

seven nations in Africa, Asia, South 

America and Europe. Judges and 

court staff made presentations 

customized to the needs and interests 

of the various groups.

In January, the court welcomed 13 

emerging leaders from Bulgaria, 

Hungry, Moldova, Poland and Romania. 

The visit was arranged by the U.S. 

State Department, which is trying to 

strengthen enforcement of intellectual 

property rights in Eastern Europe.

In April, at the request of United 

States Agency for International 

Development, the court hosted a 

delegation of 17 Egyptian judges and 

prosecutors. The agenda included a 

presentation and demonstration on the 

use of mediation.

In September, a trio of Japanese jurists, 

led by a justice of the Supreme Court 

of Japan called at the courthouse. Also 

that month, the court welcomed a large 

group of Japanese students.

The court closed out the year with 

a November visit by 15 judges and 

lawyers from Brazil, and a December 

visit by a Chinese delegation of 18 

officials from the Guizhou Provincial 

Government. The group received 

staff presentations and observed oral 

argument. 
25

The 2016 Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference was held July 11-

14, 2016, in Big Sky, Montana. The conference is authorized 

by law “for the purpose of considering the business of the 

courts and advising means of improving the administration 

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

The conference provides an exceptional educational program 

and facilitates circuit governance through more than 30 

business meetings. Conferees include judges of the United 

States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the U.S. 

district courts and U.S. bankruptcy courts of the circuit, 

along with lawyers practicing in these courts, court staff and 

special guests.

The opening session of the conference included welcoming 

remarks by Montana Governor Steve Bullock and a video 

message from U.S. Senator Jon Tester of Montana. The 

session also featured a conversation with U.S. Supreme Court 

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy; presentation of professional 

awards; and recognition of the student winners of the 2016 

Ninth Circuit Civics Contest, an educational outreach effort 

involving all of the courts of the circuit.

“And Justice for All” was the theme of the year’s conference. 

General sessions focused on such topics as income inequality 

and its effects on courts and lawyers; ensuring fair and 

impartial policing in the post-Ferguson era; the legal history 

and unique relationships of the Native American tribes and 

Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference Convenes in Montana

The opening day of the 2016 Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference included an address by Jim Duff, director of the Administrative 

Office of the U.S. Courts, above. Ninth Cihief Judge Sidney R. Thomas, top, and Montana Governor Steve Bullock also made remarks.
26

territories in the U.S.; a look at the psychology and 

neuroscience of thinking and reasoning; and how 

mindfulness practices can improve legal analysis, 

judgment and decision-making.

“Income Inequality and the Challenges to Achieving 

Justice for All” offered insights into how increasing 

income inequality in the U.S. in recent decades has 

affected the justice system. Professors from three 

distinguished law schools provided an overview of the 

general economic trends behind income inequality, its 

impacts on the judicial system, and the role of judges 

in ensuring equal application of justice.

In “Tribes and Territories: Unique and Active 

Members of the American Political/Legal Family,” 

two federal appellate judges, a government lawyer 

and a retired justice of the Navajo Nation provided 

an overview of the legal histories and unique 

relationships of the 567 federally-recognized tribes 

and five inhabited territories within the U.S. The 

panel also considered the potential impacts of 

seven tribal and territorial cases now before the U.S. 

Supreme Court.

The interaction between law enforcement and the 

communities they serve was the focus of “Ensuring 

Fair and Impartial Policing in the Post Ferguson Era: 

Where Do We Go From Here?” Panelists included a 

criminology researcher, a plaintiff ’s attorney, the city 

attorney of San Francisco, and a divisional head of 

the U.S. Department of Justice. They discussed issues 

that often arise at the intersection of communities 

and law enforcement and reviewed efforts to increase 

communication and engage best practices going forward.

“Cognition and the Courtroom: Lessons to Learn 

from Our Powerful and Faulty Brains” featured two 

noted professors specializing in biosciences and 

the law, and a medical researcher who studies the 

relationship of neurology to behavior. They focused 

on limitations to the remarkable processing ability 

of the human brain and how judges and lawyers can 

benefit from the psychology and neuroscience of 

thinking and reasoning.

Other conference programs included a review of 

recent Supreme Court cases; a special session for 

attorneys on ethical and practical lawyering and one 

for judges on the practice of judging; an information 

technology program on balancing privacy and security; 

a presentation on recognizing and countering implicit 

bias in decision-making; and discussion of mediation 

techniques for judges, lawyers and mediators.

Presenters and panelists at the conference included a 

number of federal appellate, district, bankruptcy and 

magistrate judges from the Ninth Circuit and elsewhere; 

well-known practitioners; members of the academia; and 

leading scientists and researchers. 

Solicitor Hilary Tompkins of the U.S. Department of the Interior, left, speaking during the "Tribes and Territories: Unique and 

Active Members of the American Political/Legal Family." Plaintiff's attorney John L. Burris, right, sat on a panel discussing fair 

and impartial policing.
27

Among the highlights of the opening 

session of the Ninth Circuit Judicial 

Conference is the presentation of two 

prestigious awards to members of the 

bench and bar. In 2016, the honorees 

were a hard-working immigration 

attorney and longtime federal public 

defender.

American Inns of Court 

Professionalism Award

Robert B. Jobe, a well-known and 

highly respected immigration lawyer 

from San Francisco, was selected 

the 2016 recipient of the American 

Inns of Court’s Ninth Circuit 

Professionalism Award. 

Recognized for his outstanding 

appellate advocacy, Mr. Jobe was 

nominated for the honor by 23 

judges of the United States Court 

of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 

where he appears regularly on 

behalf of people facing deportation 

or removal from this country. 

The nomination also received 

endorsements from government 

attorneys who have been his 

opposing counsel. 

Considered one of the deans of 

the immigration bar, Mr. Jobe has 

argued numerous cases before the 

Ninth Circuit, which has the most 

immigration-related appeals of any 

federal appellate court. Many of 

his representations have been on a 

pro bono basis, including five of six 

arguments made in important cases 

heard by en banc courts. 

Mr. Jobe has spent most of his 

career in private practice in San 

Francisco. He founded his own 

firm, the Law Offices of Robert B. 

Circuit Conference Awards Recognize a Dean of the 

Immigration Bar and a Longtime Federal Defender

Noted immigration attorney Robert B. Jobe was the recipient of the 2016 

American Inns of Court Ninth Circuit Professionalism Award.

Jobe, in 1990. He was previously a supervising attorney with 

La Raza Centro Legal, from 1988 to 1990, and an associate 

with the law firm of McCutchen, Doyle, Brown and Enersen 

(now Bingham McCutchen) from 1987 to 1988.

Mr. Jobe received his B.A. from the University of Michigan in 

1982, after which he served as a legislative aide in the Michigan 

House of Representatives. He received his J.D. from the 

University of Michigan, School of Law, in 1988.

In addition to the Ninth Circuit, Mr. Jobe is admitted to 

practice at the U.S. Supreme Court; the federal courts of 

appeal for the District of Columbia and the Second, Fourth, 

Fifth, Seventh and Eighth circuits; and federal trial courts in 

California.

The American Inns of Court professionalism award is 

given annually in all of the federal circuits to “a lawyer or 

judge whose life and practice display sterling character and 

unquestioned integrity, coupled with ongoing dedication to the 

highest standards of the legal profession and the rule of law.”

Chief Judge Emeritus Mary M. Schroeder of the Ninth Circuit 

Court of Appeals, a former board member of the American 

Inns of Court, presented the award.
28

Ninth Circuit John P. Frank Award

Anthony R. “Tony” Gallagher, the executive 

director of the Federal Defenders of 

Montana, was the recipient of the 2016 

Ninth Circuit John P. Frank Award, 

which recognizes an outstanding lawyer 

practicing in the federal courts of the 

western United States.

Over the course of his 39-year career, 

Mr. Gallagher has been an active 

litigator, taking part in more than 400 

trials and arguing before state and 

federal appellate courts. His clients have 

included Leroy Schweitzer, the leader 

of the Montana “Freemen” movement, 

and, during the early stages of the case, 

Unabomber Theodore Kaczynski. He 

has also served as an expert witness in 

trials and post-conviction proceedings.

Mr. Gallagher has served as the 

executive director of Federal Defenders 

of Montana since it was established 

in 1992 as a community defender 

organization. It is headquartered in 

Great Falls and has divisional offices in 

Billings, Helena and Missoula. 

Except for a brief period of private 

practice in the late 1980s, Mr. 

Gallagher has spent his entire career in 

government service. Prior to coming 

to Montana, he worked in the Office 

of the Federal Public Defender for 

the District of Maryland from 1983 to 

1992, serving as an assistant defender 

and a supervisory assistant. He began 

his legal career as an assistant attorney 

for Baltimore County, Maryland, where 

he worked from 1977 to 1983 and 

was promoted to chief of the office’s 

Investigations Division. 

A Pennsylvania native, Mr. Gallagher 

received his B.A. from Duquesne 

University in 1971 and studied 

psychology at the University of Northern 

Anthony R. "Tony" Gallagher, executive director of Federal Defenders of Montana 

speaks after reeiving the 2016 John Frank Award. The award was presented by Peg 

Carew Toldeo, Esq.

Colorado in 1973. He received his J.D. in 1977 from the University 

of Baltimore, School of Law.

The John P. Frank Award recognizes a lawyer who has 

“demonstrated outstanding character and integrity; dedication to 

the rule of law; proficiency as a trial and appellate lawyer; success 

in promoting collegiality among members of the bench and 

bar; and a lifetime of service to the federal courts of the Ninth 

Circuit.”

The late Mr. Frank was a renowned attorney in Phoenix who, 

over the course of a 62-year career, argued more than 500 appeals 

before the Arizona Court of Appeals, the Arizona Supreme Court, 

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, other federal circuit courts 

and the U.S. Supreme Court. 

The award was established in 2003 by the Judicial Council of 

the Ninth Circuit at the recommendation of the Ninth Circuit 

Advisory Board, a group of experienced attorneys who advise on 

circuit governance issues. The award was presented by attorney 

Peg Carew Toledo, who chairs the Advisory Board. 
29

Young people from Arizona, California 

and the United States Territory of Guam 

were selected the winners of the 2016 

Ninth Circuit Civics Contest, an essay and 

video competition open to high school 

students in the western states and U.S. 

territories in the Pacific.

“50 Years After the Miranda Decision: How 

Federal Courts Defined the Rights of the 

Accused” was the theme of the contest, 

which focused on the 50th anniversary of 

the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Miranda 

v. Arizona. Students were challenged to write 

an essay or produce a short video on the 

topic. Teams of up to three students were 

allowed for video production. All told, more 

than 700 students entered the contest, which 

offered cash prizes and a chance to meet 

some of the nation’s preeminent jurists and 

legal practitioners.

Daniela Mirell, a junior at HarvardWestlake High School in Studio City, 

California, finished first in the essay 

contest, while Ivan Skvaril, a sophomore 

at St. John’s School in Tumon, Guam, 

finished first in the video competition. 

Both students traveled to Big Sky, 

Montana, to present their work during the 

opening session of the 2016 Ninth Circuit 

Judicial Conference.

Many of the 15 federal courts in the 

Ninth Circuit held local competitions 

with winners advancing to the circuit-level 

contest. In all, 36 essays and 25 videos 

were selected for final consideration by 

the Ninth Circuit Courts and Community 

Committee, which organized the contest. 

 “We are very pleased to have had so 

many students from so many different 

places in the circuit participate in the 

contest. All of the entrants are to be 

commended for their efforts,” said U.S. 

Ninth Circuit Civics Contest Draws Widespread 

Interest from Students, Teachers

Above: Essay winner 

Daniela Mirrel with Justice 

Anthony M. Kennedy and 

Judge Janis L. Sammartino, 

at left, and video winner 

Ivan Skvaril with Chief 

Judge Sidney R. Thomas. 

At left, Justice Kennedy 

chatting with Montana 

students who participated in 

the contest. 

District Judge Janis L. Sammartino of San Diego, who chairs the 

Ninth Circuit Courts and Community Committee.

 The 2016 Ninth Circuit Civics Contest was particularly significant 

for the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, 

where the Miranda case originated 50 years ago.

Prize money and travel costs for the winners to attend the circuit 

conference were funded through attorney admission fees collected by the 

federal courts to fund educational programs for the bar and community. 

The Ninth Circuit Courts and Community Committee was 

established in 2000 by the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit, the 

governing body for federal courts in the West. The committee, 

whose members include judges, lawyers, court staff and others, 

seeks to promote public understanding of and confidence in the 

judicial system. 
30

Circuit Judge M. Margaret 

McKeown of the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Ninth 

Circuit traveled to Nuremberg, 

Germany, to take part in the 

10th annual International 

Humanitarian Law Dialogs, an 

assembly of current and former 

prosecutors of international 

criminal tribunals.

The event took place on 

October 1, 2016, the 70th 

anniversary of the judgments of the International 

Military Tribunal. The proceedings were held in 

the historic courtroom where the judgments were 

rendered and at the Nazi Documentation Center. The 

Nuremberg Trials laid the foundation for our modern 

day system of international justice.

Judge McKeown, who chairs the American Bar 

Association’s Rule of Law Initiative, was asked to present 

the Nuremberg Declaration, a joint statement by the 

prosecutors participating in the program.

"It was very moving to be in the very same courtroom 

where those judgements took place," Judge McKeown 

said of the gathering. "Until the Nuremberg Trials, 

there was no field of international criminal law, no 

Genocide Convention, no Geneva Conventions, and no 

international tribunals."

The International Military Tribunal, established by the 

Allies at the end of World War II, conducted trials of 

the most important political and military leaders of the 

Third Reich. Prosecutors from the U.S., Great Britain, 

France and the former Soviet Union presided over the 

proceedings, which began in November 20, 1945, and 

concluded on October 1, 1946. Justice Robert H. Jackson 

of the U.S. Supreme Court served as chief prosecutor. 

Twelve Nazi leaders were sentenced to death, seven 

received prison sentences and three were acquitted.

The Robert H. Jackson Center in Jamestown, New York, 

organizes the International Humanitarian Law Dialogs, 

which facilitate discussion of international humanitarian 

law by academics, human rights activists, and international 

law practitioners. 

The ABA’s Rule of Law Initiative is an international 

development program that promotes justice, economic 

opportunity and human dignity through the rule of law. 

The initiative, which celebrated its 25th anniversary last 

year, was established in 1990 after the fall of the Berlin 

Wall. Now active in more than 50 countries, the initiative 

seeks to strengthen legal institutions, support legal 

professionals, foster respect for human rights and advance 

public understanding of the law. 

Ninth Circuit Judge Takes Part in Nuremberg Remembrance

Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., named three judges 

from federal courts in the Ninth Circuit to lead 

committees of the Judicial Conference of the United 

States, the national governing body for federal courts. 

The appointees were:

• District Judge Susan R. Bolton of the U.S. 

District Court for the District of Arizona, who 

was named the chair of the Committee on Space 

and Facilities, which reviews, monitors and 

proposes policies related to the judiciary's space 

and facilities needs.

• Chief District Judge Ricardo S. Martinez of the U.S. 

District Court for the Western District of Washington, 

who was named the chair of the Committee on 

Criminal Law, which oversees the federal probation and 

pretrial services system and is involved in other aspects 

of the administration of criminal law. and

• District Judge David G. Campbell of the U.S. 

District Court for the District of Arizona, who was 

named chair of the Committee on Rules of Practice 

and Procedure, which studies the operation and 

effect of the general rules of practice and procedure. 

Ninth Circuit Judges to Lead National Commiees

Circuit Judge M. 

Margaret McKeown
31

When it comes to continuous active 

service, United States District Judge 

Manuel L. “Manny” Real of Los 

Angeles has no equal in the modern 

history of the Judicial Branch. On 

November 3, 2016, Judge Real marked 

his 50th year on the federal bench, the 

longest tenure of any active district 

judge since the 1800s. Colleagues on 

the U.S. District Court for the Central 

District of California celebrated the 

milestone with a special sitting and 

reception at the Spring Street Federal 

Courthouse in downtown L.A.

Judge Real’s remarkable judicial career 

is bound closely to the history of the 

Central District, which was created 

in 1966 when Congress established 

two new judicial districts in California. 

Nominated by President Lyndon B. 

Johnson, Judge Real received his judicial 

commission on November 3, 1966, 

filling one of three new judgeships 

authorized to the new court.

Today, Judge Real is one of two 

surviving members of the Central 

District’s original bench. The other 

is Senior Judge Harry Pregerson of 

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

Ninth Circuit.

“I didn’t intend for it to be 50 years 

and I sure didn’t think it would be 50 

years,” Judge Real wryly observed in 

an interview prior to the anniversary 

event. “But I think what I’ve done and 

how I did it were worthwhile.”

Over the past five decades, Judge 

Real has been responsible for 

literally tens of thousands of cases 

involving all matters of civil and 

criminal law. In addition to the work 

of his own court, Judge Real has 

assisted many other courts in the 

Ninth Circuit and beyond.

Los Angeles Judge Marks 50th Year on the Federal Bench

Judge Real also was the Central District’s longest serving chief judge, 

leading his court from 1982 to 1993. One of the nation’s first Hispanic 

federal judges, he was active for many years in international rule-oflaw programs, lecturing in Spanish in Argentina, Chile and Uruguay on 

comparative legal systems.

Born in 1924 in San Pedro, California, near Long Beach, Judge Real received 

his B.S. in 1944 from the University of Southern California and his LL.B. 

from Loyola Law School in 1951. During World War II, he served in the U.S. 

Naval Reserve. His legal career began in 1952 as an assistant U.S. attorney for 

the Southern District of California, which then included Los Angeles. He 

was in private practice from 1955 to 1964, when he was appointed the U.S. 

attorney for the Southern District.

“I think Chief Judge Emeritus Real is an inspiration to his colleagues not 

only for his length of service, but for his participation in all facets of court 

governance and for his many involvements in civic and community affairs,” 

said Chief District Judge Virginia A. Phillips of the Central District.

Judge Real said he never seriously considered retirement or assuming senior 

status, which would have allowed him to continue to serve the court in a 

semi-retired role while reducing his caseload. 

“I always enjoyed the work I was doing. I didn’t think going senior would 

have helped or hindered me in any way,” he said. “So I just stayed at what I 

was doing.” 

The Honorable Manuel L. "Manny" Real in chambers in Los Angeles.
32

The Pacific Islands Committee, in partnership with 

the University of Hawaii’s William S. Richardson 

School of Law, offered the fifth and final session of 

the Pacific Island Legal Institute on July 25-29, 2016, 

in Hilo, Hawaii.

Seven judges were awarded certificates of completion. 

The institute was specifically designed to meet the needs 

of non-law trained judges and offered sessions on 

Evidence, Judicial Decision Making and Opinion Writing, 

Constitutional Law, Criminal Law and Criminal Litigation, 

and Criminal Procedure.

The Legal Institute was well received by the island judges. 

Associate Judge Ablos Tarry Paul of the Republic of the 

Marshall Islands, MI Judiciary, who attended the sessions 

found the experience “very valuable.”

“I learned so many things I’ve never known before. This 

course improves my overall ability to do my job effectively 

and efficiently as a lay judge,” Judge Paul added.

The Pacific Islands Committee assists the local 

judiciaries in six governmental entities. Guam 

and American Samoa have existed as United 

States territories for more than a century. The 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the 

republics of Palau and the Marshall Islands, and the 

Federated States of Micronesia were previously parts 

of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands established 

by the United Nations after World War II.

The U.S. administered the trust until 1986, when Palau, 

the Marshall Islands and Micronesia attained their 

independence through a Compact of Free Association. 

Rather than independence, the Northern Mariana Islands 

established a political union with the U.S. while remaining 

self-governing with locally-elected political leaders.

Legal systems in some of the islands are a mix of 

common law and customary law and sometimes use U.S. 

law as guidance. All of the islands have local court 

systems. The Northern Mariana Islands and the 

“organized” territory of Guam also have federal courts, 

while the “unorganized” territory of American Samoa has 

a high court whose chief justice and associate chief justice 

are appointed by the secretary of the U.S. Department of 

the Interior. 

Pacific Island Judges Complete Legal Institute

Pictured from left are Associate Judges Muasau Tofili and Fa'amausili Pomele, High Court of American Samoa,; Professor Kenneth Lawson, 

William S. Richardson Law School; Presiding Judge Milton Zackios, Republic of Marshall Islands District Court; Senior District Judge Consuelo 

B. Marshall, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California; Associate Justice Jesse Torwan, Yap State Supreme Court; Associate Judge 

Ablos Tarry Paul, Republic of Marshall Islands District Court; Associate Judge Salvador Ingereklii, Palau Land Court; Minara Mordecai, director 

of special projects, William S. Richardson Law School; and Associate Justice Nickontro Johnny, Pohnpei State Supreme Court.
33

John M. Bodden was appointed the 

chief probation officer for the 

District of Oregon on February 29, 

2016. He worked previously in the 

Eastern District of Missouri, where 

he served as the assistant deputy 

chief from 2012 to 2016, as a 

supervisory officer from 2007 to 

2012, as a senior probation officer 

from 2005 to 2007, and as a probation officer from 2002 

to 2005. Mr. Bodden began his career as a federal 

probation officer in 1997 in the District of Kansas then 

transferred to the District of Colorado in 2000. He 

received M.A. degrees in counseling and theology from 

Denver Seminary in 1993, and a B.A. in Bible and 

theology in 1990 from Moody Bible Institute in Chicago. 

Mr. Bodden was a probation officer in Colorado 18th 

Judicial District before joining the federal system.

Charles F. Flanagan was appointed 

the chief probation officer for the 

District of Arizona on September 19, 

2016. He previously served in 

Arizona State government agencies 

for over 30 years, 23 of those in 

senior administration, including as 

director of two state agencies. His 

career includes 29 years in corrections 

and juvenile justice with statewide responsibility and 

oversight, as well as with significant community 

involvement. He earned a B.A. in English language and 

literature from the University of Amsterdam, the 

Netherlands, in 1985, and became a certified public 

manager through Arizona State University in 1993. He 

anticipates earning a master’s in educational leadership 

from Northern Arizona University at the end of the 

spring semester, 2017, and has worked with at-risk 

populations and the law-enforcement community with 

two colleges.

Rhonda M. Langford was 

appointed the chief probation officer 

for the District of Alaska on October 

31, 2016. Prior to her current 

position, Ms. Langford served as the 

deputy probation chief in the 

Western District of Washington for 

five years. From 2006 through 2011, 

she worked at the Federal Probation 

and Pretrial Academy in Charleston, South Carolina, 

where she held various positions. Earlier in her career, she 

worked as the probation administrator at the 

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts; a probation 

officer administrator for the District of South Carolina; 

and as a probation officer detailed to the Federal Law 

Enforcement Training Center. Ms. Langford began her 

career as a probation officer in the Northern District of 

Indiana in 2000. Prior to her federal career, she was a 

probation officer and a pretrial supervisor on the local 

level for six years. Ms. Langford received her B.A. in 

sociology from Morris College and her M.A. in liberal 

studies from the University of Toledo. 

Jonathan K. Skedeleski was 

appointed the chief probation officer 

for the District of Hawaii on 

December 16, 2016. He has served 

the judiciary for over 15 years in the 

District of Hawaii, where he worked 

as deputy chief probation officer 

from 2004 to 2016 and as probation 

officer from 2001 to 2011. He was 

previously employed by the Administrative Office of the 

U.S. Courts, where he served as probation administrator 

from 2011 to 2014. Mr. Skedeleski worked as a police 

officer with the Honolulu Police Department from 1997 

to 2001. He received his M.B.A. from the University of 

Hawaii in 2000. Mr. Skedeleski is currently the chairman 

of the National Information Standards Academy working 

group and continues to promote data quality throughout 

the probation and pretrial services system. Additionally, he 

was instrumental in developing the National Information 

Standards Academy that has trained over 1,200 probation 

and pretrial services staff. 

Administrative Changes in the Ninth Circuit
34

Brian Stretch was appointed the 

United States attorney for the 

Northern District of California on 

March 30, 2016. Prior to his 

appointment, he had served in the 

Office of the U.S. Attorney for the 

Northern District of California since 

1999. He had served as the acting U.S. 

attorney for the district since 2015; as 

the first assistant U.S. attorney, from 2010 to 2015; and as 

chief of the Criminal Division, from 2007 to 2010. He has 

worked in the Oakland Branch Office, the Organized 

Crime Strike Force, the Anti-terrorism Unit, and the 

Securities Fraud Unit. In 2003 and 2004, Mr. Stretch was 

chief of the Major Crimes Unit in the San Francisco Office 

and served as chief of the Oakland Branch Office in 2005. 

In 2006, he returned to the San Francisco Office and served 

as the senior litigation counsel in the Criminal Division until 

2007. Prior to joining the Office of the U.S. Attorney, Mr. 

Stretch was a deputy district attorney in the Marin County 

(California) District Attorney’s Office from 1994 to 1999. 

From 1992 to 1993, he served as a judicial clerk in the San 

Francisco Superior Court. He is a graduate of Dartmouth 

College and the Georgetown University Law Center.

 Phillip A. Talbert was appointed the 

United States attorney for the Eastern 

District of California in November 

2016 after serving as acting U.S. 

attorney since May 2016. Mr. Talbert 

joined the U.S. attorney’s office in 

2002. He began work in the Narcotics 

and Violent Crime Unit, then served 

as the chief of appeals and training, 

and then as first assistant U.S. attorney from 2011 through 

April 2016. Prior to coming to the Eastern District of 

California, he worked as a trial attorney in the Criminal 

Division of the U.S. Department of Justice in 

Washington, D.C. Earlier in his career, he was an associate 

at the law firm of Stoel Rives LLP in Seattle; and as an 

assistant counsel and associate counsel at the Office of 

Professional Responsibility of the DOJ. Mr. Talbert 

received his B.A. in economics, magna cum laude, from 

Harvard University; his master’s degree in economics 

from the University of Sydney, Australia, which he 

attended on a Rotary Foundation Scholarship; and his 

J.D. from the UCLA School of Law, where he was the 

chief articles editor for the UCLA Law Review. He served 

as a law clerk to Circuit Judge David R. Thompson of the 

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

 Kim R. Walmsley was appointed the 

chief pretrial/chief probation officer 

for the Districts of Guam and the 

Northern Mariana Islands on May 16, 

2016. Ms. Walmsley is no stranger to 

the islands. After graduating from the 

University of California, Hastings 

College of the Law, in 1996, Ms. 

Walmsley moved to Guam. She served 

as Chief Judge Frances Marie Tydingco-Gatewood’s career 

law clerk until December 2012, when she relocated to land 

down under where she lived in Perth, Australia, where she 

served as a transit officer with the Public Transport Authority.

 Billy J. Williams was appointed the 

United States attorney for the District 

of Oregon in February 15, 2016. Since 

joining the U.S. Attorney’s Office in 

2000, he has served as interim U.S. 

attorney, first assistant U.S. attorney, 

chief of the Criminal Division, chief 

of the Violent Crimes Unit, and the 

assistant U.S. attorney and tribal liaison 

for the Indian Country. He serves on the following of the 

Attorney General’s Advisory Committee Subcommittees: 

Native American Issues; Law Enforcement Coordinating 

Council/ Victim/Community Issues; and Border and 

Immigration Law Enforcement Issues. He also serves on 

the AGAC Working Groups: Environmental Issues; Local 

Government Coordination; Child Exploitation and 

Obscenity; Civil Litigation Policy; Security; and Marijuana 

Enforcement. Prior to his federal service, Mr. Williams 

served as a senior deputy district attorney in Multnomah 

County, Oregon, where he supervised the Career Criminal 

Unit. Mr. Williams received his law degree from Willamette 

University College of Law in 1989. 

2015 Adminstrative Changes:

Lesley Allen was appointed the clerk of court for the 

United States District Court for the District of Alaska 

on July 1, 2015. She leads court staff in five offices in 

Anchorage, Fairbanks, Juneau, Ketchikan and Nome. 

Janet J. Stafford was appointed the bankruptcy court 

clerk for the United States Bankruptcy Court for the 

District of Alaska on May 31, 2016. She oversees court 

staff in three offices in Anchorage, Fairbanks and 

Juneau. 
35

SPACE AND 

SECURITY
36

The opening of a few federal courthouse 

in Los Angeles marked the fulfillment of a 

decades-long quest for a new home for the 

United States District Court for the Central 

District of California. Judges and staff of the 

Ninth Circuit’s biggest and busiest trial court 

began moving into the new building in late 

summer and a ribbon-cutting ceremony was 

held October 13, 2016.

“The courthouse is the result of decades 

of tireless work by many of our judges and 

court staff,” said Chief Judge Virginia A. 

Phillips of the Central District in remarks 

prior to the ceremony. She added that the 

court was especially indebted to District 

Judges Margaret M. Morrow, now retired, and 

the late w. Matthew Byrne “for their vision, 

dedication and leadership.”

Other speakers at the event included U.S. 

Representatives Xavier Becerra and Lucille 

Roybal-Allard, and Los Angeles Mayor 

Eric Garcetti.

The new First Street Courthouse is 

located at 350 W. 1st Street, in the 

Civic Center District of downtown Los 

Angeles. The 10-story, 633,000-squarefoot building features 24 courtrooms and 

32 judicial chambers. In addition to the 

district court, tenants will include offices 

for Probation and Pretrial Services, 

the Federal Public Defender, the U.S. 

Attorney, the U.S. Marshals Service and 

the General Services Administration.

Dubbed “the cube,” the $350-million building 

was designed by Skidmore, Owings & 

Merrill LLP (SOM) and constructed by Clark 

Construction Group-California LP. It replaces 

the venerable Spring Street Courthouse, which 

opened in 1940 and has been on the National 

Register of Historic Places since 2006.

The First Street Courthouse has a serrated glass façade with a north to 

south orientation that maximizes natural lighting and views and helps cool 

the building, reducing energy consumption. A central courtyard is also 

naturally lighted and provides circulation to the building’s interior spaces.

Due to its location, seismic design was a key consideration when it 

came to the structural engineering of the building. The building has a 

roof-mounted solar panel array that is expected to annually generate 

enough energy to power a neighborhood of 54 homes for a year. Other 

advanced technology includes a 105,000 gallon cistern, water-efficient 

fixtures, and advanced irrigation systems.

While the new courthouse will accommodate nearly all of the court’s district 

judges, magistrate judges and a few district judges will continue to be housed 

in the Edward R. Roybal Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse. 

From left, Dan Brown, GSA regional commissioner; Marc Kersey, senior vice 

president of Clark Construction Group-California; City Councilmember José 

Huizar; U.S. Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard; Chief District Judge Virginia A. 

Phillips; Commissioner Norman Dong of the GSA, U.S. Rep. Xavier Becerra; 

retired District Judge Margaret Morrow; and Nicolas Rodriquez, field director 

for the Office of U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer.

Courtrooms in the new First Street Courthouse feature natural lighting from the 

central light-well.

Central District of

California Celebrates 

Opening of ‘The Cube’
37

'AN INSPIRING AND SECURE 

SE¦ING FOR ... ALL WHO 

COME BEFORE US.'

- CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

VIRGINA A. PHILLIPS

The building's serrated glass-and-steel façade was designed 

to maximize daylight penetration and views, while 

reducing the amount of energy needed to cool the building. 

The interior design further allows for natural lighting to 

pass unimpeded from floor to floor.

Photos by Barnet Photography, courtesy of the U.S. 

Distirct Court for the Central District of California
38

U.S. District Courthouse

Saipan, District of the Northern Mariana 

Islands

This project entails construction and lease of a 

new building to house the district court and offices 

for Probation Services, U.S. Attorney and U.S. 

Marshals Service. 

Completion Date: 2019

Edward R. Roybal Federal Building 

and U.S. Courthouse

Los Angeles, Central District of California

The project enables the district court, bankruptcy 

court and pretrial services to vacate the courthouse at 

North Spring Street.

Completion Date: 2018

Ninth Circuit Space and Facilities Projects

Edward J. Schwartz U.S. Courthouse 

San Diego, Southern District of California

The project includes a renovation of the ground floor 

to house the U.S. Probation Office and grand jury 

functions on this floor. The project also includes a new 

childcare center in the Federal Office Building and 

security upgrades.

Completion Date: 2020
39

The James R. Browning United States Courthouse in San 

Francisco is considered to be one of the nation’s most 

beautiful public buildings. The courthouse was listed in 

the National Register of Historic Places in 1971.

Opened in 1905 as the U.S. Post Office and 

Courthouse, the four-story, granite-clad structure is 

a Beaux Arts Classical design that blends Greek and 

Roman architectures along with Renaissance ideas. 

The building’s elegant interiors were exceptionally 

lavish even at the time of its construction, leading 

Sunset Magazine in 1905 to describe it as “the Post 

Office that’s a palace.”

Among the many beautiful features of the Browning 

Courthouse interior are the “lunette” mosaics to be 

found in two of its third-floor courtrooms. These 

half-moon shaped creations depict different symbolic 

scenes that celebrate societal ideals, such as the pursuit 

of knowledge and the sanctity of the law. 

Three of the lunettes are found in the elaborately 

embellished Courtroom One, often used for 

ceremonial functions. The other three serve as 

decoration in the slightly less ornate Courtroom Three.

Out of Reach for Decades, 

Courtroom Mosaics Finally

Get a Closer Look 

Regional Historic 

Preservation Officer 

Jane Lehman 

inspecting mosaics in 

Courtrooms 1 and 3.
40

“Sciences, Literature, Arts”

“Philippines, Puerto Rico, Columbia, Hawaii”

“Agriculture, California, Mining”
41

The lunettes line the top of a side wall in each 

courtroom. Due to their elevation – starting 15 feet 

above the floor – the lunettes are normally viewed from 

below and have never been photographed straight on.

Using a “scissors lift” and a high resolution digital camera, 

Rollins Emerson, archivist for the court of appeals, and 

Alex Clausen, audio/visual specialist for the Office of the 

Circuit Executive, finally conducted a proper photo shoot 

in 2016.

Assumed to have been made of ceramic pieces, it was 

determined that the mosaics are actually assembled out 

of colored glass. The detail and artistry are stunning. 

Fingernails and toenails are separate pieces of glass, 

and even eyelashes in profile are skinny pieces of glass. 

Officials from the U.S. General Services Administration 

asked to examine the condition of the mosaics while 

closeup access was available. In her official report, 

Regional Historic Preservation Officer Jane Lehman 

reported upgraded the condition of the lunettes from 

“very good” to “excellent.”

Each lunette is 12 feet wide by 5 feet deep at its 

peak. They are among the most distinctive attributes 

of each courtroom. Each lunette includes a separate 

caption made of brass, which unfortunately cannot 

be seen from the courtroom floor because of 

protruding moldings.

In Courtroom One, the lunette closest to the bench 

is captioned “Sciences, Literature, Arts.” The middle 

lunette is captioned “Philippines, Puerto Rico, 

Columbia, Hawaii.” The lunette closest to the public 

door is captioned “Agriculture, California, Mining.” 

There is a shared waterfront background linking these 

three lunettes, with a purplish stone wall in front and 

what may be San Francisco Bay in the background.

The three lunettes in Courtroom Three share a grey wall 

with seats, which set off the figures in each mosaic from 

an idyllic wooded background (perhaps the East Bay 

hills) and a spectacular sunset. The lunette closest to the 

public door is captioned “Freedom, Justice of the Law, 

Posterity” with the Lady Justice figure holding the scales 

and the sword of justice. The middle lunette is simply 

captioned “Majesty of the Law” and shows Lady Justice 

on a throne.

The lunette closest to the bench is captioned “Industry, 

Wisdom of the Law, Instruction” and includes an image 

of the tablet containing the Ten Commandments. A tablet 

image was found in many government buildings at that 

time. In 2005, the Ninth Circuit was sued over this lunette; 

the plaintiff alleged a violation of the Establishment 

Clause, but later voluntarily dismissed his lawsuit. 

Each lunette includes the signature of Earl Stetson 

Crawford (1877-1966), an American portrait and 

landscape artist who trained in Europe. Not much is 

know of his connection to this courthouse or if he ever 

visited it during its construction. It is possible that 

craftsmen trained in Italy did much of the work to put his 

design into place. In either case. the lunettes still dazzle 

visitors 111 years later. 

Each mosaic comprises thousands of pieces of colored glass painstakingly 

cut and placed with incredible care by master artisans.
42

“Freedom, Justice of the Law, Posterity”

“Industry, Wisdom of the Law, Instruction”

“Majesty of the Law”
43

WORK OF THE 

COURTS
44

A dip in new filings helped to reduce the pending 

caseload in United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth 

Circuit, while a concerted effort to close long-running 

cases led to an increase in median processing times. The 

court continues to be the nation’s busiest appellate venue.

New appeals filed with the Ninth Circuit 

numbered 11,473 in fiscal year 2016, down 

3.3 percent from the prior fiscal year. The 

Ninth Circuit had 19 percent of all new 

appeals nationally, the most of any circuit. 

Appellate filings nationwide numbered 

60,357, up 14.5 percent overall. All of the 

other circuits posted increases in new cases.

The Ninth Circuit disposed of 11,798 cases 

in FY 2016, down 2.1 percent. The court’s pending 

caseload was reduced by 2.4 percent to 13,334 cases from 

13,659.

Breakdown of New Appeals

Of the new filings, about half of all new appeals 

involved immigration and other agency matters, while 

48.5 percent were pro se cases (those involving at least 

one self-represented litigant).

District courts, which serve as trial courts in the federal 

judicial system, accounted for 58.5 percent of new 

filings in FY 2016. District courts generated 6,707 new 

appeals, down 9.4 percent from the prior year. Of the 

total, 5,291 were civil appeals and 1,416 were criminal 

appeals. Prisoner petitions involving habeas corpus, 

capital habeas corpus, civil rights, prison conditions and 

other matters accounted for 48.2 percent of all new 

civil appeals from the district courts. 

Among the 15 district courts of the circuit, the four 

California courts produced 62 percent of the new civil 

appeals and 49.8 percent of new criminal appeals. The 

Central District of California, the busiest court in the 

circuit, generated 1,874 new appeals, down 2.6 percent 

from the prior year.

Of 1,439 new criminal appeals, 31.1 percent were related 

to drug offenses and 20.4 percent immigration offenses. 

The court reported 447 appeals involving drug offenses 

and 293 for immigration offenses. The court received 

213 appeals involving property offenses, of which 172 

were related to fraud. The court received 150 appeals 

for offenses involving firearms and explosives, of 

which 52 were alleged to have been committed in the 

course of violent drug trafficking. Also reported were 

100 appeals involving sex offenses and 78 for violent 

offenses.

Appeals of decisions by the Board of Immigration 

Appeals, or BIA, and other executive branch agencies 

continue to make up a substantial portion of the 

court’s caseload. Appeals of agency decisions 

declined by 10.5 percent in FY 2016. Of 3,236 

appeals of agency decisions received, 3,063 involved 

the BIA. The BIA cases constituted almost 26.7 

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

Circuit had 58.7 percent of the total BIA appeals 

filed nationally in FY 2016.

Original proceedings commenced in FY 2016 climbed 

appreciably to 1,290 from 856 in FY 2015, up 50.7 

percent. The bulk of original proceedings cases involved 

second or successive habeas corpus petitions and 

mandamus appeals.

Terminations and Pending Cases

The court terminated 11,798 cases in FY 2016, down 

2.1 percent from the prior year. Of the total, 7,056 

cases, or 61.5 percent, were decided on the merits, 

while 4,742 were terminated on procedural grounds. 

Of the merits decisions, 1,556 came after oral 

argument, up 3.3 percent, and 5,153 after submission 

on the briefs. In addition, 347 cases were terminated 

through consolidation. Excluding consolidated cases, 

total merit terminations included 1,877 prisoner cases, 

936 criminal cases and 1,536 administrative agency 

appeals. For the year, judicial panels produced 516 

published opinions and 6,193 unpublished opinions 

and memorandum dispositions. 

Appellate Caseload Profile, 2015-2016

Caseload Measure 2015 2016

Change

2015-2016

Filings 11,870 11,473 -3.3%

Terminations 12,048 11,798 -2.1%

1

Pending Cases 13,659 13,334 -2.4%

1

2016 pending cases revised

Court of Appeals Reports Slight Decrease in New Appeals
45

Among cases terminated on the merits in FY 2016, 

4,239 were affirmed or enforced, 783 reversed, 83 

remanded, and 310 dismissed. The court’s overall 

reversal rate was 10.4 percent, compared to a national 

average of 8.2 percent. By category, 14.7 percent of 

criminal cases and 18.3 percent of civil cases were 

reversed or remanded.

The court’s pending cases numbered 13,334, down 

2.4 percent from the prior year. Among the pending 

cases, 36.3 percent involved administrative appeals; 30 

percent civil matters; 14 percent prisoner petitions; and 

11.9 percent criminal matters. Of the pending caseload, 

36.4 percent had been pending less than 6 months, 

20.4 percent pending 6 to 12 months, and 44.2 percent 

pending for more than 12 months.

Median Time Intervals

Median time intervals measure how long it takes for 

cases decided on the merits to proceed through the 

appellate process. In the Ninth Circuit in FY 2016, 

the median time interval from filing of a notice of 

appeal to final disposition was 15.2 months, up from 

14.1 months in the prior fiscal year. The increase 

is largely attributable to court efforts to clear older 

cases that have languished as a result of delays and 

time extensions sought by the parties. The court had 

reduced its median time interval significantly between 

2010-2014.

The clearance of old cases also affected the median 

time interval from the filing of a case in a lower court 

to final appellate disposition, which 

rose to 37.8 months from 34.7 

months in FY2016.

Once an appeal was fully briefed, Ninth 

Circuit judges decide all types of cases 

fairly quickly. In FY 2016, the median 

time interval for panel decisions was 

1.1 months for a case in which oral 

argument was held and about 6 days for 

cases submitted on briefs.

Filings, Terminations and Pending Cases by Appeal Type, 2015-2016

Type of Appeal

2015

Filings

2016

Filings

Change

2015-16

% of Circuit

Total

2015

Terminations

2016

Terminations

Change

2015-16

2015

Pending

2016

Pending

Change

2015-16

Civil

U.S. Prisoner 

Petitions 411 405 -1.5% 3.5% 466 389 -16.5% 247 264 6.9%

Private Prisoner 

Petitions 2,287 2,150 -6.0% 18.7% 2,273 2,266 -0.3% 1,732 1,608 -7.2%

Other U.S. Civil 705 542 -23.1% 4.7% 620 632 1.9% 980 888 -9.4%

Other Private Civil 2,198 2,194 -0.2% 19.1% 2,116 2,152 1.7% 3,084 3,112 0.9%

Criminal 1,549 1,416 -8.6% 12.3% 1,641 1,439 -12.3% 1,628 1,592 -2.2%

Other

Bankruptcy 249 240 -3.6% 2.1% 221 220 -0.5% 344 363 5.5%

Administrative 

Agency Appeals 3,615 3,236 -10.5% 28.2% 3,786 3,825 1.0% 5,440 4,844 -11.0%

Original Proceedings 

and Miscellaneous 

Applications 856 1290 50.7% 11.2% 925 875 -5.4% 253 663 162.1%

Circuit Total 11,870 11,473 -3.3% - 12,048 11,798 -2.1% 13,708 13,334 -2.7%

National Appellate Total 52,698 60,357 14.5% - 53,213 57,744 8.5% 40,808 43,275 6.0%

Ninth Circuit as % of

National Total 22.5% 19.0% 3.5% - 22.6% 20.4% 2.2% 33.6% 30.8% -2.8%

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

miscellaneous cases not included previously.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals En Banc Ballots, 2012-2016

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

2016 810 33 19 14

2015 796 30 16 14

2014 785 37 17 20

2013 832 32 17 15

2012 913 33 19 14
46

Median Time Intervals in Months for Cases Terminated on the Merits, 2015-2016

By Stage of Appeal Ninth Circuit National

2015 2016 2015 2016

1

From Filing of Notice of Appeal or Docket Date to Filing of Appellee's Last Brief 8.9 9.2 5.8 5.8

From Filing of Appellee's Last Brief to Oral Argument or Submission on Brief 14.5 14.7 3.7 3.9

From Oral Argument to Last Opinion or Final Order 1.3 1.1 2.1 2.0

From Submission on Brief to Last Opinion or Final Order 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.3

1

From Filing of Notice of Appeal or Docket Date to Last Opinion or Final Order 14.1 15.2 8.5 7.4

From Filing in Lower Court to Last Opinion or Final Order in Appeals Court 34.7 37.8 27.8 30.1

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

miscellaneous applications not included previously. Cases terminated include appeals, original proceedings, and miscellaneous applications. 

1

Docket date is used when computing the median time intervals for original proceedings, miscellaneous applications, and appeals from 

administrative agencies.

Pro Se Filings and Terminations

Pro se appeals involve at least one party who is not represented by counsel. 

In FY 2016, new appeals by pro se litigants numbered 5,560. Pro se litigants 

accounted for 48.5 percent of all appeals opened during the year. Federal and 

state prisoners, 2,192, and agency appeals, 1,205, made up 61.5 percent of 

the new pro se cases. 

The court terminated 5,320 pro se appeals in FY 2016, down 9.4 percent 

from the prior year. Of that number, 2,958 were terminated on the merits 

after oral argument, submission on the briefs, or by consolidation. Prisoner 

petitions and agency appeals 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 2016, 11 en banc courts were convened. During 

the fiscal year, the court received 810 petitions seeking en banc review. Active 

judges of the court voted on 33 en banc requests, granting en banc review in 

19 cases. The court issued 20 en banc decisions in FY 2016, the most by any 

circuit court.

Death Penalty Cases

The court ended calendar year 2016 with 103 pending death penalty cases from 

four states: California , 42 cases; Arizona, 38; Nevada 20; and Idaho, 3. Within 

the circuit, another 670 death penalty cases are pending in federal trial courts and 

state supreme courts. Since 1976, there have been 75 executions by states within 

the circuit.

Contributions by Active, Senior and Visiting Judges

The court ended FY 2016 with 25 active circuit judges 19 senior circuit judges. 

Active circuit judges issued 62.6 percent of all written opinions. Senior judges 

issued 30 percent of the opinions, while visiting judges sitting by designation 

authored the remaining 7.4 percent of opinions. Over the course of the fiscal 

year, approximately 100 judges sat on the court by designation, including active 

and senior district judges from the Ninth Circuit and circuit judges and district 

judges from other circuits.

Sources of Appeals, 

Original Proceedings, and 

Miscellaneous Applications 

Commenced, 2016

District Appeals % of Total

AK 66 0.6%

AZ 718 6.3%

C. Calif. 1,874 16.3%

E. Calif. 795 6.9%

N. Calif. 784 6.8%

S. Calif. 534 4.7%

GU 14 0.2%

HI 115 1.0%

ID 133 1.2%

MT 210 1.8%

NV 526 4.6%

NMI 11 0.1%

OR 388 3.4%

E. Wash. 140 1.2%

W. Wash. 399 3.5%

Bankruptcy 240 2.1%

Administrative 

Agencies, Total 3,236 28.2%

 IRS 59 0.5%

 NLRB 56 0.5%

 BIA 3,063 26.7%

Other 

Administrative 

Agencies 58 0.5%

Original 

Proceedings & 

Miscellaneous 

Applications 1,290 4.5%

Circuit Total 11,473
47

Civil Litigation Drives Caseload Increase in District Courts

United States district courts serve as the trial courts in the 

federal judicial system and have jurisdiction to consider 

civil and criminal matters and other types of cases. A 

district court operates in each of the 94 judicial districts in 

the nation. 

Ninth Circuit district courts experienced an overall 

increase in caseload during fiscal year 2016. Total new 

case filings numbered 61,027, up 7.6 percent from FY 

2015. The circuit accounted for 17.7 percent of all filings 

nationwide which totaled 350,915.

Criminal Caseload and Defendants 

Beginning in FY 2012, data on criminal cases commenced 

by offense and district are no longer published by the 

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. Data on criminal 

defendants commenced by offense continues to be used 

because it takes into account that a single case may have 

multiple defendants.

Criminal cases brought by the federal government declined 

in FY 2016. District courts in the Ninth Circuit reported 

12,504 criminal filings, down 5.2 percent from FY 2015. 

Criminal cases terminated during the year numbered 

12,222, down 9.4 percent, while the courts combined 

pending criminal caseload totaled 12,545 cases, up 2.4 

percent.

Six out of 15 districts reported more criminal cases in fiscal 

year 2016. The Ninth Circuit as a whole accounted for 21.2 

percent of the criminal caseload nationally, which numbered 

59,064, down 3.5 percent from the prior fiscal year. 

In the Ninth Circuit, the total number of defendants 

involved in criminal cases was down 5.6 percent to 15,815 

cases in FY 2016. A majority of the defendants, 13,250, 

were charged with felony offenses. Defendants charged 

with drug offenses numbered 5,987 and accounted for 38 

percent of total criminal defendants in the circuit. Of the 

total drug offenses, 2,593 involved marijuana and 3,394 

involved all other drug offenses.

Criminal defendants charged with immigration offenses 

were down 8.5 percent to 4,650 cases in FY 2016. 

Immigration offenses constituted 29.4 percent of all 

criminal defendants in the circuit. Of the total, 3,532 

defendants were charged with improper reentry into the 

United States.

The District of Arizona, which is located on the U.S.-

Mexico border, ranked first in the nation in number of 

defendants charged with drug offenses which totaled 

2,862, down 5.9 percent from the prior fiscal year. The 

district accounted for 47.8 percent of all defendants 

charged with drug offenses in the circuit. Defendants 

charged with immigration offenses in the district 

numbered 2,594, down 1.5 percent, and accounted for 

55.8 percent of the circuit total.

 

The Southern District of California, also located on the 

U.S.-Mexico border, ranked second in the circuit for the 

largest numbers of defendants charged with immigration 

and drug offenses. The district reported 1,517 defendants 

charged with immigration offenses, down 15.2 percent, 

and 1,285 defendants charged with drug offenses, down 

8.6 percent. The Southern District of California had 21.4 

percent of all defendants with drug offenses in the circuit.

District courts reported 1,850 defendants charged with 

property offenses. Under this category, defendants charged 

with fraud were most numerous, totaling 1,243, followed 

by burglary, larceny or theft, 432; embezzlement, 67; 

forgery and counterfeiting, 57; and 51 for other property 

offenses.

Defendants charged with firearms and explosive offenses 

numbered 1,031, while violent offenses, including 

homicide, robbery, assault, and other violent offenses 

numbered 616. 

District courts pending caseloads were up 2.4 percent to 

12,545 cases, with six out of the 15 districts reporting 

fewer pending criminal cases in fiscal year 2016. 

Civil Caseload

Civil filings in the district courts were up 11.5 percent to 

48,523 civil filings compared to the prior fiscal year. Civil 

matters accounted for 79.5 percent of total caseloads 

in the district courts. Civil filings nationally numbered 

291,851, up 4.6 percent in FY 2016.

Private civil cases, which numbered 39,330, accounted 

for 81.1 percent of all new civil filings in in the circuit. 

Prisoner petitions were most numerous under this 

category, totaling 8,423, or 21.4 percent of all private civil 

cases in the circuit.
48

U.S. District Courts - Criminal Defendants Commenced by Offense and District, 2015-2016 

AK AZ

C. 

Calif.

E. 

Calif.

N. 

Calif.

S.

 Calif. GU HI ID MT NMI NV OR

E. 

Wash.

W. 

Wash.

Total

2015

Total

2016

Violent Offenses

Homicide 0 30 4 1 0 0 0 1 2 13 0 3 3 1 1 52 59

Robbery 7 8 9 4 9 11 0 4 0 0 0 10 15 2 4 94 83

Assault 3 164 12 6 10 23 0 2 9 26 0 9 11 12 48 307 335

Other 2 39 20 6 3 7 3 1 1 9 1 13 32 1 1 115 139

Property Offenses

Burglary, 

Larceny & Theft 9 34 145 14 38 25 3 7 6 6 0 18 21 8 98 402 432

Embezzlement 5 3 15 2 3 0 0 2 4 20 0 1 1 4 7 74 67

Fraud 21 243 306 84 67 241 17 19 43 20 10 48 43 50 31 1,530 1,243

Forgery & 

Counterfeiting 0 4 18 3 3 4 0 4 3 6 0 5 3 2 2 90 57

Other 1 3 7 21 4 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 11 58 51

Drug Offenses

Marijuana 8 2,308 59 21 30 86 0 2 15 11 0 0 7 12 34 2,810 2,593

All Other Drugs 82 554 257 211 160 1,199 17 70 142 148 3 114 189 118 130 3,546 3,394

Firearms and 

Explosives 

Offenses 46 162 134 78 85 39 1 7 38 83 2 120 92 59 85 891 1,031

Sex Offenses 27 124 37 17 22 50 0 9 21 32 1 34 51 44 41 566 510

Justice System 

Offenses 7 66 11 10 19 37 0 6 1 3 1 6 12 6 16 193 201

Immigration Offenses

Improper 

Reentry by Alien 0 2,227 86 27 41 794 1 0 52 1 0 77 111 71 44 3,891 3,532

Other 0 367 6 0 1 723 3 4 3 0 3 1 1 1 5 1,191 1,118

General 

Offenses 6 22 51 16 15 96 1 2 5 13 1 16 16 3 58 354 321

Regulatory 

Offenses 18 81 67 8 23 43 3 15 5 7 2 2 16 2 18 303 310

Traffic Offenses 1 2 4 8 26 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 250 242 292

All Offenses 

Total 243 6,441 1,248 537 559 3,378 49 157 351 398 24 477 625 397 884 16,709 15,768

Civil rights cases numbered 7,810 cases or 19.8 percent of 

all private civil cases in the circuit. Private civil cases also 

included contract dispute, 4,067 or 10.3 percent; personal 

injury suits, 3,191 or 8.1 percent; intellectual property 

suits, 3,013 or 7.7 percent; real property suits, 2,613 or 6.6 

percent; and labor suits, 2,378 or 6 percent.

The U.S. government was a party in 9,193 civil cases, 

accounting for 19 percent of the total U.S. civil cases in 

the Ninth Circuit. The government acted as a plaintiff 

in 1,007 cases and as a defendant in 8,186 cases. Among 

matters involving the government, social security cases 

were most numerous, 3,683 or 40.1 percent of the total 

U.S. civil cases. Prisoner petitions followed with 2,996 

cases or 32.6 percent, and were up 155 percent in FY 

2016. Other categories were tort actions, 439 cases or 4.7 

percent; contracts, 371 cases or 4 percent; civil rights, 256 

cases or 2.7 percent; and forfeitures and penalties, 232 

cases or 2.5 percent. 

Fourteen out of 15 districts reported increased civil filings 

in fiscal year 2016. Filings in the Northern District of 

California were up 26.5 percent to 7,304 cases; the District 

of Arizona, up 43.2 percent to 5,307 cases; the Eastern 

District of California, up 2.1 percent to 4,835 cases; the 

District of Nevada, up 15.9 percent to 3,637 cases; the 

Southern District of California, up 11.7 percent to 3,548 

cases; the Western District of Washington, up 1.9 percent 
49

U.S. District Courts - Total Criminal and Civil Cases Filed, Terminated and Pending, 2015-2016

Caseload Measure 2015 2016 1Change 2015-16

Civil Filings 43,524 48,523 11.5%

Criminal Filings 13,184 12,504 -5.2%

Total Filings 56,708 61,027 7.6%

Civil Terminations 43,199 44,383 2.7%

Criminal Terminations 13,490 12,222 -9.4%

Total Terminations 56,689 56,605 -0.1%

2

Pending Civil Cases 38,230 42,370 10.8%

Pending Criminal Cases 12,245 12,545 2.4%

2

Total Pending Cases 50,475 54,915 8.8%

2

Civil Case Termination Index (in months) 10.62 11.45 7.8%

Criminal Case Termination Index 

(in months) 10.89 12.31 13.0%

2

Overall Case Termination Index 10.69 11.64 8.9%

Median Time Intervals in Months from Filing to Disposition

Civil Cases 7.1 6.9 -2.8%

Criminal Defendants 5.5 5.8 5.5%

Civil Cases National Total 8.8 9.2 4.5%

Criminal Defendants National Total 7.0 7.1 -

Note: Median time interval from filing to disposition of civil cases terminated excludes land condemnation, prisoner petitions, deportation 

reviews, recovery of overpayments and enforcement of judgments. Median computed only for 10 or more cases. 

1

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

2

2015 total pending civil cases and total pending cases revised

to 3,149 cases; the District of Oregon, up 5.8 percent 

to 2,518 cases; the Eastern District of Washington, up 

15.6 percent to 946 cases; the District of Hawaii, up 31.8 

percent to 759 cases; the District of Montana, up 16.9 

percent to 693 cases; the District of Guam, up 74.5 percent 

to 82 cases; and the District of the Northern Mariana 

Islands, up 72.7 percent to 38 cases. 

The Central District of California, which ranked first in the 

number of civil cases filed in the circuit and ranked second 

in the nation, reported 14,731 cases, up 1.3 percent from the 

prior fiscal year. The District of Idaho reported nine fewer 

filings of 599 cases, down 1.5 percent in FY 2016.

Civil cases terminated by district courts increased were up 

2.7 percent to 44,383 cases, and pending caseload were 

up 10.8 percent to 42,370 cases in FY 2016. Civil case 

terminations nationwide were down 1.1 percent to 271,649, 

while pending cases nationwide were up 5.9 percent to 

361,566. 

Case Processing Times 

Case processing times in the district courts of the Ninth 

Circuit increased in fiscal year 2016. The Case Termination 

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

pending caseload if the current termination rate remained 

constant, increased to 11.64 months compared to 10.69 

months the prior fiscal year. (The termination rate for FY 

2015, previously reported as 10.70 months, was revised due 

to revised total pending cases as reported in the FY 2016 

statistical tables published by the Administrative Office of 

the U.S. Courts.)

The median time from filing to disposition of civil cases 

in the Ninth Circuit decreased to 6.9 months compared 

7.1 months the prior fiscal year, while the national median 

increased to 9.2 months in FY 2016.

For criminal defendants, the median time from filing to 

disposition in the Ninth Circuit was 5.8 months, up from 5.5 

months in FY 2015. The national median was slightly up to 

7.1 months compared to 7 months the prior fiscal year. 
50

U.S. District Courts: Weighted and Unweighted Filings Per Authorized Judgeship 

 Weighted Filings Per Judgeship Unweighted Filings Per Judgeship

District

Authorized

Article III

 Judgeships Civil Criminal

Supervision

Hearings

2016

Total

2015

Total

Change

2015-16 Civil Criminal

Supervision

Hearings

2016

Total

AK 3 106 113 1.9 221 183 17.2% 124 80 23.3 227

AZ 13 337 361 9.1 707 597 18.4% 394 495 114.0 1,003

C. Calif. 28 502 62 2.3 567 659 -14.0% 506 44 27.8 578

E. Calif. 6 666 124 4.0 794 910 -12.7% 787 88 46.5 922

N. Calif. 14 440 56 3.2 499 590 -15.4% 430 41 38.9 509

S. Calif. 13 234 286 6.9 527 493 6.9% 237 259 84.5 581

HI 4 165 57 3,9 226 214 5.6% 173 39 44.8 256

ID 2 251 239 4.2 495 498 -0.6% 290 174 49.5 513

MT 3 188 215 6.9 410 360 13.9% 228 132 68.7 428

NV 7 442 96 3.5 541 572 -5.4% 505 68 37.9 611

OR 6 348 143 5.4 496 518 -4.2% 413 105 66.7 584

E. Wash. 4 147 135 12.2 294 277 6.1% 199 100 140.3 439

W. Wash. 7 385 79 4.5 468 570 -17.9% 438 127 49.7 614

Circuit 

Total 110 4,211 1,966 64.1 6,245 6,441 -3.0% 4,724 1,752 792.6 7,265

Circuit 

Mean 324 151 5.3 480 495 -3.0% 363 135 61.0 559

Circuit 

Median 337 124 4.4 496 518 -4.2% 394 100 49.5 578

National 

Mean 317 136 4.0 457 489 -6.5% 386 112 42.4 541

National 

Total 673 350 130 3.5 483 522 -7.5% 406 114 38.2 559

Note: Case weights are based on the district court case weighting system approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in 

March 2016. Data for the territorial courts are not included. 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 criminal cases filed as felonies or 

Class A misdemeanors but includes only those defendants in criminal cases filed as petty offenses that were assigned to district judges 

rather than magistrate judges. Remands and reopens for criminal defendants are excluded. This table includes trials conducted by district 

and appellate judges only; all trials conducted by magistrate judges are excluded. Sentencing hearings are excluded. Due to rounding, 

subtotals may not equal totals.
51

While continuing to experience a decrease in filings, 

bankruptcy courts in the nine western states and two 

Pacific Island jurisdictions that make up the Ninth Circuit 

remained the busiest in the nation.

Bankruptcy courts nationally reported 805,580 new filings 

in fiscal year 2016. New filings were down 6.3 percent from 

FY 2015 and have declined by 36 percent since FY 2012. 

The Ninth Circuit reported 135,190 new filings in FY 

2016, down 11.1 percent from the prior fiscal year. The 

Ninth Circuit claimed about 16.8 percent of all new 

filings nationally.

In the Ninth Circuit, 13 of 15 judicial districts are served by 

a bankruptcy court (district judges preside over bankruptcy 

cases in Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands). Eleven 

of 13 bankruptcy courts reported fewer filings in fiscal year 

2016. The Central District of California had the biggest 

decrease numerically, while the District of Oregon showed 

the largest decline percentage-wise. 

The Central District, which serves nearly 20 million people 

in Los Angeles and six Southern California counties, had 

42,225 new filings, 6,262 fewer cases than the prior year. 

The change amounted to a 12.9 percent reduction in new 

filings. In Oregon, new filings were 9,488, down 14.8 

percent from the 11,134 received in FY 2015.

Other judicial districts in California also reported significant 

decreases. The Eastern District of California, which 

takes in Sacramento, Fresno and the Central Valley, had 

15,528 filings, down 12.2 percent; the Northern District 

of California, which includes San Francisco, Oakland and 

San Jose, had 10,607 filings, down 10.8 percent; and the 

Southern District of California, which covers San Diego 

and Imperial counties, had 8,263 filings, down 7 percent. 

Outside of California, the Western District of Washington 

and the District of Arizona had the sharpest decreases, 

numerically and percentage-wise. Western Washington 

had 12,739 new filings, down 1,828 cases or 12.5 percent 

from the prior fiscal year. Arizona 15,895 new filings, down 

1,552 cases or 8.9 percent from FY2015.

Increased filings were reported in the District of 

Montana, 1,365 filings, up 4.2 percent and the Districtof 

Alaska, 434 filings, up 1.9 percent. Guam had 152 new 

filings, up 14.3 percent.

Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Courts, 2015-2016

District

2015

 Total Filings

2016

Total Filings

Change

2015-16

AK 426 434 1.9%

AZ 17,448 15,895 -8.9%

C. Calif. 48,487 42,225 -12.9%

E. Calif. 17,681 15,528 -12.2%

N. Calif. 11,892 10,607 -10.8%

S. Calif. 8,889 8,263 -7.0%

GU 133 152 14.3%

HI 1,593 1,463 -8.2%

ID 4,162 3,841 -7.7%

MT 1,310 1,365 4.2%

NV 9,902 9,063 -8.5%

1

NMI 6 7 -

OR 11,134 9,488 -14.8%

E. Wash 4,450 4,120 -7.4%

W. Wash. 14,567 12,739 -12.5%

Circuit Total 152,080 135,190 -11.1%

1

Percent change not computed when fewer than 10 cases 

reported for the previous period.

Bankruptcy Filings Decline, But Pro Se Filer Rate Steady 

The great majority of new bankruptcy cases are 

brought by nonbusiness filers. In 2016, nonbusiness 

filings of all types numbered 781,123, or 97 percent 

of all filings nationally. In the Ninth Circuit, 

nonbusiness filings involving individual debtors 

totaled 130,240, accounting for 96.3 percent of all 

new filings.

Among new business and nonbusiness bankruptcies 

combined, 498,367, or 61.8 percent, were by Chapter 

7 filers. Ninth Circuit bankruptcy courts ranked first in 

the nation in the total number of new Chapter 7 cases 

with 100,643 filings, 20.2 percent of the national total. 

Chapter 7 cases, which provide for the sale of a debtor’s 

nonexempt property and the distribution of the proceeds 

to creditors, made up 74.5 percent of all new bankruptcy 

filings in the circuit.

Chapter 13 filings, which permit individuals with regular 

income to develop a plan to repay all or part of their 

debts, numbered 299,150 nationally. In the Ninth Circuit, 

new Chapter 13 filings numbered 33,074 or 24.5 percent 

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

the remainder. 
52

Pro Se Bankruptcy Filings

Pro se bankruptcy cases are filings brought by parties who 

are not represented by legal counsel. These pro se filers 

often do not understand the law and legal procedures, 

which result in frequent dismissals of their filings. They 

also generally require more staff time to process.

Bankruptcy filings by pro se debtors remain high in 

the Ninth Circuit. In FY 2016, filings by pro se debtors 

numbered 22,758 or 16.8 percent of the total bankruptcy 

filings in the circuit. The highest rates of rate of pro se 

filings were in the Central District of California, 24.3 

percent; the Northern District of California, 19.3 percent; 

and the District of Arizona, 19.2 percent.

Among bankruptcy courts having at least 10,000 new 

filings annually, the Central District of California had the 

most pro se filers nationally. The Northern District of 

California and the District of Arizona ranked fourth and 

fifth nationally in pro se filers.

Terminations and Pending Cases

Cases terminated by bankruptcy courts in the Ninth 

Circuit numbered 162,035 or 17.8 percent of total cases 

terminated nationwide. 

The Central District of California terminated 47,665 

cases or 29.4 percent of all cases closed in the circuit. The 

District of Arizona followed with 19,849 or 12.3 percent; 

the Eastern District of California, 19,368 or 12 percent; 

the Western District of Washington, 15,065 cases or 9.3 

percent; the Northern District of California, 14,769 cases 

or 9.1 percent; the District of Nevada, 12,039 cases or 7.4 

percent; the District of Oregon, 11,447 or 7.1 percent; 

and the Southern District of California, 9,227 cases or 5.7 

percent. The districts of Alaska, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, 

Montana, Northern Mariana Islands and the Eastern 

District of Washington made up the remaining 12,606 

cases terminated or 7.8 percent.

Pending cases before the bankruptcy courts of the 

Ninth Circuit numbered 153,803, down 14.9 percent 

from the prior fiscal year. The Central District of 

California reported a 12.6 percent decline of its 

pending cases to 37,862 cases. The Northern District 

of California saw its pending caseload decline by 

16.4 percent to 21,152, while the District of Arizona 

reported 20,922, down 15.9 percent.

Reappointments, Transitions

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

reappointed three bankruptcy judges in 2016. Reappointed 

were Judges Peter Carroll and Vincent P. Zurzolo in the 

Central District of California, and Judge Robert J. Faris in 

the District of Hawaii.

Elevated to chief bankruptcy judge of the 

Bankruptcy Appellate Panel in 2016 was Bankruptcy 

Judge Meredith A. Jury of the Central District of 

California.

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. Fourteen recalled bankruptcy judges served 

in 2016. 

Business and Nonbusiness Bankruptcy 

Cases Commenced, by Chapter of the U.S. 

Bankruptcy Code, 2015-2016

2

Predominant Nature of Debt 2015 2016

Change

2015-2016

Business Filings

 Chapter 7 3,885 3,477 -10.5%

 Chapter 11 921 930 1.0%

 Chapter 12 34 46 35.3%

 Chapter 13 443 489 10.4%

Nonbusiness Filings

 Chapter 7 113,421 97,166 -14.3%

 Chapter 11 426 488 14.6%

 Chapter 13 32,949 32,585 -1.1%

Total 152,079 135,181 -11.1%

Terminations 183,545 162,035 -11.7%

1

Pending Cases 180,648 153,803 -14.9%

1

2015 pending cases revised

2

The nature of debt is business if the debtor is a corporation or 

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

predominates. Nonbusiness debt includes consumer debt or other 

debt that the debtor indicates is not consumer debt or business 

debt.

These figures include the following cases not reflected elsewhere.

Fiscal Year 2015: Eastern Calif. (Chapter 9=1)

Fiscal Year 2016: Central Calif. (Chapter 15=1), Eastern Calif. 

(Chapter 9=1), Nevada (Chapter 15=5), Oregon (Chapter 15=1), 

Western Washington (Chapter 15=1)
53

The Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, or BAP, 

operates under the authority of the Judicial Council of 

the Ninth Circuit. It is designated to hear appeals of 

decisions made by the bankruptcy courts of the circuit. 

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.

The BAP is authorized seven bankruptcy judges, who 

serve seven-year terms and may be reappointed to an 

additional three-year term. Beginning in 2003, one seat 

on the BAP was left vacant intentionally due to reduced 

workload. Despite fluctuating filings since then, the 

BAP continues to operate with six judges in an effort to 

keep costs low. In their appellate capacity, BAP judges 

are precluded from hearing matters arising from their 

own districts.

New Filings

In fiscal year 2016, new bankruptcy appeals numbered 

754, down 4 percent from the prior fiscal year. The 

BAP handled 46 percent of all bankruptcy appeals, and 

the district courts handled 54 percent. Following three 

years of double-digit growth, total annual filings peaked 

in 2011. 

Dispositions

The BAP disposed of 444 appeals in fiscal year 2016, 

a decrease of 13 percent from FY 2015. Of those, 161 

appeals were merits terminations. Oral argument was 

held in 132 appeals, and 29 appeals were submitted on 

briefs. Of the 161 merits decisions, 25 were published 

opinions. The reversal rate was 5 percent. The median 

time for an appeal decided on the merits was 10.8 

months.

Of the remaining 283 closed cases, 4 were terminated 

by consolidation and 80 were transferred to the district 

courts after appellee elections or in the interest of justice. 

The balance of 199 closed appeals were terminated on 

procedural grounds, such as lack of prosecution, lack of 

jurisdiction, or voluntary dismissal. The BAP had 213 

appeals pending in FY 2016, down 8 percent compared to 

the prior fiscal year.

Pro Se Appeals

The BAP experienced an increase in pro se cases in fiscal 

year 2016. The year began with a pro se caseload of 41 

percent of pending appeals. Pro se parties filed 55 percent 

of new appeals and 54 percent of pending appeals were 

filed by pro se parties in FY 2016. 

Appeals to the Ninth Circuit

Appeals from a bankruptcy decision of either the BAP or 

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

second-level appellate review. In fiscal year 2016, secondlevel appeals filed numbered 236. Of these, 105 were 

appeals from decisions by the BAP and 131 were from 

decisions by the district courts. Thus, of the 444 appeals 

that were disposed of by the BAP, roughly 76 percent 

were fully resolved, with only 24 percent seeking secondlevel review.

New Bankruptcy Appeal Filings, 2016

District

Bankruptcy Appellate

Panel District Court1 Total

AK 1 5 6

AZ 43 29 72

C. Calif. 147 181 328

E. Calif. 39 17 56

N. Calif. 40 62 102

S. Calif. 21 26 47

HI 5 15 20

ID 3 8 11

MT 2 2 4

NV 31 33 64

OR 6 6 12

E. Wash. 0 0 0

W. Wash. 11 21 32

Total 349 (46%) 405 (54%) 754

1

The numbers for bankruptcy appeals to the district courts are 

taken directly from a statistical caseload table prepared by the 

Administrative Office of the United States Courts. The numbers 

for bankruptcy appeals to the BAP are calculated based on data 

from AOUSC tables 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.

Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Sees Dip in New Appeals 
54

Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appeal Filings, 2014-2016

Year

Bankruptcy 

Appeals Total

1

Raw Bankruptcy 

Appeals

Received by BAP

2

Net Bankruptcy 

Appeals

BAP

3

Net Bankruptcy 

Appeals

District Court

4

Election 

Rate

Percentage of Appeals

Heard by BAP

FY 2014 976 627 497 479 49% 51%

FY 2015 782 460 349 433 55% 45%

FY 2016 754 429 349 405 54% 46%

1

Number of new appellate filings received and opened as new case files at the BAP Clerk’s Office. This figure includes some appeals where 

an appellee files an election and the appeal thereafter is transferred to district court. (Where a timely election is made by an appellant, 

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

2

The number of raw bankruptcy appeals received by BAP less the number of appeals transferred from BAP to district court by election or 

other transfer.

3

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

from the BAP.

4

Percentage of bankruptcy appeals where one or more parties timely elected to have their appeal heard in district court.

New BAP Chief Judge and New BAP Judges

In March 2016, Bankruptcy Judge Randall L. Dunn of the 

District of Oregon completed a 10-year term on the BAP, 

which included service as the chief judge from August 2013 

through March 2016. Bankruptcy Judge Meredith A. Jury of 

the Central District of California was appointed chief judge 

of the BAP. In August 2016, Bankruptcy Judge William J. 

Lafferty, III, of the Northern District of California was 

appointed to a seven-year term on the BAP, succeeding 

Judge Dunn. In December 2016, Bankruptcy Judge Julia W. 

Brand of the Central District of California was appointed to 

a seven-year term on the BAP, succeeding Chief Bankruptcy 

Judge Ralph B. Kirscher of the District of Montana who 

had served for more than six years.

BAP Use of Pro Tem Judges

The BAP continued to use bankruptcy judges from 

throughout the Ninth Circuit on a pro tem basis. In the 

fiscal year 2016, the BAP used 6 pro tem appointments 

to assist with oral arguments and merits decisions and to 

provide new bankruptcy judges with the opportunity to sit 

in an appellate capacity.

BAP Outreach

The BAP continued its efforts to reach out to future 

and current bankruptcy attorneys throughout the Ninth 

Circuit. In February 2016, the BAP held oral arguments 

at the University of Las Vegas, Nevada, William S. Boyd 

School of Law. The BAP judges participated in a meet and 

greet with faculty, a question-and-answer session with the 

BAP judges, and a luncheon hosted by the dean.

In November 2015, in conjunction with oral arguments 

in Sacramento, BAP judges participated in a continuing 

legal education program with members of the 

Sacramento Valley Bankruptcy Forum. In June 2016, in 

conjunction with oral arguments in Las Vegas, BAP 

judges participated in a continuing education program 

with members of the Southern Nevada Association of 

Bankruptcy Attorneys. 
55

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 significant contributions to the 

work of the federal trial courts. They support 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 may 

preside over civil trials with consent of the parties. 

In FY 2016, the 15 district courts of the circuit were served 

by 105 full-time and nin part-time magistrate judges, and 

one magistrate judge/clerk of court, along with 26 recalled 

magistrate judges. They disposed of 218,909 civil and 

criminal matters, down 2.3 percent from fiscal year 2015.

The largest category of matters presided over by 

magistrate judges is preliminary proceedings, which include 

arraignments, initial appearances, detention hearings, 

arrest and search warrants, bail reviews, Nebbia hearings, 

attorney appointment and material witness hearings. In 

fiscal year 2016 magistrate judges disposed of 84,009 

preliminary proceedings. 

Additional duties related to criminal matters increased by 

4.2 percent to 38,218 from the prior fiscal year. Among 

matters included in this category are non-dispositive 

and dispositive motions, pretrial conferences, probation 

and supervised release revocation hearings, guilty plea 

and evidentiary proceedings, motion hearings, reentry/

drug court proceedings, writs, and mental competency 

proceedings. Non-dispositive motions numbered 15,181, 

up 9.1 percent, while dispositive motions numbered 336, 

up 45.5 percent from the prior fiscal year. 

Additional duties related to civil matters numbered 48,132, 

down 0.5 percent from FY 2016. The bulk of this category 

included non-dispositive motions/grants of in forma pauperis, 

or IFP, status, pretrial conferences and settlement conferences.

Trial jurisdiction, which includes Class A misdemeanor and 

petty offenses, numbered 24,807, down 14.8 percent from 

prior fiscal year. Petty offenses totaled 22,602, down 14.2 

percent, while Class A misdemeanor offenses were down 

20.8 percent to 2,205.

Civil consent cases, in which a magistrate judge presides 

at the consent of the parties, decreased by 4.1 percent to 

4,967 cases. The great majority of cases were disposed of 

without trial. 

Prisoner petitionsA numbered 5,740 cases, down 8.2 

percent from FY 2015. The bulk of this work involves 

state habeas petitions, which numbered 2,432, down 9.7 

percent, and civil rights petitions, 2,982 cases, down 7.3 

percent.

New Magistrate Judges and Governance

Nine new full-time magistrate judges were seated in 2016. 

They were Judges Lynnette C. Kimmins in the District of 

Arizona; Steve Kim in the Central District of California; 

Deborah L. Barnes in the Eastern District of California; 

Andrew J. Schopler in the Southern District of California; 

Kenneth J. Mansfield in the District of Hawaii; Timothy 

J. Cavan in the District of Montana; Jolie A. Russo and 

Youlee Yim You in the District of Oregon; and Mary K. 

Dimke in the Eastern District of Washington. 

New magistrate judges attended a Ninth Circuit orientation 

program, held May 10-11, 2017, at the James R. Browning 

U.S. Courthouse in San Francisco. The newcomers met 

with members of the Magistrate Judges Executive Board 

for an informal session and exchanged ideas. Board 

members also offered guidance and encouragement in 

addressing difficult matters.

Educational Program

The Magistrate Judges Education Committee, chaired by 

Magistrate Judge Brian A. Tsuchida of the Western District 

of Washington, organized a supplemental program for the 

bench and bar attending the 2016 Ninth Circuit Judicial 

Conference. The program, entitled “Blind Justice? 

Addressing the Impact of Implicit Bias,” featured a panel 

presentation on the science behind implicit bias and 

provided practical suggestions on how judges may counter 

it. Panel members included Senior District Judge Jeremy D. 

Fogel of the Northern District of California, director of 

the Federal Judicial Center; Circuit Judge Bernice B. 

Donald of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit; 

and Professor Joshua Correll of the Department of 

Psychology and Neuroscience at the University of 

Colorado, Boulder. 

Magistrate Judges Are Responsible for Significant Workload
56

Matters Disposed of by Ninth Circuit Magistrate Judges, 

2015-2016

2015 2016

Percent Change

2015-16

Total Matters 224,002 218,909 -2.3%

Felony Preliminary Proceedings 83,318 84,009 0.8%

 Search Warrants 15,363 16,205 5.5%

 Arrest Warrants 6,701 7,212 7.6%

 Summonses 979 1,219 24.5%

 Initial Appearances 20,330 20,339 0.04%

 Preliminary Hearings 6,731 7,181 6.7%

 Arraignments 13,642 13,382 -1.9%

 Detention Hearings 12,614 12,930 2.5%

 Bail Reviews/Forfeitures/Nebbia Hearings 1,706 1,701 -0.3%

 1

Other 5,252 3,840 -26.9%

Trial Jurisdiction Defendants 29,118 24,807 -14.8%

 Class A Misdemeanor 2,783 2,205 -20.8%

 Petty Offense 26,335 22,602 -14.2%

Civil Consent Cases 5,177 4,967 -4.1%

 Without Trial 5,105 4,901 -4.0%

 Jury Trial 53 53 0.0%

 Bench Trial 19 13 -31.6%

Additional Duties

 Criminal 36,664 38,218 4.2%

 Non-Dispositive Motions 13,913 15,181 9.1%

 Dispositive Motions 231 336 45.5%

 Evidentiary Proceedings 153 141 -7.8%

 Pretrial Conferences 10,217 9,687 -5.2%

 Probation and Supervised Release 1,502 1,696 12.9%

 Revocation Hearings

 Guilty Plea Proceedings 7,647 7,608 -0.5%

 2

Other 3,001 3,569 18.9%

 Civil 48,370 48,132 -0.5%

 Settlement Conferences/Mediations 3,257 3,133 -3.8%

 Other Pretrial Conferences 3,721 3,941 5.9%

 3

Non-Dispositive Motions/Grants of IFP Status 35,337 35,257 -0.2%

 Other Civil Dispositive Motions 2,617 2,474 -5.5%

 Evidentiary Proceedings 128 127 -0.8%

 Social Security Appeals 666 559 -16.1%

 Special Master References 0 0 -

 4Other 2,644 2,641 -0.1%

 Prisoner Petitions 6,251 5,740 -8.2%

 State Habeas 2,693 2,432 -9.7%

 Federal Habeas 311 291 -6.4%

 Civil Rights 3,216 2,982 -7.3%

 Evidentiary Proceedings 31 35 12.9%

Miscellaneous Matters 15,104 13,036 -13.7%

1

Includes attorney appointment 

hearings and material witness 

hearings.

2

Includes mental competency 

proceedings, motion hearings, reentry/

drug court proceedings and writs.

3

In 2013, magistrate judge workload 

statistics were produced using a new 

software program that recalculated 

the statistics for 2013 and for previous 

years. In some categories, the statistics 

provided in the report differ from the 

ones displayed in those categories 

in previous reports. Non-dispositive 

motions/grants of IFP status category 

includes prisoner cases, social security 

cases and other civil cases. 

4

Includes summary jury/other ADR/

early neutral evaluations, motion 

hearings and fee applications.
57

Congress created the Office of the Federal Public 

Defender to fulfill the constitutional requirement that 

indigents charged with federal crimes be provided with 

professional legal representation at no cost. Congress 

funds public defender and community defender 

offices through the Defender Services Division of the 

Administrative Office of the United States Courts.

Federal public defender offices are staffed by federal 

judiciary employees while community defender 

organizations are non-profit defense counsel organizations 

staffed by non-government employees. Both types of 

defender offices 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.

Federal public defenders in the Ninth Circuit opened 

31,807 new cases in fiscal year 2016, up 15.8 percent from 

the prior fiscal year. 

In the Northern District of California, the federal public 

defender office opened 3,078 new cases in FY 2016, up 

63.7 percent from the prior fiscal year. The jump in new 

cases was attributed to caseload anomalies, including drug 

resentencings and cases associated with a habeas corpus 

litigation. The office has also increased its non-capital 

habeas practice and took on a larger number of district 

and circuit non-capital habeas referrals. 

Most of the anomalous cases opened in the Northern 

District of California in FY 2016 have a very low “case 

weight.” Therefore, the percentage increase in the raw 

number of cases will not correspond to additional 

funding. It is anticipated that new case openings will 

decrease in fiscal year 2017 and then continue to decline as 

the anomalous workload demands are resolved. 

Offices of federal public defenders in nine districts also 

reporting larger caseloads were the Southern District of 

California, 7,079 new cases, up 15.5 percent; the District 

of Arizona, 5,773, up 10.7 percent; the Central District 

of California, 4,506, up 18.1 percent; the District of 

Oregon, 2,151, up 37.6 percent; the Eastern District of 

California, 1,995, up 1.5 percent; the Western District 

of Washington, 1,851, up 18.7 percent; the District of 

Nevada, 1,502, up 4.3 percent; the Eastern District of 

Washington, 1,461, up 30.1 percent; and the District of 

Montana, 1,024, up 23.7 percent.

Districts that reported fewer new cases opened include the 

District of Hawaii, 439, down 42.3 percent; the District of 

Alaska, 413, down 5.3 percent; the District of Idaho, 379, 

down 33.3 percent; and the District of Guam, 156, down 

13.3 percent. 

Federal public defenders in the Ninth Circuit closed 28,092 

cases, up 13.6 percent from the prior fiscal year, while 

pending caseloads increased by 31.5 percent to 15,477 cases. 

The FPD office in the Southern District of California 

led the way numerically with 6,895 terminations, up 13.1 

percent. The District of Arizona followed with 5,248 cases 

closed, up 5.5 percent; the Central District of California, 

3,107, up 0.6 percent; and the Eastern District of California, 

2,109, up 13.4 percent. For the reasons previously noted, 

the FPD office in the Northern District of California 

saw terminations climb to 2,479, up 66.3 percent.

More cases also were closed in the Western District of 

Washington, 1,735 cases, up 21.8 percent; the Eastern 

District of Washington, 1,482, up 58.5 percent; the District 

Federal Public Defenders Report Higher Caseloads

Ninth Circuit Federal Defender Organizations: Cases Opened, Closed and Pending, 

2012-2016

Cases 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Change 2015-16

Opened 33,664 32,539 28,055 27,465 31,807 15.8%

Closed 33,376 33,192 28,951 24,720 28,092 13.6%

Pending 11,236 10,120 9,076 11,766 15,477 31.5%
58

Federal Defender Organizations: Summary of Representations by District, 2015-2016

District

Opened

2015

Opened

2016

Change

2015-16

Closed

2015

Closed

2016

Change

2015-16

Pending

2016

AK 436 413 -5.3% 364 328 -9.9% 319

AZ 5,217 5,773 10.7% 4,975 5,248 5.5% 1,801

C. Calif. 3,816 4,506 18.1% 3,089 3,107 0.6% 3,863

E. Calif. 1,966 1,995 1.5% 1,859 2,109 13.4% 695

N. Calif. 1,880 3,078 63.7% 1,491 2,479 66.3% 1,504

1

S. Calif. 6,128 7,079 15.5% 6,096 6,895 13.1% 2,229

GU 180 156 -13.3% 143 175 22.4% 86

HI 761 439 -42.3% 662 628 -5.1% 243

1

ID 568 379 -33.3% 412 436 5.8% 219

1

MT 828 1,024 23.7% 819 991 21.0% 295

NV 1,440 1,502 4.3% 1,199 1,064 -11.3% 1,344

OR 1,563 2,151 37.6% 1,251 1,415 13.1% 1,777

1

E. Wash. 1,123 1,461 30.1% 935 1,482 58.5% 497

W. Wash. 1,559 1,851 18.7% 1,425 1,735 21.8% 605

Circuit Total 27,465 31,807 15.8% 24,720 28,092 13.6% 15,477

National Total 147,704 161,540 9.4% 127,508 148,794 16.7% 73,493

Circuit Total as % of

National Total 18.6% 19.7% 1.1% 19.4% 18.9% -0.5% 21.1%

Note: Eastern Washington and Idaho are combined into one organization, and Northern Mariana Islands is not 

served by a defender organization. Other representations include court-directed prisoner, bail/presentment, witness, 

probation revocation, and parole revocation representations. 

1

Community Defender Organizations

of Oregon, 1,415, up 13.1 percent; the District of Montana, 

991, up 21 percent; the District of Idaho, 436, up 5.8 

percent; and the District of Guam, 175, up 22.4 percent.

In FY 2016, federal defenders nationally opened 161,540 

new cases, up 9.4 percent, and closed 148,794 cases, up 

16.7 percent. The defender offices nationally finished the 

fiscal year with a combined pending caseload of 73,493, 

up 20.6 percent from the prior fiscal year.

Reappointments

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reappointed four 

federal public defenders in 2016. Richard Curtner of 

the District of Alaska, Jon M. Sands of the District of 

Arizona, Steven Kalar of the Northern District of 

California, and Peter C. Wolff of the District of Hawaii 

began serving new four-year terms during the calendar 

year. 
59

United States probation officers prepare presentence 

reports on convicted defendants and supervise 

offenders who have been placed on probation, 

supervised release, civilian and military parole, or 

conditional release. Probation officers perform these 

duties in various settings, from courthouses in major 

cities to one-person offices in rural areas.

Presentence Reports

Probation officers investigate the offense conduct and 

the defendant’s personal background. They identify 

applicable guidelines and policy statements, and 

calculate the defendant’s offense level and criminal 

history category. Probation officers report the resulting 

sentencing range and identify factors relevant to the 

appropriate sentence. Presentence reports assist a judge 

in sentencing convicted defendants. 

Standard guideline presentence reports are generally 

prepared in felony and Class A misdemeanor cases 

for which the U.S. Sentencing Commission has 

promulgated guidelines. In the Ninth Circuit, probation 

officers prepared 11,145 guideline presentence reports 

in FY 2016, down approximately 8 percent from the 

prior fiscal year. The circuit accounted for 19 percent 

Ninth Circuit Federal Probation System:

Persons Under Post-Conviction 

Supervision, 2015-2016

Persons Under 

Supervision 2015 2016

Change

2015-16

1

From Courts 3,338 3,198 -4.2%

2

From Institutions 19,641 19,884 1.2%

Total 22,979 23,082 0.4%

1

Includes conditional release, probation, and the former 

categories known as judge probation and magistrate 

judge probation.

2

Includes parole, special parole, mandatory release, and 

military parole.

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

District, 2015-2016

From Courts Referred by Institutions

District 1

Probation

Supervised

Release 2Parole

3

BOP 

Custody

Persons Under

Supervision, 2015

Persons Under

Supervision,2016

Change

2015-16

AK 74 306 3 1 390 384 -1.5%

AZ 707 3,159 16 0 3,948 3,882 -1.7%

C. Calif. 715 4,743 32 0 5,623 5,490 -2.4%

E. Calif. 166 1,723 14 1 1,726 1,904 10.3%

N. Calif. 327 1,652 10 0 1,851 1,989 7.5%

S. Calif. 238 2,605 12 0 2,805 2,855 1.8%

GU 61 111 2 5 174 179 2.9%

HI 93 651 4 2 721 750 4.0%

ID 82 474 8 4 547 568 3.8%

MT 115 774 5 1 940 895 -4.8%

NV 167 966 5 0 1,172 1,138 -2.9%

NMI 9 27 0 1 35 37 5.7%

OR 235 947 13 2 1,196 1,197 0.1%

E. Wash 79 564 3 7 668 653 -2.2%

W. Wash. 130 1,015 16 0 1,339 1,161 -13.3%

Circuit Total 3,198 19,717 143 24 23,135 23,082 -0.2%

1

Includes conditional release, probation, and the former categories known as judge probation and magistrate judge probation.

2

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

3

BOP (Bureau of Prisons)

Probation O3ces See Supervisory Caseloads Hold Steady
60

of the national total of 59,856 submitted guideline 

presentence reports.

Post-Conviction Supervision of Offenders

Probation officers supervise persons who are released 

to the community after serving prison sentences or 

placed on probation supervision by the court. They assist 

supervised individuals by directing them to services, 

including substance abuse, mental health, and sex 

offender treatment; medical care; employment assistance; 

literacy and training programs; and cognitive-behavioral 

treatment therapies to foster long-term positive changes 

to reduce recidivism. By using both controlling and 

correctional strategies, officers work diligently to protect 

the community, while promoting long-term change in the 

offender population. 

Probation officers in the Ninth Circuit supervised 23,082 

persons in FY 2016, virtually unchanged from the prior 

fiscal year. The circuit accounted for 17 percent of the 

national total of 137,410 persons under supervision at the 

conclusion of FY 2016.

Among those under supervision, 3,198 were on 

probation, 19,717 were on supervised release, 143 persons 

were on parole, and 24 individuals adhered to Bureau of 

Prisons custody standards.

Offenders with convictions for drugs, property, firearms 

and weapons, sex and violent offenses are the largest 

group of persons under supervision in the Ninth Circuit. 

These offenders numbered 20,828, accounting for 90 

percent of persons under supervision in the Ninth 

Circuit.

Revocations and Early Terminations

Ninth Circuit cases that were revoked and closed after 

post-conviction supervision numbered 3,245, virtually 

unchanged from FY 2015. Of these revocations, 180 were 

from probation sentences, 3,059 were from supervised 

release terms, and 5 were from parole cases. The Ninth 

Circuit accounted for 21 percent of the 15,484 cases 

revoked nationally. The national revocation rate for FY 

2016 was 26 percent, while the Ninth Circuit’s revocation 

rate was 28 percent, a two percent increase from the 

previous fiscal year.

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 

2016, there were 8,112 cases terminated early system wide, 

resulting in over $47 million in supervision costs saved. 

Evidence-Based Practices

United States probation officers aim to reduce recidivism 

by utilizing “evidence-based practices” to make informed 

decisions about the supervision risks offenders may pose. 

The process known as Post-Conviction Risk Assessment, 

or PCRA, is undertaken to improve post-conviction 

supervision. PCRA helps direct allocation of resources, 

directing attention and services to the highest risk 

offenders. 

Along with this assessment tool, evidence-based 

practices include the use of low-risk supervision 

caseloads and reentry programs, which include reentry 

courts, workforce development activities, and cognitive 

behavioral therapy programs. Furthermore, to enhance 

the bond and strengthen offender success, techniques 

such as Motivational Interviewing, or MI, and Strategic 

Techniques Aimed at Reducing Re-arrest program, or 

STARR, have been implemented. These areas focus on 

skills most helpful to an officer in trying to change 

offender behavior. The utilization of Second Chance 

Act funding has allowed districts to connect with much 

needed services in allowing individuals under 

supervision in becoming successful. Some examples of 

funding use include: employment/training programs, 

financial literacy classes, availability of transitional 

housing, and more. 
61

United States pretrial services officers have significant 

roles in the federal judicial system. In the Ninth 

Circuit, pretrial services officers contribute to the fair 

administration of justice, protect their communities, 

and seek to bring about positive, long-term change to 

individuals under supervision.

Pretrial services officers investigate defendants charged 

with federal crimes, recommend to the court whether 

to release or detain them, and supervise those who are 

released to the community while awaiting trial. While 

the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty, 

Pretrial Services Officers must balance this presumption 

with the reality that some persons, if not detained before 

their trial, are likely to flee or to pose a danger to the 

community.

Pretrial services officers also conduct pretrial diversion 

investigations and prepare written reports about a 

diversion candidate’s suitability for the Office of the 

U.S. Attorney’s Pretrial Diversion Program. They are 

responsible for supervision of diverted defendants who 

are deemed appropriate and accepted into the program. 

 

Case Activations

Pretrial Services Offices in the Ninth Circuit continue to 

rank first nationally in new cases activated. In fiscal year 

2016, case activations in the circuit numbered 29,914. In 

fiscal year 2015, new case activations were 32,911. This 

fiscal year 2016 numbers reflect a decrease of 9.1 percent 

from FY 2015. New case activations nationwide totaled 

91,111, down 3.4 percent from the prior year. The Ninth 

Circuit accounts for 32.8 percent of all case activations.

Pretrial Bail Reports, Supervision 

Pretrial services officers in the Ninth Circuit prepared 

29,184 written pre-bail reports and 379 post-bail reports 

over the course of the fiscal year. Bail reports were 

prepared in 98.8 percent of the cases activated. Officers 

conducted 8,966 pretrial bail interviews.

Excluding immigration cases, officers made 

recommendations for initial pretrial release to the court in 

47 percent of cases. Assistant U.S. attorneys in the circuit 

recommended release in 37.3 percent of these cases 

during this period. 

During FY 2016, defendants who were received for 

supervision numbered 5,015, up 3.2 percent from 4,855 

in FY 2015. Of these, 3,723 were received for regular 

supervision; 1,166 were supervised on a courtesy basis 

from another district or circuit; and 126 were on pretrial 

diversion caseloads, which include courtesy supervision of 

diversion cases.

Detention Summary

In the Ninth Circuit, officers detained 23,507 defendants 

in FY 2016, the highest in the nation. Excluding 

immigration cases, 64.7 percent of defendants were 

detained and never released. Defendants were detained 

an average of 219 days. The U.S.- Mexico border courts 

in the districts of Arizona and Southern District of 

California reported the highest numbers of defendants 

detained. Total number of defendants detained in the 

Arizona district was 15,940 while defendants detained in 

the Southern District of California numbered 4,884. The 

Ninth Circuit accounted for 20.2 percent of the total days 

of defendant incarceration nationally.

Violations

Of 10,456 cases in release status, cases with violations 

reported to the court numbered 1,409. They included 26 

violations due to felony re-arrests, 27 violations resulting 

from misdemeanor re-arrests, 2 for “other” re-arrest 

violations, and 193 for failure to appear. Technical 

violations, including positive urine tests for illegal 

substances, violation of location monitoring conditions, 

possession of contraband, and failure to report to a 

Pretrial Services Cases Activated 

in Ninth Circuit Courts, 2015-2016

Caseload Measure 2015 2016

Change

2015-16

Reports 32,550 29,563 -9.2%

Interviews 8,274 8,966 8.4%

Cases Activated 32,911 29,914 -9.1%

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.”

Pretrial Services O3ces Open Fewer Cases, 

While O3cers Supervise More Defendants
62

supervising pretrial services officer, accounted for the 

remaining violations.

Evidence-Based Practices for Pretrial Services

Evidence-based practices are those that have been 

found through research to enhance overall desired 

outcomes. The desired outcomes of the pretrial services 

functions are to reasonably assure that defendants do 

not pose either a risk of non-appearance or danger to 

the community. In order to accomplish this, a proven 

evidence-based practice in the pretrial services arena is 

to use a validated risk assessment tool. Pretrial Services 

Offices in the Ninth Circuit have incorporated the Pretrial 

Services Risk Assessment (PTRA), into its businesses 

practices. The PTRA is an objective instrument that 

provides a consistent and valid method of predicting risk 

of failure to appear, new criminal arrest and revocations 

due to technical violations. Pretrial services officers are 

using this tool to improve their ability to assess risks 

and make informed recommendations to the court on 

release or detention. The PTRA has also been used as 

a tool to assess the level of supervision appropriate for 

defendants released on pretrial supervision. Defendants 

with lower PTRA scores are less likely to fail to appear, 

sustain a new arrest, or commit a new offense while on 

pretrial release. An evidence-based approach directs that 

resources are more effectively utilized when focused on 

those defendants with higher PTRA scores. Namely, those 

defendants who pose higher risks of non-appearance 

and/or danger to the community. 

Another evidence-based practice being implemented in 

the Ninth Circuit is Staff Training Aimed at Reducing 

Re-Arrest, or STARR. Use of STARR communication 

techniques improve the quality of the interaction 

between the officer and defendant to effect long-term 

behavioral change. The techniques have a cognitive 

behavioral foundation with the premise that thinking 

controls behavior. STARR training has been provided 

Pretrial Workload, 2015-2016

Defendant Contact Written Reports

District Interviewed

1

Not

 Interviewed 2Prebail Postbail

No Reports

Made

Total Cases

Activated 2015

Total Cases

Activated 2016

Change

2015-16

AK 117 104 218 1 2 199 221 11.1%

AZ 1,962 15,663 17,495 80 50 20,809 17,625 -15.3%

C. Calif. 1,242 316 1,538 14 6 1,518 1,558 2.6%

E. Calif. 365 190 543 6 6 685 555 -19.0%

N. Calif. 336 252 397 186 5 821 588 -28.4%

S. Calif. 3,196 2,689 5,841 17 27 5,481 5,885 7.4%

GU 34 7 41 0 0 108 41 -62.0%

HI 159 28 180 5 2 184 187 1.6%

ID 171 165 291 0 45 336 336 0.0%

MT 229 215 413 13 18 380 444 16.8%

NV 389 229 612 5 1 610 618 1.3%

NMI 19 3 19 0 3 17 22 29.4%

OR 275 336 588 6 17 513 611 19.1%

E. Wash 187 207 227 9 158 359 394 9.7%

W. Wash. 285 544 781 37 11 891 829 -7.0%

Circuit Total 8,966 20,948 29,184 379 351 32,911 29,914 -9.1%

National Total 50,588 40,522 85,988 2,260 2,863 94,276 91,111 -3.4%

Circuit % of 

National 17.7% 51.7% 33.9% 16.8% 12.3% 34.9% 32.8% -2.1%

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

1

Includes cases in which interviews were refused, includes defendants not available for interview, and includes transferreceived cases in which defendants were interviewed in other districts.

2

Includes prebail reports both with recommendations and without, and includes types of reports categorized in previous 

periods as “other reports.”
63

by the Probation and Pretrial Services Office of the 

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. It is an extensive 

training program requiring ongoing coaching and 

assessment of officers’ use of STARR skills. The districts 

of Arizona, Central California, Guam, Hawaii, Nevada, 

Southern California, Western Washington, and Eastern 

Washington have introduced and incorporated STARR, at 

various stages, into their business practices.

Specialty Courts and Pre-entry Programs

In FY 2016, several pretrial services offices in the Ninth 

Circuit continue to be involved in innovative specialty 

courts. These programs give defendants a chance to 

have their cases dismissed or sentences reduced upon 

successful completion of supervision. Programs in the 

Ninth Circuit include the Alternative to Prison Solution 

Diversion Program in the Southern District of California; 

the Conviction and Sentencing Alternatives Program, a 

presentence and post-conviction diversion program in the 

Central District of California; the Conviction Alternatives 

Program (CAP) in the Northern District of California; a 

pre-adjudication felony program in Western Washington; 

and the Veterans Court in Arizona, a diversionary and 

post-sentence program that assists military veterans. 

“Pre-entry” programs in the Ninth Circuit are offered to 

defendants awaiting sentencing. Pretrial Services Offices 

in the District of Oregon and District of Nevada operate 

pre-entry programs. These programs are designed to 

educate such defendants and their family members about 

Bureau of Prisons services and general rules to help 

reduce the level of stress and anxiety of going to prison. 

Pre-entry programs help establish a solid foundation for 

future success and compliment the post-conviction 

reentry efforts. 
64

Juror Utilization

Juror Utilization, 2015-2016

1

Petit Juror Utilization Rate

Percent Not Selected or Challenged

District

Grand Juries

Empaneled, 2016

Petit Juries

Selected, 2016 2015 2016 Change 2015-16

AK 2 13 38.4 45.7 7.3

AZ 13 69 32.2 27.9 -4.3

C. Calif. 31 150 47.2 52.0 4.8

E. Calif. 8 88 37.6 37.4 -0.2

N. Calif. 8 71 40.0 50.6 10.6

S. Calif. 8 82 43.4 44.3 0.9

GU 2 3 18.8 55.0 36.2

HI 3 15 41.1 37.5 -3.6

ID 6 17 47.4 24.2 -23.2

MT 5 24 31.3 39.8 8.5

NV 5 34 40.1 30.5 -9.6

NMI 2 3 24.2 20.1 -4.1

OR 8 40 18.5 21.9 3.4

E. Wash. 6 15 22.4 45.5 23.1

W. Wash. 4 33 27.0 37.8 10.8

Circuit Total 111 657 *** ***

Circuit Average 14 82 34.0 38.0 4.0

National Total 743 3,887 *** ***

National Average 8 41 36.8 38 1.2

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

1

Includes jurors who completed pre-screening questionnaires or were in the courtroom during the conducting of voir 

dire but were not selected or challenged. Includes other jurors not selected or challenged who were not called to the 

courtroom or otherwise did not participate in the actual voir dire.
65

Interpreter Usage by District Courts, 2016

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

2015

Total

2016

Total

Change

2015-16

Arabic 0 17 5 5 4 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 92 48 -47.8%

Armenian 0 0 109 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 91 137 50.5%

Cantonese 6 1 37 72 153 7 0 6 0 0 3 0 0 0 2 243 287 18.1%

Farsi 0 0 14 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 68 23 -66.2%

Japanese 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 16 3 -81.3%

Korean 4 7 69 3 2 6 13 19 0 0 3 0 2 0 17 212 145 -31.6%

Mandarin 0 6 107 18 55 37 7 7 0 0 14 2 1 0 6 326 260 -20.2%

Navajo

(Certified) 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 100.0%

Navajo

(Non-Certified) 0 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 43 30.3%

Russian 0 0 50 49 30 0 0 0 15 0 4 0 0 6 54 344 208 -39.5%

Sign (American) 0 7 1 44 0 5 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 2 0 22 65 195.5%

Sign (Mexican) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -

Spanish Staff 0 40,976 1,459 744 183 14,455 0 0 0 0 374 0 477 0 0 61,932 58,668 -5.3%

Spanish 

(Certified) 36 5,482 760 802 592 344 0 6 239 7 191 0 131 365 537 15,113 9,492 -37.2%

Spanish 

(Non-Certified) 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 7 51 33 93 0 35 23 1 335 247 -26.3%

Tagalog 1 0 5 0 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 11 -72.5%

Vietnamese 0 0 45 5 54 1 0 3 0 0 3 0 2 0 55 173 168 -2.9%

All Others 27 185 67 161 25 154 11 11 2 1 19 0 1 4 62 662 730 10.3%

Total 74 46,728 2,728 1,929 1,104 15,028 34 59 307 41 711 2 653 400 741 79,704 70,539 -11.5%

Court Interpreters
66

District of Alaska

Caseload Measure 2015 2016

Change 

2015-16

Per Judgeship 

Unweighted 2016

District Court

 Filings 463 558 20.5% 186

 Terminations 463 484 4.5% 161

 1Pending 537 537 0.0% 179

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 426 434 1.9% 217

 Terminations 485 541 11.5% 271

 Pending 524 417 -20.4% 209

1

2015 total pending cases revised.

Authorized Judgeships

District 3

Bankruptcy 2

Magistrate

Full-time 2

Part-time 3

Authorized places of holding court:

Anchorage, Fairbanks, Juneau, Ketchikan, 

Nome

District of Arizona

Caseload Measure 2015 2016

Change 

2015-16

Per Judgeship 

Unweighted 2016

District Court

 Filings 8,964 10,497 17.1% 807

 Terminations 8,889 8,983 1.1% 691

 1Pending 5,221 6,713 28.6% 516

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 17,448 15,895 -8.9% 2,271

 Terminations 23,575 19,849 -15.8% 2,836

 1Pending 24,877 20,922 -15.9% 2,989

1

2015 total pending cases revised. 

2

Includes one authorized temporary judgeship.

3

Bullhead City and Kingman apply only to the bankruptcy court.

Authorized Judgeships

2

District 13

Bankruptcy 7

Magistrate

Full-time 14

Part-time 1

Authorized places of holding court:

3

Bullhead City, Flagstaff, Kingman, Phoenix, 

Prescott, Tucson, Yuma

Central District of California

Caseload Measure 2015 2016 Change 2015-16

Per Judgeship 

Unweighted 2016

District Court

 Filings 15,241 15,591 2.3% 557

 Terminations 15,367 15,429 0.4% 551

 1Pending 11,790 11,961 1.5% 427

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 48,487 42,225 -12.9% 1,759

 Terminations 53,817 47,665 -11.4% 1,986

 1Pending 43,299 37,862 -12.6% 1,578

1

2015 total pending cases revised.

2

Includes one authorized temporary judgeship.

3

Includes three authorized temporary judgeships.

4

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

Authorized Judgeships

2

District 28

3

Bankruptcy 24

Magistrate

Full-time 24

Part-time 1

Authorized places of holding court:

Los Angeles, Riverside, 4

San Fernando 

Valley, Santa Ana, 4Santa Barbara

District Caseloads
67

1

2015 total pending cases revised.

2

Includes one authorized temporary judgeship.

3

Modesto applies only to bankruptcy court.

Eastern District of California

Caseload Measure 2015 2016

Change 

2015-16

Per Judgeship 

Unweighted 2016

District Court

 Filings 5,214 5,173 -0.8% 862

 Terminations 5,396 4,964 -8.0% 827

 1

Pending 7,374 7,571 2.7% 1,262

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 17,681 15,528 -12.2% 2,218

 Terminations 21,799 19,368 -11.2% 2,767

 1

Pending 21,421 17,581 -17.9% 2,512

Authorized Judgeships

District 6

Bankruptcy 7

Magistrate

Full-time 12

Part-time 0

Authorized places of holding court:

Bakersfield, Fresno, 3Modesto, Redding, 

Sacramento, Yosemite National Park

Northern District of California

Caseload Measure 2015 2016

Change 

2015-16

Per Judgeship 

Unweighted 2016

District Court

 Filings 6,277 7,689 22.5% 549

 Terminations 6,169 6,164 -0.1% 440

 1

Pending 6,216 7,660 23.2% 547

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 11,892 10,607 -10.8% 1,179

 Terminations 16,275 14,769 -9.3% 1,641

 1

Pending 25,315 21,152 -16.4% 2,350

1

2015 total pending cases revised.

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

Southern District of California

Caseload Measure 2015 2016

Change 

2015-16

Per Judgeship 

Unweighted 2016

District Court

 Filings 6,562 6,452 -1.7% 496

 Terminations 6,502 6,952 6.9% 535

 1

Pending 5,321 4,820 -9.4% 371

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 8,889 8,263 -7.0% 2,066

 Terminations 10,667 9,227 -13.5% 2,307

 1

Pending 9,227 8,262 -10.5% 2,066

1

2015 total pending cases revised.

2

El Centro applies only to the district court.

Authorized Judgeships

District 13

Bankruptcy 4

Magistrate

Full-time 11

Part-time 0

Authorized places of holding court:

2

El Centro, San Diego
68

District of Guam

Caseload Measure 2015 2016

Change 

2015-16

Per Judgeship 

Unweighted 2016

District Court

 Filings 127 122 -3.9% 122

 Terminations 107 113 5.6% 113

 Pending 140 158 12.9% 158

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 133 152 14.3% 385

 Terminations 120 141 17.5% 271

 Pending 179 190 6.1% 327

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

Authorized Judgeships

District 1

Bankruptcy 0

Magistrate

Full-time 1

Part-time 0

Authorized places of holding court:

Hagatna

District of Hawaii

Caseload Measure 2015 2016

Change 

2015-16

Per Judgeship 

Unweighted 2016

District Court

 Filings 736 881 19.7% 220

 Terminations 853 776 -9.0% 194

 1

Pending 848 967 14.0% 242

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 1,593 1,463 -8.2% 1,463

 Terminations 1,783 1,710 -4.1% 1,710

 1

Pending 2,435 2,188 -10.1% 2,188

1

2015 total pending cases revised.

2

Includes one temporary judgeship.

Authorized Judgeships

2

District 4

Bankruptcy 1

Magistrate

Full-time 3

Part-time 1

Authorized places of holding court:

Honolulu

District of Idaho

Caseload Measure 2015 2016

Change 

2015-16

Per Judgeship 

Unweighted 2016

District Court

 Filings 865 858 -0.8% 429

 Terminations 827 800 -3.3% 400

 1

Pending 1,014 1,068 5.3% 534

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 4,162 3,841 -7.7% 1,921

 Terminations 4,818 4,121 -14.5% 2,061

 1

Pending 3,370 3,091 -8.3% 1,546

1

2015 total pending cases revised.

2

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

holds court in Twin Falls once a month.

Authorized Judgeships

2

District 2

Bankruptcy 2

Magistrate

Full-time 2

Part-time 0

Authorized places of holding court:

Boise, Coeur d'Alene, Moscow, Pocatello, 

2

Twin Falls
69

1

2015 total pending cases revised.

District of Montana

Caseload Measure 2015 2016

Change 

2015-16

Per Judgeship 

Unweighted 2016

District Court

 Filings 901 996 10.5% 429

 Terminations 948 898 -5.3% 400

 1

Pending 828 921 11.2% 534

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 1,310 1,365 4.2% 1,921

 Terminations 1,753 1,488 -15.1% 2,061

 1

Pending 2,032 1,909 -6.1% 1,546

Authorized Judgeships

District 3

Bankruptcy 1

Magistrate

Full-time 3

Part-time 1

Authorized places of holding court:

Billings, Butte, Great Falls, Helena, Missoula

District of Nevada

Caseload Measure 2015 2016

Change 

2015-16

Per Judgeship 

Unweighted 2016

District Court

 Filings 3,533 3,994 13.0% 571

 Terminations 3,316 3,159 -4.7% 451

 1

Pending 4,255 5,076 19.3% 725

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 9,902 9,063 -8.5% 2,266

 Terminations 14,102 12,039 -14.6% 3,010

 Pending 12,112 9,135 -24.6% 2,284

1

2015 total pending cases revised.

2

Includes one authorized temporary judgeship.

Authorized Judgeships

District 7

2

Bankruptcy 4

Magistrate

Full-time 7

Part-time 0

Authorized places of holding court:

Carson City, Elko, Ely, Las Vegas, 

Lovelock, Reno

District of Northern Mariana Islands

Caseload Measure 2015 2016

2

Change 

2015-16

Per Judgeship 

Unweighted 2016

District Court

 Filings 35 56 60.0% 56

 Terminations 38 48 26.3% 48

 1

Pending 85 87 2.4% 87

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 6 7 - 1

 Terminations 7 7 - 1

 1

Pending 11 11 0.0% 1

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

1

2015 total pending cases revised.

2

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

3

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

Authorized Judgeships

District 1

2

Bankruptcy 0

Magistrate

Full-time 0

Part-time 0

3

Combination 1

Authorized places of holding court:

Saipan
70

District of Oregon

Caseload Measure 2015 2016

Change 

2015-16

Per Judgeship Unweighted 

2016

District Court

 Filings 2,794 2,968 6.2% 495

 Terminations 2,704 2,781 2.8% 464

 1

Pending 2,723 2,920 7.2% 487

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 11,134 9,488 -14.8% 1,898

 Terminations 13,116 11,447 -12.7% 2,289

 1

Pending 13,865 11,906 -14.1% 2,381

1

2015 total pending cases revised.

2

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

Authorized Judgeships

District 6

Bankruptcy 5

Magistrate

Full-time 6

Part-time 1

Authorized places of holding court:

2

Bend, 2Coos Bay, Coquille, Eugene, Klamath 

Falls, Medford, Pendleton, Portland, 

2

Redmond, 2Roseburg, 2Salem

Eastern District of Washington

Caseload Measure 2015 2016

Change 

2015-16

Per Judgeship Unweighted 

2016

District Court

 Filings 1,071 1,249 16.6% 312

 Terminations 1,063 1,200 12.9% 300

 1

Pending 988 1,059 7.2% 265

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 4,450 4,120 -7.4% 2,060

 Terminations 4,674 4,598 -1.6% 2,299

 1

Pending 4,864 4,386 -9.8% 2,193

1

2015 total pending cases revised.

2

Richland and Walla Walla apply only to the district court.

Authorized Judgeships

District 4

Bankruptcy 2

Magistrate

Full-time 2

Part-time 0

Authorized places of holding court:

2

Richland, Spokane, 2Walla Walla, Yakima

Western District of Washington

Caseload Measure 2015 2016

Change 

2015-16

Per Judgeship Unweighted 

2016

District Court

 Filings 3,925 3,943 0.5% 563

 Terminations 4,047 3,854 -4.8% 551

 1

Pending 3,216 3,322 3.3% 475

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 14,567 12,739 -12.5% 2,548

 Terminations 16,554 15,065 -9.0% 3,013

 1

Pending 17,117 14,791 -13.6% 2,958

1

2015 total pending cases revised.

Authorized Judgeships

District 7

Bankruptcy 5

Magistrate

Full-time 5

Part-time 2

Authorized places of holding court:

Bellingham, Seattle, Tacoma, Vancouver

 

Office of the Circuit Executive

Elizabeth A. Smith, Circuit Executive

P.O. Box 193939, San Francisco, CA 94119-3939

Ph: (415) 355-8900, Fax: (415) 355-8901

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov