United States Courts for the Ninth Circuit

2012 ANNUAL REPORT
The Office of the Circuit Executive would like to acknowledge the following for their 

contributions to the 2012 Ninth Circuit Annual Report:

Chief Judge Alex Kozinski

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

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

W. Samuel Hamrick, Jr., District Court Clerk, Southern District of California

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

Eric Wade, Circuit Librarian, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Brian C. Crist, Chief Pretrial Services Officer, District of Oregon

Connie M. Smith, Chief Probation Officer, Western District of Washington

Arthur Hall, Assistant Property Manager, GSA, Richland, Washington

Pam Howard, Clerk Division Leader, Eastern District of Washington

Rebecca Nielsen, MS, Historic Preservation Program Specialist, GSA, Auburn, Washington

Jacqueline Suen, Regional Account Manager, Client Solutions Division, GSA, San Francisco

John Baule, Director, Yakima Valley Museum, Yakima, Washington
JUDICIAL COUNCIL of the NINTH CIRCUIT

2012-2013 Ninth Circuit Judicial Council: Chief Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski(1), Senior Circuit Judge J. 

Clifford Wallace(2), Circuit Judge Sidney R. Thomas(3), Senior Circuit Judge Raymond C. Fisher*, Circuit 

Judge Richard C. Tallman(4), Circuit Judge Richard R. Clifton(5), Chief District Judge Ralph R. Beistline*, 

Senior District Judge Anthony W. Ishii(6), Chief District Judge George H. King(7), Chief District Judge Claudia 

Wilken(8), Senior District Judge Stephen M. McNamee(9), Chief District Judge Frances Marie TydingcoGatewood*, Circuit and Court of Appeals Executive Cathy A. Catterson(10) 

Observers: Chief District Judge Ann L. Aiken*, Chief District Judge B. Lynn Winmill*, District Judge Robert S. 

Lasnik(11), Chief Bankruptcy Judge Frank L. Kurtz(12), Chief Magistrate Judge Candy W. Dale(13), District 

Court Clerk Richard W. Wieking(14), Bankruptcy Court Clerk George Prentice(15), Chief Probation Officer 

Connie M. Smith(16), Chief Pretrial Services Officer Brian C. Crist(17)

Not Pictured* 

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.

2 3 5

6 8 9 11

10

14 15 17 12

16

13

7

4

1
TABLE of CONTENTS

Ninth Circuit Overview

1 Foreword

4 Ninth Circuit Overview

5 Map of the Ninth Circuit

6 Judicial Council and Administration

Judicial Transitions

10 New Judges

18 Senior Judges

21 In Memoriam

24 End of an Era for the Ninth Circuit

Ninth Circuit Highlights

26 Ninth Circuit ADR Awards Presented

27 Nevada Bar Honors Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Emeritus

28 New Judges Orientation

29 All Women Bench Makes History in Northern District

29 Chief Judge’s Remarks Highlight FBA Luncheon

30 Court of Appeals Convenes in Special Session to 

Honor Oregon Jurist

30 Northern Marianas Court Unveils Judicial Portraits

31 Special Sittings Enrich Educational Experience 

for Law Students

32 Technology Users Group Convenes

33 IT Staff Assist Pacific Island Courts

34 Continuity of Operations Planners Return to Basics

35 Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference Looks at 

Sentencing, Big Data

38 2012 Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference Awards

39 Judges Receiving Awards in 2012

40 Circuit Law Libraries Keep Pace with Technology

41 Jury Orientation Video Completed

42 Nation’s Busiest Bankruptcy Court Sees Explosion 

of Self-Filers

43 Committee Turns to Internet, Newsletter to Promote

Community Outreach

46 Court of Appeals Welcomes New Law Clerks

47 Administrative Changes Around the Circuit

Space & Security

50 Long Wait for More Space Ends in 

San Diego

53 Stately Weinberger Courthouse Nears 

a Milestone

54 Yakima Courthouse Centennial

55 Federal Courthouses in San Francisco,

Los Angeles Designated National 

Landmarks

56 New Bakersfield Courthouse Opens

56 Billings Courthouse Dedicated

57 Courthouses Under Construction

58 Courthouses In Design Phase

The Work of the Courts

60 Court of Appeals Caseload Holds Steady

63 Judges of the United States Court of

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

65 District Courts Report Nation’s Highest 

Criminal Caseload

69 Bankruptcy Filings Continue Downward

Trend

71 Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Sees 

Workload Level Off

73 Magistrate Judges Make Vital

Contributions

76 Workload Unchanged for Federal Public 

Defenders

78 Probation Officers Serve Courts,

Communities

80 Ninth Circuit Pretrial Services Officers Are

Nation’s Busiest

82 Juror Utilization

83 Court Interpreters

84 District Caseloads
FOREWORD

While there were fluctuations, the business 

of the courts in the Ninth Circuit generally 

held steady in fiscal year 2012. The Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals saw a moderate 4.5 

percent increase in new filings but ended the 

fiscal year with its pending caseload virtually 

unchanged. Immigration cases and appeals 

brought by inmates in state or federal prisons 

within the circuit constituted two-thirds of the 

new filings. 

District courts of the Ninth Circuit reported 

2.8 percent fewer new case filings overall 

in fiscal year 2012. But our trial courts 

continued to have the highest combined 

criminal caseload, accounting for 25.4 

percent of all criminal filings and 24 percent 

of all criminal defendants in the nation. 

Much of the circuit’s criminal docket involves 

illegal immigration and drug smuggling 

over the U.S.-Mexico border. Our two 

border courts, the District of Arizona and 

the Southern District of California, ranked 

second and third in the nation, respectively, 

in the number of new felony filings per 

judgeship during the fiscal year.

Bankruptcy filings, down nationwide for the 

second consecutive year, fell by just over 20 

percent in the Ninth Circuit. Thirteen out 

of fifteen districts in the circuit experienced 

a downturn, including the nation’s busiest 

venue, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the 

Central District of California. Even our 

Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, which had 

reported double-digit increases in filings the 

past three years, saw its caseload level off, 

up just 0.4 percent.

New case representations by federal public 

defenders were down slightly overall in the 

circuit, although there were notable increases 

in some districts. Probation and Pretrial 

Services offices saw slight decreases in their 

workloads overall as well.

People without lawyers continue to make 

up a large portion of the litigants in federal 

courts. In fiscal year 2012, self-represented, 

or pro se, litigants brought more than half of 

the new appeals to the Ninth Circuit Court of 

Appeals. They were involved in more than a 

third of all new civil cases in the district courts 

Chief Judge Alex Kozinski

ederal courts of the Ninth Circuit are responsible for 

dispensing justice in nine western states and two Pacific 

island jurisdictions. Our courts are among the busiest 

in the nation, resolving thousands of legal matters each 

year. Justice is achieved through the hard work of our 

dedicated judges and court staff, who provide the highest 

level of service to litigants and the public. The 2012 Ninth 

Circuit Annual Report documents the work of the courts and 

highlights other aspects of the administration of the federal 

justice system in the West. I hope you find it useful and 

encourage you to provide feedback.

F
and accounted for almost one-fifth of the new 

filings received by the bankruptcy courts. 

Pro se litigants are most frequently prison 

inmates bringing habeas and other petitions 

to the district courts. Pro se litigants are 

generally less knowledgeable of the law 

and require a greater amount of staff time, 

thus reducing services to other litigants. 

They also pose a challenge for court staff, 

which must provide procedural information 

without giving legal advice.

Ninth Circuit courts had been making use 

of specialized pro se law clerks to handle 

this caseload along with other resources. 

But repeated budget reductions have cut 

into court staffing, leaving fewer pro se law 

clerks with larger caseloads. The Ninth 

Circuit’s standing Self-Represented Litigants 

Committee is providing training to help 

the remaining pro se clerks work more 

efficiently, but there is only so much that can 

be accomplished without additional staff.

The Ninth Circuit Alternative Dispute 

Resolution Committee is also involved in 

pro se matters and promotes the use of 

mediation programs to resolve prisoner 

petitions at the prison level. In addition, 

a pilot project is under way in Arizona 

that allows prisoners to electronically file 

documents, thereby reducing the need for 

scanning and other work by court staff.

The Eastern District of California continues 

to be our most overloaded court, due 

largely to the many civil matters raised by 

inmates in state and federal prisons within 

the district. While the court received slightly 

fewer new filings than the prior fiscal year, 

the workload for judges actually increased 

slightly in fiscal year 2012. Weighted filings 

per judgeship, which takes into account 

the varying complexities of cases, rose to 

1,132, ranking the court second in the 

nation. The average weighted filings per 

judgeship nationally was 520.

Bills to authorize new judgeships for the 

Eastern District of California and the District 

of Arizona, among others, were introduced in 

both the Senate and House but did not come 

to a vote during the year. We remain hopeful 

that Congress will recognize the very pressing 

need for more judges for these hardworking 

courts and take appropriate action.

Judicial vacancies continue to be of concern 

to Ninth Circuit courts, which ended the 

year with 17 vacancies. Nine nominations 

awaiting Senate action at year’s end were 

returned to the White House but renewed by 

the president in January 2013.

One bright spot was the seating of four new 

judges on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 

in 2012, bringing the court to nearly full 

strength for the first time in many years. 

2

One bright spot was the 

seating of four new judges 

on the Ninth Circuit Court 

of Appeals in 2012, 

bringing the court to nearly 

full strength for the first 

time in many years.
3

Judges Andrew D. Hurwitz of Phoenix and 

Jacqueline H. Nguyen and Paul J. Watford, 

both of Pasadena, were confirmed in 2012. 

Judge Morgan Christen of Anchorage, 

Alaska, was confirmed in late 2011 and 

is only the third judge to represent Alaska 

on the court and the first woman to do so. 

Judge Nguyen, who served previously as a 

district judge, is the first judge of Vietnamese 

descent to serve on either a federal appellate 

or federal trial court.

During the year, eight new district court 

judges were confirmed by the Senate and 

seven received their judicial commissions. 

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 

appointed five new bankruptcy judges, while 

nine new magistrate judges were appointed 

around the circuit by the district judges of 

their respective courts. 

A number of judicial colleagues passed 

away in 2012, including Circuit Judges 

Robert R. Beezer, Betty Binns Fletcher, Otto 

R. Skopil, Jr., and Chief Judge Emeritus 

James R. Browning. Judge Browning 

served on our court for more than 50 years, 

including 12 years as our chief judge. 

Judge Browning’s name was synonymous 

with that of the Ninth Circuit and he is 

rightfully the eponym for our historic 

headquarters building in San Francisco. 

Most would agree his death marked the end 

of an era for the Ninth Circuit. 

Elsewhere in the circuit, courts mourned the 

passing of District Judges Rudi M. Brewster 

of San Diego, Robert E. Coyle of Fresno and 

Robert J. Kelleher of Los Angeles, and retired 

Magistrate Judge John C. Rayburn, Jr., of 

Riverside. All of these judges had long and 

respected careers and will be missed.

Ninth Circuit courts continue to be leaders 

in outreach to the bar, legal academia 

and the community in general. The Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals renewed its 

decades-old tradition of holding special 

sittings at law schools with nine visits in 

2012. Law school deans were again invited 

to participate in the educational program 

at the circuit conference. Our Courts 

and Community Committee, meanwhile, 

focused its efforts on publicizing successful 

community outreach efforts and providing 

courts with the tools and information they 

need to continue that work.

Progress was made in meeting the circuit’s 

many space needs. 2012 saw the 

completion of a courthouse annex in San 

Diego and new courthouses in Fresno, 

California, and Billings, Montana, and 

the commencement of design work on a 

long-awaited courthouse in Los Angeles. 

Prospects for future projects hung in 

the balance as the judiciary considered 

broad budget cuts due to the possibility of 

sequestration in early 2013. 

We invite you to review this report further 

for more information about the work of the 

federal courts of the Ninth Circuit.
4

NINTH CIRCUIT OVERVIEW

The United States Courts for the Ninth 

Circuit consists of the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the 

federal trial and bankruptcy courts 

in the 15 judicial districts within the 

circuit, and associated administrative 

units that provide various services to 

the courts.

Judicial districts within the Ninth 

Circuit include the districts of Alaska, 

Arizona, Central California, Eastern 

California, Northern California, 

Southern California, Hawaii, Idaho, 

Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Eastern 

Washington, Western Washington, 

the U.S. Territory of Guam and the 

Commonwealth of the Northern 

Mariana Islands. The establishment 

of the Ninth Circuit in 1866 began 

the development of the federal 

judicial system for the western United 

States. Today, it remains the largest 

and busiest of federal circuits.

Judges serving on the circuit and 

district courts are known as Article 

III judges, a reference to the article 

in the Constitution establishing the 

federal judiciary. Nominated by 

the president and confirmed by 

the Senate, Article III judges serve 

lifetime appointments upon good 

behavior. The U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the Ninth Circuit has been 

authorized 29 judgeships and ended 

2012 with one vacant position. For 

most of the year, the district courts 

were authorized 112 judgeships, 16 

of which were vacant at year’s end.

Federal courts also rely on senior 

circuit and senior district judges to 

assist with their workload. These are 

Article III judges who are eligible for 

retirement but have chosen to continue 

working with reduced caseloads. In 

the Ninth Circuit, 18 senior circuit 

judges were at work for most of the 

year, sitting on appellate panels, 

serving on circuit and national judicial 

committees, and handling a variety 

of administrative matters. In the 

district courts within the circuit, 65 

senior judges heard cases, presided 

over procedural matters, served on 

committees and conducted other 

business during 2012.

In addition to Article III judges, the 

federal bench includes Article I

judges, who serve as magistrate 

judges in the district courts and 

bankruptcy judges in the bankruptcy 

courts. Bankruptcy judges are 

appointed by judges of the courts of 

appeals and serve terms of 14 years. 

Magistrate judges are appointed by 

the judges of each district court and 

hold their positions for eight years. 

Bankruptcy and magistrate judges 

may be reappointed.

In 2012, bankruptcy courts in the 

Ninth Circuit were authorized 68 

permanent and five temporary 

judgeships that were extended 

under the Temporary Bankruptcy 

Judgeships Extension Act of 2012. 

The district courts were authorized 

103 full-time and 11 part-time 

magistrate judges. Several courts 

also utilized recalled bankruptcy and 

recalled magistrate judges. 

Overall, the Ninth Circuit courts 

experienced decreased caseloads 

in 2012. Unless otherwise noted, 

statistics in this report cover the 

2012 fiscal year.

45.3%

7.8%

10.02%

7.54%

6.70%

4.86%

0.13%

5.7%

0.74%

11.2%

0.01%

Alaska

California

Montana

Arizona

Nevada

Oregon

Idaho

Washington

Hawaii

N. Mariana Islands

Guam

45.3%

7.8%

10.02%

7.54%

6.70%

4.86%

0.13%

5.7%

0.74%

11.2%

0.01%

Alaska

California

Montana

Arizona

Nevada

Oregon

Idaho

Washington

Hawaii

N. Mariana Islands

Guam

45.3%

7.8%

10.02%

7.54%

6.70%

4.86%

0.13%

5.7%

0.74%

11.2%

0.01%

Alaska

California

Montana

Arizona

Nevada

Oregon

Idaho

Washington

Hawaii

N. Mariana Islands

Guam

Ninth Circuit by Geographic 

Regions

Total Area: 1,467,042 sq. mi.
5

MAP of the NINTH CIRCUIT

AK

CAS AZ

GU

CAC

HI

CAE

ID

CAN

MT

NV

NMI

OR

WAW WAE

AK Alaska

AZ Arizona

CAC Central California

CAE Eastern California

CAN Northern California

CAS Southern California

GU Guam

HI Hawaii

ID Idaho

MT Montana

NV Nevada

NMI Northern Mariana Islands

OR Oregon 

WAE Eastern Washington

WAW Western Washington

Districts Comprising the Ninth Circuit
6

JUDICIAL COUNCIL & ADMINISTRATION

Judicial Council, Advisory Groups and 

Administration

The Judicial Council of the Ninth 

Circuit is the governing body for 

federal district and bankruptcy 

courts in nine western states and 

two Pacific island jurisdictions. 

The judicial council’s statutory 

mission is to support the effective 

and expeditious administration 

of justice and the safeguarding 

of fairness in the administration 

of the courts. It has statutory 

authority to “make all necessary 

and appropriate orders for 

the effective and expeditious 

administration of justice within its 

circuit,” [28 U.S.C. § 332(d)(1)]. 

The judicial council also has 

been delegated responsibilities 

by the Judicial Conference of 

the United States, the national 

governing body for the federal 

courts. These responsibilities 

include authorizing senior 

judge staffing levels and pay 

and managing the judicial 

misconduct complaint process.

In governing the circuit, the 

judicial council relies on advisory 

groups and committees to 

accomplish its goals. Chairs 

of three advisory groups attend 

council meetings as observers 

and sometimes voting members. 

Committee chairs report to the 

council as needed.

Newly appointed to the Judicial 

Council of the Ninth Circuit in 

2012 were Senior Circuit Judge 

J. Clifford Wallace of San Diego, 

Circuit Judge Richard C. Tallman 

of Seattle, Senior District Judge 

Anthony W. Ishii of the Eastern 

District of California, Chief District 

Judge Claudia Wilken of the 

Northern District of California, 

and Chief District Judge George 

H. King of the Central District 

of California. Circuit Judge 

Raymond C. Fisher of Pasadena 

and Senior District Judge Stephen 

M. McNamee of the District 

of Arizona were appointed to 

serve on the Judicial Council 

Executive Committee. New 

Judicial Council observers include 

Chief District Judge Frances 

Marie Tydingco-Gatewood of 

the District of Guam, Chief 

Bankruptcy Judge Frank L. 

Kurtz of the Eastern District of 

Washington, Chief Magistrate 

Judge Candy W. Dale of the 

District of Idaho, District Court 

Clerk Richard W. Wieking of the 

Northern District of California, 

Bankruptcy Court Clerk George 

Prentice of the District of Arizona, 

Chief Probation Officer Connie 

M. Smith of the Western District 

of Washington, and Chief Pretrial 

Services Officer Brian C. Crist of 

the District of Oregon.

Under the Rules for JudicialConduct and Judicial-Disability 

Proceedings, the Judicial Council 

of the Ninth Circuit considers 

petitions for review of the 

chief judge’s orders in judicial 

misconduct complaints. In 2012, 

27 petitions for review were filed 

and all 27 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 

about the administration of 

justice in the circuit’s 15 district 

courts. The conference, which 

meets twice a year, is comprised 

of the chief district judge of 

each district. Chief District 

Judge Irma E. Gonzalez of the 

Southern District of California 

served as chair of the conference 

from October 2011 to August 

2012. She was succeeded by 

Chief District Judge TydingcoGatewood of the District of 

Guam, who will chair the 

conference until February 2013.

Elevated to chief district judge 

during the year were Judges 

Morrison C. England of the 

Eastern District of California, 

George H. King of the Central 

District of California, Barry 

Ted Moskowitz of the Southern 

District of California, and 

Claudia Wilken of the Northern 

District of California. 

Conference of Chief Bankruptcy Judges

The Conference of Chief 

Bankruptcy Judges advises the 

Judicial Council of the Ninth 

Circuit on the administration 

of the bankruptcy courts within 

the circuit. The conference, 

which also meets twice per year, 

consists of chief bankruptcy 

judges from each district, the 

chief bankruptcy judge of the 

circuit’s Bankruptcy Appellate 
7

Panel, or BAP, and a recalled 

bankruptcy judge representative. 

Chief Bankruptcy Judge Peter 

W. Bowie of the Southern 

District of California chaired the 

conference from October 2011 

to September 2012. He was 

succeeded by Chief Bankruptcy 

Judge Frank L. Kurtz of the 

Eastern District of Washington, 

who will chair the conference 

until September 2013.

Elevated to chief bankruptcy 

judge during the year were 

Bankruptcy Judges Gary Allan 

Spraker of the District of Alaska 

and Laura S. Taylor of the 

Southern 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 129 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 

annual circuit conference. Chief 

Magistrate Judge Candy W. Dale 

of the District of Idaho succeeded 

Magistrate Judge David K. 

Duncan of the District of Arizona. 

Her term began in July 2012 as 

chair of the board.

Clerks of Court

Day-to-day management of 

the courts rests with the chief 

judges and clerks or district 

executives of the court of 

appeals and each of the district 

and bankruptcy courts. The 

clerks’ offices process new 

cases and appeals, handle 

docketing functions, respond 

to procedural questions 

from the public and bar, and 

provide adequate judicial 

staff resources. The clerk of 

court for the court of appeals 

also supervises the work of 

the Circuit Mediation Office 

and the Office of the Staff 

Attorneys, which includes 

the research, motions, case 

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

• Information Technology

• Jury Instructions

• Jury Trial Improvement

• Ninth Circuit Judges 

Education

• Pacific Islands

• Pro Se Litigation

• Space & Security

• Wellness

Executive Committee

Office of the Circuit Executive

Cathy A. Catterson

Circuit & Court of Appeals 

Executive

Judicial Conference

Executive Committee

• Lawyer Representatives 

Coordinating Committee

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 Council of the Ninth Circuit

Chief Judge Alex Kozinski
8

management and pro se (selfrepresented) litigation units. 

The Office of the Appellate 

Commissioner, also in the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals Clerk’s 

Office, reviews Criminal Justice 

Act vouchers for cases that come 

before the court of appeals.

Associated Court Units

Ninth Circuit courts also rely on 

several important court-related 

agencies to ensure the fair 

administration of justice. The 

district courts maintain oversight 

of U.S. Probation and Pretrial 

Services offices. Pretrial services 

officers are responsible for 

background investigations and 

reports on defendants awaiting 

trial, while probation officers 

supervise persons convicted 

of federal crimes after their 

release into the community. All 

but one judicial district in the 

circuit is served by either federal 

public defender or community 

defenders, who represent 

indigent defendants unable to 

afford private counsel. Indigent 

defendants in the District of 

Northern Mariana Islands are 

represented by private attorneys 

provided by the District of Guam 

and paid through the federal 

Criminal Justice Act.

Circuit Libraries

The Ninth Circuit Library System 

assists judges, attorneys, 

court staff and the public 

through a network of 24 law 

libraries housed in courthouses 

throughout the western states. 

The primary mission of court 

librarians is to provide research 

services to judges and their 

staff. Research librarians assist 

law clerks on case-related 

research by providing guidance 

and recommendations, offering 

training opportunities, and 

performing direct research on 

more complex topics. Librarians 

also conduct research to assist 

court executives and judges 

in the administration of local 

courts and on matters involving 

committees of the Judicial 

Council of the Ninth Circuit and 

the Judicial Conference of the 

U.S. Library resources are also 

made available to the bar and 

public with the level of access 

determined by local judges.

Office of the Circuit Executive

The Office of the Circuit 

Executive provides staff support 

to the Judicial Council of the 

Ninth Circuit and implements 

the council’s administrative 

decisions and policies. By 

statute, the circuit executive is 

the administrative assistant to 

the chief judge of the circuit and 

secretary to the council. The 

circuit executive and her staff 

assist in identifying circuit-wide 

needs, conducting studies, 

developing and implementing 

policies, and providing training, 

public information and human 

resources support. Circuit 

executive staff also coordinates 

building and automation 

projects, and advises the council 

on procedural and ethical 

matters. The Office of the Circuit 

Executive provides management 

and technical assistance to courts 

within the circuit upon request. It 

also administers the Ninth Circuit 

Judicial Conference.

Lawyer Representatives

In each of the 15 judicial districts 

of the Ninth Circuit Court of 

Appeals, judges select lawyers 

who apply to serve the circuit 

in a number of ways including 

as lawyer representatives to the 

Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference 

which convenes “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. 

In addition to helping plan the 

circuit-wide conference, lawyer 

representatives work closely 

with district, bankruptcy and 

magistrate judges in their home 

districts. They participate as 

members on various committees 

and help plan local district 

conferences, often serving as 

speakers or facilitators. Lawyer 

representatives serve as the 

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. 
9

Judicial Transitions
10

Circuit Judges

 Judge Morgan Christen was 

confirmed as a judge of the 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Ninth Circuit on 

December 15, 2011, and 

received her commission on 

January 11, 2012. Prior to 

coming onto the federal bench, 

Judge Christen had served as a justice of the 

Alaska Supreme Court since 2009. She was just 

the second woman to serve on Alaska’s highest 

state court. Prior to that, she served as an Alaska 

Superior Court judge from 2002 to 2009 and was 

presiding judge of the state’s Third Judicial District 

from 2005 to 2009. Earlier in her career, Judge 

Christen was an associate then partner at the law 

firm of Preston Gates & Ellis LLP, now K&L Gates 

LLP, in Anchorage from 1987 to 2002. She 

received her B.A. from the University of 

Washington in 1983 and her J.D. from Golden 

Gate University, School of Law, in 1986. Judge 

Christen clerked for Alaska Superior Court Judge 

Brian Shortell from 1986 to 1987. She maintains 

chambers in Anchorage.

 Judge Andrew D. Hurwitz

was confirmed as a judge of the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

Ninth Circuit on June 12, 2012, 

and received his commission on 

June 27, 2012. Prior to his 

appointment to the federal 

bench, Judge Hurwitz had sat on 

the Arizona Supreme Court since 2003, serving as 

vice chief justice since 2009. Before joining the 

bench, Judge Hurwitz was a partner at the law firm 

of Osborn Maledon in Phoenix from 1995 to 

2003. He was an associate from 1974 to 1980 

then partner from 1983 to 1995 with the law firm 

of Martori Meyer Hendricks & Victor, which later 

became Osborn Maledon. Judge Hurwitz served 

as a judge pro tem on the Arizona Court of 

Appeals, Division I, in 1994, 1996 and 1998. He 

has had a long association with Arizona State 

University, Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law, 

serving as an adjunct professor since 2004. He 

was previously affiliated with the law school as 

a distinguished visitor from practice in 2001; a 

visiting professor of law, from 1994 to 1995; and 

an adjunct professor of law in 2002, 1988, and 

from 1977 to 1980. Judge Hurwitz received his 

A.B. from Princeton University in 1968 and his 

J.D. from Yale Law School in 1972. Following 

law school, he clerked for Judge Jon O. Newman 

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

Connecticut in 1972 and for Judge J. Joseph 

Smith of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second 

Circuit from 1972 to 1973. Judge Hurwitz served 

in the Connecticut Army National Guard and 

the U.S. Army Reserve from 1969 to 1975. He 

maintains chambers in Phoenix.

 Judge Jacqueline H. Nguyen

was confirmed as a judge of the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

Ninth Circuit on May 7, 2012, 

and received her commission on 

May 14, 2012. She had 

previously served as a district 

judge of the U.S. District Court 

for the Central District of California since 2009. 

Judge Nguyen is the first judge of Vietnamese 

descent to serve on either a federal appellate court 

or a federal trial court. Prior to coming onto the 

federal bench, Judge Nguyen had served as a 

California Superior Court judge in Los Angeles 

County from 2002 to 2009 and as a federal 

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

Central District of California from 1995 to 2002. 

While an assistant U.S. attorney, she was promoted 

to the post of deputy chief of the General Crimes 

Section and won the director’s award from the 

Department of Justice for superior performance. 

Judge Nguyen received her A.B. from Occidental 

College in 1987 and her J.D. from the University 

of California, Los Angeles, School of Law, in 1991. 

NEW JUDGES
11

She began her legal career at the Los Angeles law 

firm of Musick, Peeler & Garrett LLP, where she was 

a litigation associate from 1991 to 1994. She 

maintains chambers in Pasadena.

 Judge Paul J. Watford was 

confirmed as a judge of the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the Ninth 

Circuit on May 21, 2012, and 

received his commission on May 

22, 2012. Prior to his 

appointment to the bench, 

Judge Watford had been a 

litigation partner at the Los Angeles law firm of 

Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP since 2001. He 

joined the firm as an associate in 1996 then left 

in 1997 to serve as an assistant U.S. attorney in 

the Central District of California, where he 

worked in the Major Frauds Section, Criminal 

Division. He left government service in 2000, 

working as an associate at Sidley & Austin LLP in 

Los Angeles from 2000 to 2001. Judge Watford 

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

Berkeley, in 1989 and his J.D., Order of the Coif, 

in 1994 from the University of California, Los 

Angeles, School of Law, where he was editor of 

the UCLA Law Review. Following law school, he 

clerked for Judge Alex Kozinski of the U.S. Court 

of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from 1994 to 

1995 and for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the 

Supreme Court from 1995 to 1996. Judge 

Watford served as an appellate lawyer 

representative to the Ninth Circuit Judicial 

Conference from 2009 to 2011. He maintains 

chambers in Pasadena.

District Judges

 Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo

was confirmed as a U.S. district 

judge for the Southern District of 

California on February 9, 2012, 

and received her commission the 

following day. Prior to her 

appointment, Judge Bencivengo 

had served as a U.S. magistrate 

judge for the Southern District of California since 

2005. Before joining the bench, she engaged in 

private practice as an associate then partner at the 

San Diego law firm of DLA Piper Rudnick Gray 

Cary LLP, formerly Gray Cary Ware & Freidenrich, 

from 1998 to 2005. Judge Bencivengo received 

her B.A. and her M.A. from Rutgers University in 

1980 and 1981, respectively, and her J.D. from 

the University of Michigan Law School in 1988. 

She maintains chambers in San Diego.

 Judge Jesus G. Bernal was 

confirmed as a U.S. district judge 

for the Central District of 

California on December 11, 

2012, and received his 

commission the next day. Before 

coming onto the federal bench, 

Judge Bernal had worked in the 

Office of the Federal Public Defender for the 

Central District, serving as directing attorney of the 

Riverside division since 2006 and as an assistant in 

the Los Angeles division from 1996 to 2006. Prior 

to his public service, he worked from 1991 to 

1996 as a litigation associate at the Los Angeles 

law firm of Heller, Ehrman, White & McAuliffe LLP, 

where he focused primarily on complex civil 

litigation. Judge Bernal received his B.A. in 1986 

from Yale University, where he graduated cum 

laude, and his J.D. from Stanford Law School in 

1989. He maintains chambers in Riverside.
12

 Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel was 

confirmed as a U.S. district judge 

for the Southern District of 

California on September 22, 

2012, and received his 

commission on October 1, 

2012. Judge Curiel had served 

previously as a California 

Superior Court judge in San Diego County since 

2006. Before coming onto the bench, he served 

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

of California, from 2002 to 2006, and for the 

Southern District of California, from 1989 to 

2002, during which he was deputy chief then chief 

of the Narcotics Enforcement Section from 1999 to 

2002. Earlier in his career, Judge Curiel engaged 

in private practice at Barbosa & Vera in Monterey, 

California, from 1986 to 1989, and at James, 

James and Manning in Dyer, Indiana, from 1979 

to 1986. Judge Curiel received his B.A. from 

Indiana University in 1976 and his J.D. from 

Indiana University, School of Law, in 1979. He 

maintains chambers in San Diego.

 Judge Miranda M. Du was 

confirmed as a U.S. district judge 

for the District of Nevada on 

March 28, 2012, and received 

her commission on March 30, 

2012. Prior to her appointment 

to the bench, Judge Du had 

been a partner since 2002 at the 

Reno law firm of McDonald Carano Wilson LLP, 

where she specialized in employment law and 

complex civil litigation. She joined the firm in 

1994 and served as chair of its Employment/Labor 

Law Group. Judge Du received her B.A. from the 

University of California, Davis, in 1991 and her 

J.D. from UC Berkeley School of Law in 1994. She 

maintains chambers in Reno. 

 Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald

was confirmed as a U.S. district 

judge for the Central District of 

California on March 15, 2012, 

and received his commission on 

the same day. Prior to coming 

onto the bench, Judge 

Fitzgerald had been a partner 

since 1998 at the Los Angeles law firm of Corbin 

Fitzgerald & Athey LLP, where he handled civil and 

criminal litigation in both federal and state courts 

and at both the trial and appellate levels. He 

worked in the Law Offices of Robert L. Corbin PC 

in Los Angeles from 1995 to 1998 and at the Los 

Angeles law firm of Heller, Ehrman, White & 

McAuliffe LLP from 1991 to 1995. Judge 

Fitzgerald served as an assistant U.S. attorney for 

the Central District of California from 1988 to 

1991. He served as a lawyer representative to 

the Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference from 2006 

to 2008 and on the Ninth Circuit Attorney 

Admission Fund Committee from 2001 to 2003. 

Judge Fitzgerald received his A.B., magna cum 

laude, from Harvard University in 1981 and his 

J.D., Order of the Coif, from UC Berkeley 

School of Law in 1985. He maintains chambers 

in Los Angeles.

 Jude Sharon L. Gleason was 

confirmed as a U.S. district judge 

for the District of Alaska on 

November 15, 2011, and 

received her commission on 

January 4, 2012. Prior to her 

appointment to the federal bench, 

Judge Gleason had sat as an 

Alaska Superior Court judge, Third Judicial District, 

since 2001, and had served as presiding judge 

since 2009. Before that, Judge Gleason engaged 

in private practice in Anchorage, Alaska. She was a 

sole practitioner from 1995 to 2001; a shareholder 

with the law firm of Rice, Volland and Gleason from 

1989 to 1995; and as an associate with the law 

District Judges continued
13

firm of Reese, Rice and Volland from 1984 to 1989. 

Judge Gleason received her B.A. in 1979 from 

Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, where 

she graduated magna cum laude. She received her 

J.D. from the University of California, Davis, School 

of Law, in 1983. Following law school, Judge 

Gleason clerked for Chief Justice Edmond Burke of 

the Alaska Supreme Court from 1983 to 1984. 

She maintains chambers in Anchorage.

 Judge Thomas Owen Rice

was confirmed as a U.S. district 

judge for the Eastern District of 

Washington on March 8, 2012, 

and received his commission on 

the same day. Prior to his 

appointment, Judge Rice had 

been a government lawyer. He 

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

District of Washington since 1987, serving as first 

assistant since 2006; as chief of the Criminal 

Division from 2003 to 2006; and as deputy chief of 

the division from 2000 to 2003. Judge Rice began 

his career as a trial attorney in the Tax Division of 

the U.S. Department of Justice from 1986 to 1987. 

He received his B.B.A. from Gonzaga University in 

1983 and his J.D. in 1986 from Gonzaga University, 

School of Law, where he graduated magna cum 

laude. He maintains chambers in Spokane.

 Judge Fredrick E. Clement was 

appointed a bankruptcy judge 

for the Eastern District of 

California on March 16, 2012. 

Prior to his appointment to the 

bench, he had worked as a solo 

practitioner in Redding, California, 

since 1993. He was a judicial 

arbitrator, hearing officer, and judge pro tempore 

in state and municipal proceedings. Judge 

Clement received his B.A. from Westmont College 

in 1982 and his J.D., cum laude, from the 

University of California, Hastings College of the 

Law, in 1987. He maintains chambers in Fresno.

 Judge M. Elaine Hammond 

was appointed a bankruptcy 

judge for the Northern District of 

California on February 2, 2012. 

Before coming onto the bench, 

she worked as an associate then 

partner at Friedman Dumas & 

Springwater LLP in San Francisco 

from 2003 to 2011, and as an associate at Murphy, 

Sheneman, Julian & Rogers, now Winston & Strawn, 

in San Francisco from 2000 to 2003. Judge 

Hammond received her B.A. from Duke University in 

1992 and her J.D. from the University of North 

Carolina, School of Law in 1998. Following law 

school, she clerked for Judge Edward D. Jellen of 

the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District 

of California from 1998 to 2000. Judge 

Hammond served as a legal assistant for the North 

Carolina General Assembly from 1996 to 1998. 

She maintains chambers in Oakland.

Bankruptcy Judges
14

 Judge Mark D. Houle was 

appointed a bankruptcy judge for 

the Central District of California on 

February 17, 2012. Prior to his 

appointment to the bench, Judge 

Houle had been of counsel since 

2000 with the law firm of Pillsbury 

Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP, 

maintaining offices in Costa Mesa and Los Angeles, 

and was an associate with the law firm of Winthrop 

Couchot, PC, from 1998 to 2000. He served as a 

law clerk to judges in the Santa Ana division of the 

Central District bankruptcy court from 1996 to 1998, 

analyzing a wide variety of legal pleadings and 

preparing bench memoranda and memorandum 

decisions for hearings and trials in Chapter 7, 11 

and 13 bankruptcy cases and adversary pleadings. 

Judge Houle received his B.S. in 1993 from Salem 

State College, graduating summa cum laude, and 

his J.D. in 1996 from Boston College Law School, 

where he was a member of the Jessup International 

Moot Court Team from 1995 to 1996. He maintains 

chambers in Riverside.

 Judge Christopher B. Latham

was appointed a bankruptcy judge 

for the Southern District of 

California on October 1, 2012. 

Prior to joining the bench, Judge 

Latham had been an assistant U.S. 

attorney for the Southern District of 

California since 2008. He served 

on the U.S. Department of Justice’s Evaluation and 

Review Staff, performing intensive on-site audits of 

U.S. attorneys’ offices throughout the country. From 

1993 to 2008, Judge Latham worked as a summer 

associate, associate, senior counsel and then counsel 

at the San Diego law firm of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw 

Pittman LLP. He served as a part-time judge pro tem 

of the California Superior Court’s Small Claims 

Division in San Diego from 1998 to 2008. While a 

lawyer representative to the Ninth Circuit Judicial 

Conference from 2003 to 2009, he served on the 

Conference Executive Committee and Lawyer 

Representatives Coordinating Committee and was 

co-chair of the Southern District of California Lawyer 

Representatives from 2004 to 2006. Judge Latham 

received his B.A., Phi Beta Kappa, in 1986 from the 

University of California at Irvine, where he graduated 

magna cum laude. He earned a master’s degree in 

philosophy from Yale University in 1989 and a J.D. 

from Yale Law School in 1992. He maintains 

chambers in San Diego.

 Judge Gary Allan Spraker was 

appointed a bankruptcy judge for 

the District of Alaska on October 4,

 2012, and became chief on 

October 10, 2012. Prior to his 

appointment to the bench, Judge 

Spraker had been a partner 

since 2002 at Christianson & Spraker, formerly 

Christianson, Boutin & Spraker, where his practice 

focused on all phases of bankruptcy and commercial 

matters including litigation. Before that, he was 

an associate at the same law office from 1994 to 

2002, when it was known as Bundy & Christianson. 

He began his legal career in 1988 as an associate 

working in the Denver office of the law firm of 

Morrison & Foerster. Judge Spraker received his 

B.A., Phi Beta Kappa, from Stetson University in 

1985, and his J.D. in 1988 from the University of 

Denver, Sturm College of Law, where he graduated 

third in the class. He was awarded the Order of St. 

Ives for being in the top 10 percent of his law school 

class and received American Jurisprudence awards 

in contracts, constitutional law, Uniform Commercial 

Code (UCC) 1, UCC 2, trusts and estates, 

government contracts, and antitrust. Judge Spraker 

clerked for District Judge John W. Sedwick of the U.S. 

District Court for the District of Alaska from 1992 to 

1994. He maintains chambers in Anchorage.

Bankruptcy Judges continued
15

 Judge Bridget S. Bade was 

appointed a magistrate judge for 

the District of Arizona on June 

18, 2012. Prior to her 

appointment, Judge Bade had 

served as an assistant U.S. 

attorney for the District of Arizona 

from 2006 to 2012. Earlier in 

her career, she was in private practice in Phoenix 

as special counsel at Steptoe & Johnson LLP from 

2005 to 2006 and as a shareholder at Beshears 

Wallwork Bellamy from 1995 to 2005. She also 

worked in the U.S. Department of Justice, Attorney 

General’s Honor Program, Civil Division, from 

1991 to 1995. Judge Bade received her B.A. from 

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

ASU College of Law in 1990. Following law school, 

she clerked for Judge Edith H. Jones of the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit from 1990 to 

1991. She maintains chambers in Phoenix.

 Judge David H. Bartick was 

appointed a magistrate judge for 

the Southern District of California 

on April 2, 2012. Prior to 

joining the bench, Judge Bartick 

had engaged in private practice 

since 1985. He served as a 

judge pro tem for the California 

Superior Court in San Diego County from 1993 to 

2011; as presiding arbitrator for the San Diego 

County Bar Association from 1993 to 2012; and 

as a certified specialist in criminal law for the 

California Board of Legal Specialization from 

1998 to 2012. Judge Bartick received his B.A. 

from the University of California at Berkeley in 

1980 and his J.D. from Western State University in 

1985. He maintains chambers in San Diego.

 Judge Stanley Boone was 

appointed a magistrate judge for 

the Eastern District of California 

on December 31, 2012. Prior to 

his appointment, Judge Boone 

worked in the Office of the U.S. 

Attorney for the Eastern District of 

California, Fresno Division, serving 

as chief of the White Collar Crime Unit since 

2010, and as an assistant U.S. attorney from 1996 

to 2009. Judge Boone also served as a judge pro 

tem in Fresno County from 2008 to 2012. Prior to 

that, he worked as a white collar crime coordinator, 

Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, in Washington, 

D.C., from 2009 to 2010. Judge Boone received 

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

in 1988 and his J.D. from the University of the Pacific, 

McGeorge School of Law, in 1995. Following law 

school, he clerked for Magistrate Judge Peter A. 

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

District of California from 1995 to 1996. Judge 

Boone served as a senior paralegal specialist and 

certified student attorney for the U.S. Trustee Program 

in Sacramento. He maintains chambers in Fresno.

Magistrate Judges
16

 Judge Leslie Ann Bowman

was appointed a magistrate judge 

for the District of Arizona on May 

7, 2012. Prior to her appointment 

to the bench, Judge Bowman 

maintained her own private 

practice in Tucson from 1999 to 

2012, and was a partner at 

Bruner and Bowman, P.C., in Tucson from 1993 to 

1999. She worked as a pre-school prevention 

teacher for CODAC Behavioral Health Services; as 

a special education teacher, Country Day School, in 

Escazu, Costa Rica; and as a juvenile probation 

officer for the Pima County Juvenile Court Center in 

Arizona. Judge Bowman received her B.A. from the 

University of Arizona in 1979 and her J.D. from UA 

James E. Rogers College of Law in 1982. She 

maintains chambers in Tucson.

 Judge Allison Claire was 

appointed a magistrate judge for 

the Eastern District of California 

on November 20, 2012. Prior to 

her appointment, Judge Claire 

had worked in the Office of the 

Federal Public Defender for the 

Eastern District of California 

since 1995. She attended Wesleyan University 

from 1978 to 1981 and received her B.A. from the 

University of California at Santa Cruz in 1990, and 

her J.D. from UC Berkeley School of Law in 1993. 

Following law school, Judge Claire clerked for 

District Judge Lawrence K. Karlton of the U.S. 

District Court for the Eastern District of California. 

She maintains chambers in Sacramento.

 Judge Karen S. Crawford

was appointed a magistrate judge 

for the Southern District of 

California on March 5, 2012. 

Prior to her appointment, Judge 

Crawford worked as a partner at 

Duane Morris LLP since 2005 and 

as a senior attorney then partner 

at Buchanan Ingersoll from 1991 to 2005. Earlier 

in her career, she worked in the Civil Division of the 

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

of California from 1984 to 1991 and as a trial 

attorney in the Civil Division, Torts Branch, of the 

U.S. Department of Justice from 1980 to 1983. 

Judge Crawford received her undergraduate degree 

from Boston University in 1977 and her J.D. from 

California Western School of Law in 1980. She 

maintains chambers in San Diego.

Magistrate Judges continued
17

 Judge Steven P. Logan was 

appointed a magistrate judge for 

the District of Arizona on January 

30, 2012. Prior to his 

appointment, Judge Logan had 

served as an immigration judge 

for the Board of Immigration 

Appeals since 2010 and as an 

assistant U.S. attorney for the districts of Minnesota 

and Arizona from 1999 to 2010. He served as 

judge advocate for the Marine Corps and was on 

active duty from 1992 to 1999 and now on 

reserve duty. He was deployed to Iraq in 2004 

and 2007 and deployed to Afghanistan in 2008. 

Judge Logan received his B.S. from the University 

of Louisville in 1988 and his J.D. from the 

University of Oklahoma, College of Law, in 1992. 

He maintains chambers in Phoenix.

 Judge Bruce Gordon

Macdonald was appointed a 

magistrate judge for the District 

of Arizona on May 7, 2012. 

Prior to his appointment to the 

bench, Judge Macdonald had 

engaged in private practice at 

McNamara, Goldsmith & Macdonald in Tucson 

from 2003 to 2012. He also worked as a 

managing attorney for Farmers Insurance 

Exchange from 1998 to 2003 and at the law firms 

of Chandler, Tullar, Udall & Redhair from 1991 to 

1998 and at Slutes, Sakrison, Even, Grant & 

Pelander from 1985 to 1989. He served as an 

assistant attorney general in the Liability Defense 

Division, Office of the Attorney General, State of 

Arizona, from 1989 to 1991. Judge Macdonald 

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

1981 and his J.D. from UA College of Law in 

1985. He maintains chambers in Tucson.

 Judge Kandis A. Westmore

was appointed a magistrate 

judge for the Northern District of 

California on February 21, 

2012. Judge Westmore began 

her legal career specializing in 

plaintiffs’ civil rights litigation in 

Oakland. In 1999, she joined 

the Oakland City Attorney’s Office, where she 

served as deputy city attorney, and as a law and 

motion attorney handling a wide range of matters 

including civil rights, code enforcement, complex 

litigation, labor and employment, inverse 

condemnation, and personal injury at state and 

federal levels. Judge Westmore received her B.A. 

from the University of California, Berkeley, in 1989 

and her J.D. from the University of San Francisco, 

School of Law, in 1997. In her last term as a law 

student, she served as a judicial extern to District 

Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong of the U.S. 

District Court for the Northern District of 

California. She maintains chambers in Oakland.
18

 Judge Saundra Brown

Armstrong was confirmed as a 

district judge for the Northern 

District of California on June 14, 

1991, and received her 

commission on June 18, 1991. 

She assumed senior status on 

March 23, 2012. Prior to her 

appointment to the federal bench, Judge 

Armstrong had served as a judge of the California 

Superior Court in Alameda County from 1989 to 

1991. She worked as a commissioner for the U.S. 

Parole Commission from 1986 to 1989 and for 

the Consumer Product Safety Commission from 

1983 to 1986. Earlier in her career, Judge 

Armstrong was a trial attorney in the Public Integrity 

Section of the U.S. Department of Justice from 

1982 to 1983; a senior consultant for the 

California Assembly Committee on Criminal 

Justice from 1979 to 1980; and a deputy district 

attorney for Alameda County from 1980 to 1982 

and from 1978 to 1979. She worked as a judicial 

extern for the California Court of Appeal in 1977 

and as a police officer in Oakland, California, 

from 1970 to 1977. Judge Armstrong received 

her B.A. from California State University at Fresno 

in 1969, her J.D. from the University of San 

Francisco, School of Law, in 1977, and her M. Div. 

from Pacific School of Religion in 2012. She 

maintains chambers in Oakland.

 Judge Garland E. Burrell, 

Jr., was confirmed as a district 

judge for the Eastern District of 

California on February 27, 1992, 

and received his commission on 

March 2, 1992. He served as 

chief judge of the district from 

2007 to 2008 and assumed 

senior status on July 4, 2012. Prior to his 

appointment, Judge Burrell had worked as an 

assistant U.S. attorney in the Office of the U.S. 

Attorney for the Eastern District of California, serving 

as chief of the Civil Division from 1990 to 1992 

and as deputy chief of the division from 1979 to 

1985. Earlier in his career, Judge Burrell engaged 

in private practice as a business litigator for 

Stockman Law Corporation from 1985 to 1986. 

He also worked as a senior deputy city attorney for 

the City of Sacramento, California, from 1986 to 

1990; as deputy city attorney from 1978 to 1979; 

and as deputy district attorney from 1976 to 1978. 

He received his B.A. from California State University 

at Los Angeles in 1972; his M.S.W. from 

Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, in 

1976; and his J.D. from California Western School 

of Law in 1976. Judge Burrell served in the Marine 

Corps from 1966 to 1968. He maintains chambers 

in Sacramento.

 Judge David C. Bury was 

confirmed as a district judge for 

the District of Arizona on March 15,

2002, and received his 

commission on March 19, 2002. 

He assumed senior status on 

December 31, 2012. Prior to 

his appointment, Judge Bury 

had engaged in private practice as a partner at 

Bury, Moeller, O’Meara and Gage in Tucson, 

Arizona, since 2001. He held several partnerships 

in Tucson including Bury, Moeller, Humphrey and 

O’Meara from 1988 to 2000; Bury, Moeller and 

Humphrey from 1987 to 1988; Bury and Moeller 

from 1983 to 1987; Everett, Bury and Moeller 

from 1973 to 1983; and Everett and Bury from 

1971 to 1973. Prior to that, he worked as an 

associate at Robertson & Fickett, P.C., from 1967 

to 1971. Judge Bury received his B.S. from 

Oklahoma State University in 1964 and his J.D. 

from the University of Arizona, College of Law, in 

1967. He maintains chambers in Tucson.

SENIOR JUDGES
19

 Judge Kent J. Dawson was 

confirmed as a district judge for 

the District of Nevada on May 24, 

2000, and received his 

commission on May 31, 2000. 

He assumed senior status on July 

9, 2012. Prior to his appointment 

to the federal bench, Judge 

Dawson served as justice of the peace, Henderson 

Justice Court, Clark County, Nevada, from 1995 to 

2000; and as judge pro tem, Henderson Municipal 

Court, Nevada, from 1993 to 1995. He engaged 

in private practice at his own law firm, Kent J. 

Dawson Law Firm, in Las Vegas from 1979 to 

1995. Judge Dawson also held several positions 

with the City of Henderson, serving as general 

counsel to the Henderson Public Improvement Trust, 

from 1973 to 1995; as city manager in 1977; and 

as city attorney and assistant city attorney from 

1972 to 1979. Judge Dawson received his B.S. 

from Weber State College in 1969 and his J.D. from 

the University of Utah, College of Law, in 1971. He 

maintains chambers in Las Vegas.

 Judge David A. Ezra was 

confirmed as a district judge for 

the District of Hawaii on May 19, 

1988, and received his 

commission on May 20, 1988. 

He served as chief judge of the 

district from 1999 to 2005 and 

assumed senior status on June 27, 

2012. Prior to his appointment to the bench, Judge 

Ezra had engaged in private practice in Honolulu 

since 1972. He has been a lecturer in law at the 

University of Hawaii, Manoa, William S. Richardson 

School of Law, since 1978. Judge Ezra received his 

B.B.A. from St. Mary’s University in 1969 and his J.D. 

from St. Mary’s University, School of Law, in 1972. 

Following law school, he clerked for the Office of the 

Corporation Counsel, City and County of Honolulu, 

in 1972. Judge Ezra served in the Army Reserve from 

1971 to 1977. He maintains chambers in Honolulu.

Judge Valerie Baker 

Fairbank was confirmed as 

a district judge for the Central 

District of California on February 

1, 2007, and received her 

commission on February 16, 

2007. She assumed senior 

status on March 1, 2012, due to health problems. 

Prior to her appointment to the federal bench, 

Judge Fairbank served as a California Superior 

Court judge in Los Angeles County from 1987 to 

2007 and as a California Municipal Court judge 

in Los Angeles from 1986 to 1987. Prior to that, 

she served as an assistant U.S. attorney in the 

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

of California from 1977 to 1980. Judge Fairbank 

engaged in private practice in Los Angeles from 

1980 to 1986 and from 1975 to 1977. She 

maintains chambers in Los Angeles.

 Judge Sam E. Haddon was 

confirmed as a district judge for 

the District of Montana on July 

20, 2001, and received his 

commission on July 25, 2001. 

He assumed senior status on 

December 31, 2012. Prior to his 

appointment, he had engaged in 

private practice since 1966. He has been an 

adjunct professor of law for the University of 

Montana, School of Law, since 1971. Judge 

Haddon worked as an agent for the Federal Bureau 

of Narcotics from 1961 to 1962. He served as an 

immigration patrol inspector for the U.S. Border 

Patrol from 1959 to 1961. Judge Haddon received 

his B.S. from Rice University in 1959 and his J.D. 

from the University of Montana, School of Law, in 

1965. He maintains chambers in Great Falls.
20

 Judge Larry R. Hicks was 

confirmed as a district judge for 

the District of Nevada on 

November 5, 2001, and received 

his commission on November 7, 

2001. He assumed senior status 

on December 13, 2012. Prior to 

his appointment to the bench, 

Judge Hicks had engaged in private practice as a 

partner at the Reno law firm of McDonald Carano 

Wilson LLP since 1979, serving as chairman of the 

Litigation Section from 1986 to 2001. He held 

several positions in Washoe County, Nevada, from 

1968 to 1978, including deputy district attorney, 

chief deputy district attorney, and district attorney. 

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

Nevada at Reno in 1965 and his J.D. from the 

University of Colorado Law School in 1968. He 

maintains chambers in Reno.

 Judge Anthony W. Ishii was 

confirmed as a district judge for 

the Eastern District of California 

on October 9, 1997, and 

received his commission on 

October 14, 1997. He served as 

chief judge from 2008 to 2012 

and assumed senior status on 

October 31, 2012. Prior to his appointment to the 

federal bench, Judge Ishii served as a California 

Municipal Court judge in Fresno County from 1994 

to 1997 and as a justice court judge for the ParlierSelma Judicial District in Fresno County from 1983 

to 1993. Prior to that, he engaged in private 

practice in Fresno from 1979 to 1983; served as a 

deputy public defender, Public Defender’s Office, 

County of Fresno, in 1979; and as a deputy city 

attorney for the City of Sacramento in 1975. Judge 

Ishii received his Ph.G. from the University of the 

Pacific, School of Pharmacy, in 1970, and his J.D. 

from the University of California, Berkeley, School of 

Law, in 1973. He maintains chambers in Fresno.

 Judge Edward F. Shea was 

confirmed as a district judge for 

the Eastern District of Washington 

on March 27, 1998, and received 

his commission on April 8, 1998. 

He assumed senior status on June 

7, 2012. Prior to his appointment 

to the bench, Judge Shea had 

engaged in private practice as a partner at Shea, 

Kuffel, Klashke and Shea since 1997. He was a 

partner at several law firms including Shea, Kuffel 

and Klashke from 1994 to 1996; Shea and Kuffel 

from 1987 to 1994; Shea, Kuffel, Lindsay and Flynn 

from 1984 to 1987; Peterson and Shea from 1978 

to 1980; and Peterson, Taylor, Day and Shea from 

1974 to 1978. Judge Shea served as counsel for 

the Eastern Washington Chapter of the March of 

Dimes from 1993 to 1997 and as chair of the 

Washington Boundary Review Board in Franklin 

County from 1979 to 1980. He was a research 

assistant to the assistant dean at Georgetown 

University Law Center from 1969 to 1970 and 

served as a police officer for the U.S. Capitol Police 

Force from 1967 to 1970. Judge Shea received his 

B.S.Ed. from Boston State College in 1965 and his 

J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center in 

1970. Following law school, he clerked for Judge 

Harold Petrie of Washington State Court of Appeals, 

Division II, from 1970 to 1971. He maintains 

chambers in Richland. 

SENIOR JUDGES continued
21

 Judge Robert R. Beezer, 83, 

of the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

the Ninth Circuit, died on March 

30, 2012. Judge Beezer was 

appointed on March 28, 1984, 

and assumed senior status on 

July 31, 1996. Prior to his 

appointment, Judge Beezer 

engaged in private practice as a partner at 

Schweppe, Krug, Tausend and Beezer in Seattle 

from 1956 to 1984. He served as a judge pro 

tem for Washington Municipal Court in Seattle 

from 1962 to 1976. Judge Beezer received his 

B.A. from the University of Virginia in 1951 and his 

LL.B. from the University of Virginia, School of Law, 

in 1956. He served in the Marine Corps Reserve 

in 1951 and was released as first lieutenant in 

1953. Judge Beezer is survived by his wife of 54 

years, Hazlehurst; a son, Robert, and his wife, 

Patricia; another son, John, and a daughter, 

Allison; and two grandchildren.

 Judge Rudi M. Brewster, 80, 

of the U.S. District Court for the 

Southern District of California, 

died on September 7, 2012. 

Judge Brewster was appointed 

on June 15, 1984, and 

assumed senior status on July 1, 

1998. Prior to his appointment 

to the bench, he engaged in private practice as 

an associate then partner at Gray, Cary, Ames 

and Frye in San Diego from 1960 to 1984. 

Judge Brewster served in the U.S. Navy from 

1954 to 1957 and in the Naval Reserve from 

1957 until his retirement as a captain in 1980. 

He received his B.A. from Princeton University in 

1954 and his J.D. from Stanford Law School in 

1960. Judge Brewster is survived by his wife of 

58 years, Gloria; his son, Scot; daughters Lauri 

and Julie; and eight grandchildren.

 Chief Judge Emeritus James 

R. Browning, 93, of the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the Ninth 

Circuit, died on May 6, 2012. 

Judge Browning was appointed 

on September 18, 1961, and 

served as an active judge for 

nearly 40 years, including 12 

years as chief judge from 1976 to 1988. He 

assumed senior status on September 1, 2000. 

Prior to coming onto the bench, Judge Browning 

served as clerk of court for the U.S. Supreme Court 

from 1958 to 1961. He also served as an 

attorney in the U.S. Department of Justice, rising to 

the post of executive assistant to Attorney General 

James P. McGranery, and was a partner in a law 

firm formed by former Solicitor General Philip 

Perlman. Judge Browning received an LL.B. in 

1941 from the University of Montana, School of 

Law, graduating first in his class. He served in the 

Army during World War II and earned a Bronze 

Star Medal. Judge Browning is survived by his wife 

of 70 years, Marie Rose; a daughter and son-inlaw, Jeanne and Scott; and three grandchildren, 

Lauren, Greg and Mark.

IN MEMORIAM
22

 Judge Robert E. Coyle, 82, of 

the U.S. District Court for the 

Eastern District of California, died 

on May 7, 2012. Judge Coyle 

was appointed on April 1, 1982, 

and assumed senior status on 

May 13, 1996. He served as 

chief judge of the district from 

1990 to 1996. Prior to his appointment, Judge 

Coyle engaged in private practice as a partner at 

McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard, Coyle and Wayte 

in Fresno, California, from 1961 to 1982, and as 

an associate at the law firm of Hansen, McCormick, 

Barstow and Sheppard from 1958 to 1961. He 

served as a deputy district attorney in Fresno County 

from 1956 to 1958. Judge Coyle received his A.B. 

from Fresno State College in 1953 and his J.D. from 

the University of California, Hastings College of the 

Law, in 1956. Judge Coyle is survived by his wife of 

58 years, Faye; a son and daughter-in-law, Robert 

and Kim, and their children, Hunter and Sydney; 

and a daughter and son-in-law, Barbara and 

Michael, and their children, Morgan and Matthew. 

He was preceded in death by another son, Richard. 

 

 Judge Betty Binns Fletcher, 

89, of the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the Ninth Circuit, died on 

October 22, 2012. Judge 

Fletcher was appointed on 

September 26, 1979, and 

assumed senior status on 

November 1, 1998. Prior to her 

appointment to the bench, Judge Fletcher had 

worked with the Seattle law firm of Preston, 

Thorgrimson & Horowitz. Hired in 1956, she 

worked at the firm for 23 years and became the first 

woman partner at a major Pacific Northwest law 

firm. Judge Fletcher earned her B.A. at Stanford 

University in 1943 and began law school at 

Stanford while an undergraduate. She completed 

approximately one year of law school when her 

husband, the late Robert L. Fletcher, was assigned 

to a Navy anti-submarine station in New Jersey 

during World War II. Settling in the Pacific 

Northwest after the war, Judge Fletcher became a 

homemaker caring for the couple’s four children. 

She returned to law school at the University of 

Washington, School of Law, in 1954 and received 

her LL.B. in 1956, finishing first in her class and 

graduating Phi Beta Kappa and Order of the Coif. 

Survivors include two sons, Ninth Circuit Judge 

William A. Fletcher of San Francisco and Paul; two 

daughters, Susan and Kathy; eight grandchildren; 

and three great-grandchildren. 

Judge Robert J. Kelleher, 99, 

of the U.S. District Court for the 

Central District of California, died 

on June 20, 2012. He was the 

longest serving federal judge in 

the nation at the time of his death. 

Judge Kelleher was appointed 

on December 21, 1970, and 

assumed senior status on March 5, 1983. Prior to 

his appointment, Judge Kelleher engaged in private 

practice in Beverly Hills, California, from 1951 to 

1971, and in Santa Monica, California, from 1945 

to 1948. He served as an assistant U.S. attorney 

for the Southern District of California from 1948 

to 1951. Judge Kelleher received his A.B. from 

Williams College in 1935 and his J.D. from Harvard 

Law School in 1938. Following law school, he 

worked as a trial attorney for U.S. Trucking Company 

in New York City from 1939 to 1940 and as an 

associate attorney for the U.S. Department of the 

Army in Los Angeles, California, from 1941 to 1942. 

Judge Kelleher served in the U.S. Naval Reserve from 

1943 to 1945. He is survived by his son, R. Jeffrey; 

daughter, Karen; and three grandchildren.

IN MEMORIAM continued
23

Judge John C. Rayburn, Jr.,

52, a former magistrate judge 

of the U.S. District Court for the 

Central District of California, 

died on May 14, 2012. Judge 

Rayburn was appointed to 

the Central District bench on 

October 13, 2006, and sat in 

the Court’s Eastern Division in Riverside until his 

resignation in July 2008. Prior to coming onto 

the bench, he served as an assistant U.S. attorney 

in the Central District, from 1991 to 2006, 

working in Los Angeles, Santa Ana, and Riverside 

offices and served as the chief of the Riverside 

office. After leaving the bench, he returned to the 

Office of the U.S. Attorney and retired in 2009. 

Judge Rayburn received his B.S. from California 

Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, in 

1982; his M.B.A. from San Diego State University 

in 1987; and his J.D. from the University of 

California, Berkeley, School of Law, in 1990. 

Following law school, he clerked for District Judge 

Gary L. Taylor in the Central District’s Santa Ana 

division. Judge Rayburn is survived by his wife, 

Linda; daughter, Jennifer; sons, John and Joseph; 

and a large extended family.

 Judge Otto R. Skopil, Jr.,

93, of the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the Ninth Circuit, died on 

October 18, 2012. Judge Skopil 

was appointed on September 

26, 1979, and assumed senior 

status on June 30, 1986. Prior 

to his appointment, Judge Skopil 

served as a district judge of the U.S. District Court 

for the District of Oregon from 1972 to 1979, 

serving as chief judge from 1976 to 1979. Judge 

Skopil attended Willamette University on an 

athletic scholarship, earning his B.A. in 1941. He 

enrolled in the Willamette University College of 

Law but dropped out to join the Navy at the outset 

of World War II. He served as a Supply Corps 

officer in Guadalcanal and in Washington, D.C., 

before leaving the service in 1945. Returning 

to law school, Judge Skopil received his LL.B. 

in 1946 and began his legal career as a solo 

practitioner. He and a childhood friend later went 

into partnership together in Salem, Oregon, where 

he continued to practice law until his judicial 

appointment. Judge Skopil is survived by his 

wife of 56 years, Janet; four children, Otto “Rik” 

and his wife Pam, Casey and his wife Wendy, 

Shannon and her husband Barry, and Molly; five 

grandchildren; one great-grandchild; and sister-inlaw Janet and her family.
24

The passing of Chief Judge 

Emeritus James R. Browning on 

May 6, 2012, marked the end of 

an era for the United States Court 

of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 

Judge Browning, who died at age 

93, served on the court for more 

than 50 years, including 12 years 

as chief judge. His name became 

synonymous with that of the Ninth 

Circuit and he is the eponym for 

the circuit’s historic headquarters 

building in San Francisco.

Judge Browning served as an 

active judge for nearly 40 years. 

He took senior status in 2000 but 

continued hearing cases for many 

more years. Highly productive, he 

sat on 7,987 panels, either threejudge or en banc, authored 388 

majority opinions, 60 dissenting 

opinions, 34 concurring opinions, 

and thousands of unpublished 

opinions. Known for advocating 

that the court speak with one 

voice, panels on which he sat 

published 1,005 per curiam 

opinions.

Judge Browning’s contributions 

to Ninth Circuit jurisprudence 

include Lessig v. Tidewater Oil 

Col, 327 F.2d 459 (1964), 

a watershed antitrust ruling, 

which was ultimately overruled 

by the Supreme Court but 

remains influential even today. 

He authored one of the first 

decisions to set aside a criminal 

conviction due to ineffectiveness 

of defense counsel in Brubaker 

v. Dickson, 310 F.2d 30 (1962), 

and elaborated a standard for 

ineffectiveness of counsel in 

Cooper v. Fitzharris, 586 F. 2d 

1325 (1978). Those opinions 

presaged the standard later 

adopted by the Supreme Court 

in Strickland v. Washington, 466 

U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 

L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984). 

As chief judge, Judge Browning 

was a renowned administrator. 

He demonstrated how a large 

appellate circuit could work 

effectively. He introduced the 

use of technology; created 

administrative units to help 

manage the circuit; championed 

the use of a limited en banc 

court; and played a leading role 

in the adoption of the 1980 

Judicial Conduct and Disability 

Act. He involved all of the courts 

in governance of the circuit, 

staved off repeated efforts to split 

it into smaller units, and presided 

over the largest expansion of the 

Ninth Circuit bench in the history 

of the circuit.

Born in Great Falls, Montana, 

Judge Browning received his J.D. 

from the University of Montana 

School of Law in 1941. His 

early career was spent at the U.S. 

Department of Justice, where 

he held positions of increasing 

authority and responsibility, 

ultimately serving as the executive 

assistant to Attorney General 

James P. McGranery. After leaving 

government service in 1953 to 

practice law with Philip Perlman, 

a former solicitor general, he 

was appointed by Chief Justice 

Earl Warren in 1958 to serve as 

clerk of the Supreme Court. As 

the clerk, he held the Bible when 

President John F. Kennedy was 

sworn into office on January 20, 

1961. He was the last clerk to do 

so as that later became the task of 

the new president’s spouse.

President Kennedy nominated Judge 

Browning to the Ninth Circuit Court

of Appeals on September 6, 1961. 

He was confirmed by the Senate 

on September 14, 1961, and 

received his judicial commission 

on September 18, 1961. He 

remains the longest serving 

federal appellate judge in the 

nation’s history.

U.S. Senator Max Baucus of 

Montana, who carried the 

legislation that named the San 

Francisco courthouse after Judge 

Browning in 2004, remarked 

upon the judge’s passing: 

“Judge Browning shaped the 

Ninth Circuit court and the law 

of the West. We know his legacy 

will live on for generations to 

come.”

End of an Era for the Ninth Circuit
25

Ninth Circuit Highlights
26

The Honorable Susan Leeson, 

a retired Oregon Supreme 

Court justice now working as a 

federal court mediator, and the 

Willamette University College 

of Law were honored in 2012 

for individual and institutional 

achievements in alternative 

dispute resolution.

Justice Leeson received the 

Robert F. Peckham Award for 

Excellence in ADR, while the law 

school received the Ninth Circuit 

ADR Education Award. The 

awards were presented during 

a meeting of the Ninth Circuit 

ADR Committee at the federal 

courthouse in Portland, Oregon, 

on October 22, 2012. Federal 

judges, members of the bar and 

Willamette law students attended 

the event.

Justice Leeson is credited 

with rejuvenating the Oregon 

federal court’s mediation 

program. She led efforts to 

revise the court’s ADR Local 

Rule; reorganized the court’s 

Pro Bono Mediation Civil Panel; 

contributed to the development 

of ADR resources on the court’s 

Internet website; set up systems 

to generate statistics on ADR 

use; and worked tirelessly to 

promote the program to the bar 

and public. Her innovations 

include establishing a pro bono 

foreclosure mediation panel. 

The ADR Education Award 

was accepted by Richard 

Birke and Sukhsimranjit Singh, 

the director and associate 

Ninth Circuit ADR Awards Presented

Justice Susan Leeson, center, with Chief District Judge Ann Aiken of 

Oregon, left, and Magistrate Judge Valerie Cooke of Nevada, chair of 

the Ninth Circuit ADR Committee.

director, respectively, of the 

Willamette University College 

of Law’s Center for Dispute 

Resolution. Established in 1983, 

the center offers a broad ADR 

curriculum. Its faculty includes 

noted instructors, researchers and 

lecturers who have contributed 

significantly to advances in 

the ADR field nationally and 

internationally.

The Peckham and ADR Education 

awards were established in 2001 

and 2005, respectively, by the 

Judicial Council of the Ninth 

Circuit, governing body of the 

federal courts in nine western 

states and two Pacific Island 

jurisdictions.

The Peckham Award is named 

for the Honorable Robert F. 

Peckham, former chief district 

judge of the Northern District of 

California, who helped pioneer 

use of legal means other than 

court trials to resolve disputes.
27

encouraged judges to think about 

health and wellness issues.

In her remarks, Judge Schroeder, 

who was appointed to the court 

two years after Judge Hug, noted 

that neither of them would have 

become chief judge had not their 

colleague, Judge Anthony M. 

Kennedy, been elevated to the 

Supreme Court in 1988. The 

departure shuffled the order of 

succession, which is based on 

age and years of service, putting 

them in line to assume the 

leadership post.

“Proc’s legacy, to the judiciary 

and to the country, is huge. I 

am proud to have him as my 

colleague and friend,” Judge 

Schroeder remarked.

Judge Hug took semi-retired senior

status in 2002 but continued to 

hear cases and be involved in 

circuit governance for many years. 

He has served as a senior circuit 

judge representative to the Judicial 

Council of the Ninth Circuit, the 

governing body for federal courts 

in the western states.

In addition to his judicial 

experience, Judge Hug has 

served as deputy attorney 

general for the state of Nevada, 

as general counsel to the 

University of Nevada system, 

and as a member and chair 

of the Board of Regents of the 

University of Nevada.

Nevada Bar Honors Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Emeritus

Lawyers practicing in the federal 

courts of Nevada gathered 

in Reno in April to honor one 

of the state’s leading jurists, 

the Honorable Procter R. Hug, 

Jr., chief judge emeritus of the 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Ninth Circuit.

The tribute to Judge Hug, who 

has served on the federal bench 

for more than three decades, was 

the highlight of Nevada Federal 

Bar Association’s annual dinner. 

Over 175 people attended the 

event, which featured remarks 

by Ninth Circuit Judge Mary 

M. Schroeder of Phoenix, a 

close friend and colleague who 

succeeded Judge Hug in 2000 as 

chief judge of the circuit.

A lifelong Reno resident, Judge 

Hug received his undergraduate 

degree from the University of 

Nevada in 1953 and his LL.B. from 

Stanford Law School in 1958. He 

was nominated to the Ninth Circuit 

Court of Appeals by President 

Carter and received his commission 

on September 15, 1977.

Judge Hug has sat on some 7,000 

appellate panels and authored 

more than 600 opinions. In 

addition to his contributions to 

Ninth Circuit jurisprudence, Judge 

Hug served as chief judge of the 

circuit from 1996 to 2000. Under 

his leadership, the court fended 

off a serious effort to split up the 

circuit. He also promoted efforts 

to educate the public about the 

courts, advocated for greater use 

of cameras in the courtroom, and 

Senior Circuit Judges Procter Hug, Jr., of Reno, and Mary M. 

Schroeder of Phoenix
28

The Ninth Circuit held its annual New Judges 

Orientation on May 17-18, 2012, at the James R. 

Browning U.S. Courthouse in San Francisco. The 

group included, seated from left, District Judge 

Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the Northern District 

of California, Magistrate Judges Cam Ferenbach 

of the District of Nevada and Jean P. Rosenbluth of 

the Central District of California, Ninth Circuit Chief 

Judge Alex Kozinski of Pasadena, District Judge 

Miranda M. Du and Magistrate Judge Carl “Bill” 

Hoffman, Jr., of the District of Nevada, and District 

Judge Sharon L. Gleason of the District of Alaska.

Standing middle row from left are Magistrate Judge 

Kandis A. Westmore of the Northern District of 

California, District Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald of 

the Central District of California, Bankruptcy Judge 

M. Elaine Hammond of the Northern District of 

California, Magistrate Judge James F. Metcalf of the 

District of Arizona, Bankruptcy Judge Julia W. Brand 

of the Central District of California, Bankruptcy 

Judge Fredrick E. Clement of the Eastern District of 

California, Bankruptcy Judge Thomas M. Renn of the 

District of Oregon, and Magistrate Judge Nathanael 

Cousins of the Northern District of California.

Standing back row from left are Magistrate Judge 

William G. Cobb of the District of Nevada, Chief 

District Judge Ramona Villagomez Manglona 

of the District of Northern Mariana Islands, 

Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin of the 

Southern District of California, Magistrate Judge 

Carolyn K. Delaney of the Eastern District of 

California, District Judge Michael H. Simon of the 

District of Oregon, Magistrate Judge Jacqueline 

Scott Corley of the Northern District of California, 

and Bankruptcy Judge Mark D. Houle of the 

Central District of California.

New Judges Orientation
29

Chief Judge Alex Kozinski of the United States Court of 

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit mixed past and present in 

addressing several hundred lawyers and judges at the 

34th annual Ninth Circuit Luncheon in San Francisco. 

The March event was sponsored by the Northern District 

of California Chapter of the Federal Bar Association.

Judge Kozinski paid tribute to Ninth Circuit judges who 

passed away in 2011, but also welcomed the court’s newest member, Judge 

Morgan Christen of Alaska, who received her commission in January. She 

succeeds Judge Andrew J. Kleinfeld of Fairbanks, Alaska, who took senior 

status in 2010.

Of his departed colleagues, Judge Kozinski said, “We not only miss the 

considerable work they contributed, we miss them, terribly.”

At the time of his remarks, the Ninth Circuit bench included 19 senior 

judges with an average age of 80 and 25 active judges with an average 

age of 63.

The federal bench in 

Oakland, California, is 

made up entirely of women 

judges, a first for the United 

States District Court for the 

Northern District of California 

and possibly for the nation. 

Holding court in the Ronald V. 

Dellums Federal Building are, 

from left, Magistrate Judge 

Kandis A. Westmore, District 

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez 

Rogers, District Judge Phyllis 

J. Hamilton, Chief District 

Judge Claudia Wilken, Senior 

District Judge Saundra Brown 

Armstrong, and Magistrate 

Judge Donna M. Ryu.

All Women Bench Makes History in

Northern District 

Chief Judge’s Remarks Highlight FBA Luncheon

Photo courtesy of Hillary Jones-Mixon, The Recorder
30

Judges of the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Ninth 

Circuit convened a special 

session in May to recognize 

a respected colleague, Judge 

Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain. The 

proceeding at the historic Pioneer 

Courthouse in Portland, Oregon, 

commemorated the presentation 

of an official portrait of Judge 

O’Scannlain, who has served on 

the court for more than 25 years.

The work of Portland artist 

Wayne Chin, the painting was 

commissioned by the judge’s 

former law clerks and donated to 

the Pioneer Courthouse Historical 

Society, which, in turn, conveyed 

ownership to the court.

Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Alex 

Kozinski presided over the 

Court of Appeals Convenes in Special Session

to Honor Oregon Jurist

Judge Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain with artist Wayne Chin

session, joined on the bench 

by Judge O’Scannlain, Senior 

Circuit Judges Edward Leavy and 

A. Wallace Tashima and Circuit 

Judge Richard C. Tallman. In 

attendance were judges of the 

U.S. District Court for the District 

of Oregon and justices of the 

Oregon Supreme Court. Special 

guests included Antoinette 

Hatfield, wife of the late Senator 

Mark Hatfield of Oregon, who 

supported Judge O’Scannlain’s 

judicial nomination. 

The United States District Court for the 

District of Northern Mariana Islands 

held a portrait unveiling ceremony to 

honor two respected jurists who both 

served as chief district judge, Judge 

Alfred Laureta and Judge Alex R. 

Munson. Judge Laureta served as the 

first chief judge of the Northern District 

of Mariana Islands from 1978 until 

1988, when Judge Munson assumed 

the post and served in that capacity until 

2010. The event was held October 31,

2012, at the U.S. District Court in 

Saipan. Pictured from left are Judge 

Laureta, Chief District Judge Ramona 

Villagomez Manglona of the District of 

NMI, and Judge Munson.

Northern Marianas Court Unveils Judicial Portraits
31

Special Sittings Enrich Educational Experience

for Law Students

The United States Court of 

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has 

been holding special sittings at 

law schools in the western states 

for more than 20 years. The visits 

by three-judge appellate panels 

allow students, faculty and the 

local bar to see the court at work. 

The on-campus oral arguments 

typically attract large audiences. 

They are frequently videotaped for 

training purposes and often draw 

media attention.

In 2012, the court sat nine times 

at law schools around the circuit. 

They included the University of 

California, Irvine School of Law; 

the University of San Diego, 

School of Law; the University of 

Hawaii at Manoa, William S. 

Richardson School of Law; the 

University of California, Berkeley 

School of Law; the University of 

Nevada at Las Vegas, William S. 

Boyd School of Law; Arizona State 

University, Sandra Day O’Connor 

College of Law; the University of 

Arizona, James E. Rogers College 

of Law; and Gonzaga University, 

School of Law.

Except for the venue, a special 

sitting at a law school is no 

different than a regular court 

proceeding. The cases to be 

heard have been randomly 

assigned to the panel using 

a computer program. If the 

session is scheduled in a city 

in which the court does not 

usually sit, an effort is made to 

select cases arising from that 

geographical area.

All sessions of the court are 

open to the public, although 

those being held at law schools 

generally do not draw many 

off-campus visitors. Staff from 

the Office of the Clerk are 

present along with court security 

officers or members of the U.S. 

Marshals Service.

The court also holds special 

sittings at federal district 

courts within the circuit. These 

proceedings often take place in 

distant locations, where the bar, 

media and public seldom have 

the opportunity to see the court 

at work. Special sessions may 

also coincide with some other 

significant event, such as the 

opening of a new courthouse. In 

2012, the court held a special 

sitting in Boise, Idaho, to hear an 

appeal involving a high-profile 

case that originated in that city. 

In recent years, the court 

also has begun using Internet 

technology to reach law schools. 

High-profile cases being argued 

in Ninth Circuit courthouses in 

Pasadena and San Francisco 

can be streamed to law schools 

and to federal district courts 

elsewhere in the circuit. 

Law schools and the local bar 

have responded very positively 

to the court’s outreach efforts. 

The court intends to continue 

its special sittings and make 

greater use of Internet streaming 

in the future.

Circuit Judge Milan D. Smith, 

Jr., Circuit Judge M. Margaret 

McKeown, and Senior District 

Judge Rudi M. Brewster sat at 

University of San Diego School of 

Law for a special court sitting in 

February 2012.

Photo courtesy of Alan Decker Photography
32

The Ninth Circuit’s Technology 

Users Group Conference, 

held in June in Los Angeles, 

drew court managers and 

information technology staff 

from across the country, 

including representatives 

from four judicial circuits, the 

Administrative Office of the 

United States Courts, and other

federal agencies. 

The conference addressed 

various issues, including 

cyber attacks, use of new 

courtroom technology, mobile 

legal research tools, the next 

generation of case management 

and electronic case filing 

systems, use of social media, 

and the judiciary’s national IT 

initiatives. Participants included 

representatives from the Fifth, 

Eight, Ninth and Tenth circuits.

The conference opened with a 

“Conversation with the Circuits,” 

which featured Ninth Circuit 

Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, Circuit 

Judge Sidney R. Thomas, Idaho 

Chief District Judge B. Lynn 

Winmill, and Circuit and Court 

of Appeals Executive Cathy A. 

Catterson. The panel discussed 

the history and role of technology 

in the courts. 

District Judge James L. Robart 

of the Western District of 

Washington made a presentation 

on a locally developed Jury 

Electronic Evidence Presentation, 

or JEEP, system. JEEP aids jurors 

during deliberation by providing 

them electronic versions of 

exhibits, which are displayed 

on a large video monitor, 

rather than hard copy that can 

sometimes contain hundreds if 

not thousands of pages.

Dr. Bob Rucker, assistant 

circuit executive for policy and 

research, moderated a panel that 

discussed IT cost containment 

with emphasis on how courts 

can work together and share IT 

services and resources as the 

judiciary continues to tackle 

budget issues. Panel members 

included District Judge Robert 

S. Lasnik of the Western District 

of Washington, Bankruptcy 

Court Clerk Barry Lander of the 

Southern District of California, 

and Assistant Director Joseph 

R. Peters, Office of Information 

Technology, Administrative Office 

of the U.S. Courts.

Technology Users Group Convenes

Ninth Circuit IT Committee members, seated from left, are 

Magistrate Judge David K. Duncan of Phoenix; District Judge 

Timothy M. Burgess of Anchorage; Chief District Judge B. Lynn 

Winmill of Boise, chair; and District Judge Gloria M. Navarro of 

Las Vegas. Standing from left are District Judge Percy Anderson 

of Los Angeles, Chief Bankruptcy Judge Frank R. Alley, III, of 

Eugene; Chief Probation Officer Yador J. Harrell of San Francisco, 

Bankruptcy Judge Brian D. Lynch of Tacoma, Bankruptcy Court 

Clerk Barry K. Lander of San Diego, and Don Vincent, assistant 

circuit executive for IT, Office of the Circuit Executive.

Chief Judge Alex Kozinski 

participates in discussion about 

the history and role of technology 

in the courts.
33

IT Staff Assist Pacific Island Courts

With help from the Ninth Circuit, 

the Pacific Judicial Council 

held its first ever Technology 

Conference, providing hands-on 

training for staff from courts of 

several Pacific island nations.

Held February 20-23, 2012, 

at the New Horizons training 

facility in Dededo, Guam, the 

conference introduced new 

computer technologies and 

provided technical training and 

disaster recovery guidance. 

Attending were more than 40 

information technology specialists 

and other court staff from the U.S. 

territories of Guam and American 

Samoa, the Federated States of 

Micronesia, the Commonwealth 

of the Northern Mariana Islands 

and the republics of Palau and 

the Marshall Islands.

Chief Justice F. Phillip Carbullido 

of the Supreme Court of Guam 

welcomed the group, and 

Associate Justice Robert J. Torres, 

Jr., discussed latest technologies 

that help judges to be more 

productive while traveling.

Sally Pym, an education 

specialist with the Ninth Circuit 

Office of the Circuit Executive, 

made a presentation on 

court management and the 

importance of information 

technology to court operations. 

The conference also included 

training sessions on Windows 

7, Windows Server 2008 R2, 

WebEx, Skype, COOP, WSUS 

and computer back-ups. 

Other presenters included 

Assistant Circuit Executive 

Don Vincent and IT specialists 

Stephen Sue and Hank Herbert 

from the Ninth Circuit Office 

of the Circuit Executive, along 

with Chief Deputy Clerk Charles 

White and IT staffers Vergel 

DeVera and Gabriel Pereda of 

the U.S. District Court for the 

District of Guam.

Sally Pym, education specialist, top, works with court staff from 

Kosrae, Federated States of Micronesia. IT staff and conference 

attendees at the 2012 Pacific Judicial Council IT Conference in Guam.
34

Federal court staff joined 

with local, state and national 

government officials and private 

industry representatives to plan 

how to continue providing critical 

services after a major earthquake.

The program held March 14, 

2012, in San Francisco focused 

on continuity of operations, 

or COOP. Participating were 

the San Francisco Federal 

Executive Board, the United 

States Department of Homeland 

Security’s Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, or FEMA, 

and the San Francisco Bay Area 

COOP Working Group. The 

Federal Executive Board, or 

FEB, is a regional organization 

responsible for integrating the 

responses of various agencies 

at different stages of an 

emergency. FEBs communicate 

and coordinate with FEMA, the 

Department of Energy and the 

Department of Defense in the 

event of a major catastrophe. 

Federal courts in the Ninth 

Circuit have FEB representatives 

in Seattle, San Francisco, Los 

Angeles and Honolulu, Hawaii. 

Some 160 individuals from 

over 60 various civilian 

government agencies and military 

organizations joined in the 

tabletop exercise. Participants 

included 35 judiciary staff 

representing the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and 

federal district and bankruptcy 

courts in the districts of Alaska, 

Arizona, Central California, 

Northern California, Southern 

California, Nevada, Western 

Washington, Southern Indiana, 

Middle District of Florida and 

the Federal Judicial Center 

in Washington, D.C. Laudan 

Batino, COOP coordinator from 

the Ninth Circuit Office of the 

Circuit Executive, moderated the 

six-hour event.

Keith Knudsen, deputy director of 

the Earthquake Science Center 

for the U.S. Geological Survey, 

and Dr. Richard Allen, director 

of the Berkeley Seismological 

Laboratory and an associate 

professor the Department of Earth 

and Planetary Science at the 

University of California, Berkeley, 

made keynote presentations. Mr. 

Knudsen discussed the geological 

causes of earthquakes, while 

Dr. Allen focused on efforts to 

develop an advanced earthquake 

early warning system now being 

tested in California. 

Participants returned to the 

plenary session to share their 

insights following a discussion 

of a scenario involving a 

magnitude 6.9 earthquake 

occurring along the Hayward 

fault, similar to the 1989 Loma 

Prieta earthquake, which also 

registered a magnitude of 

6.9. Following the exercise, 

judiciary court staff met with 

Jim Buchanan of the FJC to 

discuss emergency planning and 

future emergency preparedness 

workshop.

Continuity of Operations Planners

Return to Basics

COOP coordinator Laudan 

Batino, above, served as emcee, 

and Keith Knudsen of the U.S. 

Geological Survey, below, 

discussed earthquake causes.
35

The 2012 Ninth Circuit Judicial 

Conference was held August 

13-16 in Maui, Hawaii. The 

conference is held pursuant 

to Section 333 of Title 28 of 

the United States Code “for 

the purpose of considering 

the business of the courts and 

advising means of improving the 

administration of justice within 

the circuit.”

Conferees included judges of the 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Ninth Circuit and the 

U.S. district courts and U.S. 

bankruptcy courts in nine western 

states and two Pacific island 

territories. Also in attendance 

were lawyers practicing in these 

courts; court staff; and guests.

The theme of this year’s 

conference was “Improving the 

Administration of Justice.” The 

program featured presentations 

on preserving privacy in the 

age of online data mining by 

business and government; racial 

disparities in criminal sentencing; 

ethical issues facing judges and 

lawyers; an update on significant 

cases decided in the most recent 

Supreme Court term; an in depth 

look at the high court ruling on 

health care reform; and habeas 

review under the Antiterrorism 

and Effective Death Penalty Act. 

 

U.S. Supreme Court Justice 

Anthony M. Kennedy was the 

keynote speaker at the opening 

session, and also participated in 

a question-and-answer session 

that closed the conference.

In his opening remarks, Justice 

Kennedy stressed the importance 

of the conference in providing 

continuing legal education 

to the bench and bar. He 

described the gathering as “a 

prudent and a proper exercise 

of the judicial function.”

Justice Kennedy suggested 

courts need to consider new 

ways to handle growing 

caseloads, warned of the 

impacts of arbitration on court 

trials, and questioned whether 

law school curriculums meet 

student needs. He concluded 

with criticism of the partisan 

battles over judicial nominees.

“In the current climate, highly 

qualified practitioners of the 

law simply do not want to 

subject themselves to that 

process,” he said.

Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference Looks at Sentencing, Big Data

Kathleen M. Sullivan, Esq., top, 

leading the audience through 

a year of notable Supreme 

Court rulings. Chief Judge 

Alex Kozinski speaks at the 

opening session.
Kathleen M. Sullivan, former 

dean of the Stanford Law School, 

conducted the review of Supreme 

Court cases, including the 

challenge to the Patient Protection 

and Affordable Care Act of 2010; 

the Arizona immigration law; and 

the Stolen Valor Act. 

A panel of privacy experts 

warned that neither Congress 

nor the federal courts may be 

able to control commercial use 

of the wealth of personal data 

now found on the Internet. Paul 

Ohm, an associate professor of 

law and telecommunications at 

the University of Colorado Law 

School, described an “arms race 

between those who would invade 

(your privacy) and those who 

would defend it.”

He was joined on the panel by 

Professor Edward W. Felten, 

director of the Center for 

Information Technology Policy at 

Princeton University and Nicole 

Wong, former vice president 

and deputy general counsel for 

Google. Joel R. Reidenberg, 

founding director of the Fordham 

Center on Law and Information 

Technology, moderated the 

90-minute presentation.

Law enforcement surveillance 

practices, including Internet 

monitoring and gathering of 

location information and other 

data from smart phones and 

other electronic devices, also 

were discussed. Participating 

were Marcia Hoffman, senior 

staff attorney for the Electronic 

Frontier Foundation; Professor 

Orin S. Kerr and Professor Jeffrey 

Rosen of George Washington 

University School of Law. 

Professor Mariano-Florentino 

Cuellar of Stanford Law School.

A panel of current and former 

judges and academics addressed 

the significant influence of 

race in determining criminal 

punishments, presenting dramatic 

evidence that African Americans 

and Hispanics are much more 

likely to be incarcerated and for 

substantially longer times than 

whites and others.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony 

M. Kennedy was the keynote speaker 

for the opening session, above. 

Justice Kennedy also participated in 

the closing session, engaging in an 

informal conversation, below, with 

Circuit Judge Marsha S. Berzon, 

left, and Bankruptcy Judge Laura 

S. Taylor, conference chair. District 

Judge S. James Otero and lawyer 

representative Andrew M. Jacobs 

also participated in the conversation.
37

U.S. District Judge Ruben Castillo of Chicago, above, 

speaking during the panel entitled “What Color is 

Justice: Racial Disparities in the Criminal Process.” 

Nancy Rapoport, below, interim dean of the William S. 

Boyd School of Law at the University of Nevada at Las 

Vegas, listening in on group discussions during the legal 

ethics program.

Participating in the discussion were 

U.S. District Judge Ruben Castillo 

of Chicago, who served on the U.S. 

Sentencing Commission for 11 years; 

Bryan Stevenson, founder and executive 

director of the Equal Justice Initiative in 

Montgomery, Alabama; Sonya Starr, an 

associate professor at the University of 

Michigan Law School; and the Honorable 

Nancy Gertner, a retired federal judge from 

Boston who now teaches sentencing law at 

Harvard Law School.

In the conference’s traditional bench-bar 

segment, judges and lawyers took up 

legal ethics issues, including how clients’ 

perceptions are often shaped by how the 

bench and bar are portrayed in movies 

or on television. The session, moderated 

by Nancy Rapoport, interim dean of the 

William S. Boyd School of Law at the 

University of Nevada at Las Vegas, included 

use of video clips from the television series, 

“The Good Wife.”

Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, who 

opened and closed the gathering, called 

the Conference “our most successful,” 

combining an outstanding educational 

program with important business meetings 

and providing numerous opportunities for 

informal interaction among the judges, and 

between judges and members of the bar.

“The Conference is important in 

cementing the bonds that unite us as a 

profession and that are vital in improving 

the administration of justice in our 

geographically diverse circuit,” Judge 

Kozinski said.

The Ninth Circuit has held a conference 

annually since 1944, although the 2013 

gathering has been rescheduled to 2014 in 

Monterey, California.

Click here to view 2012 Judicial

Conference program videos.
38

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.” 

Mr. Svetcov, a partner in the San 

Francisco office of Robbins Geller 

Rudman & Dowd LLP, has practiced 

law for 47 years and is considered 

to be the dean of appellate lawyers 

appearing before the Ninth Circuit 

Court of Appeals. 

Mr. Svetcov is well known 

for volunteer work, including 

recruiting lawyers from the 

Northern District of California to 

participate in the Ninth Circuit Pro 

Bono Program.

Mr. Svetcov has been in private

practice since 1989. Prior to 

that, he was as an assistant U.S. 

attorney for the Northern District of 

California, from 1979 to 1989, in 

charge of the office's Organized 

Crime Strike Force and as chief of 

the appellate section. 

Raised in Brooklyn, New York, Mr. 

Svetcov earned his B.A. in 1961 

from Brooklyn College, where he 

graduated cum laude, and his 

J.D. from UC Berkeley, School of 

Law, in 1964.

Associate Justice Judith L. Haller 

of the California Fourth District 

Court of Appeal received the 

prestigious 2012 Ninth Circuit 

Professionalism Award from the 

American Inns of Court, which 

seeks to improve the practice of 

law by promoting mentorship 

and collegiality among the bar. 

The award is given to a senior 

practicing judge or lawyer “whose 

life and practice display sterling 

character and unquestioned 

integrity, coupled with ongoing 

dedication to the highest 

standards of the legal profession.” 

Justice Haller came onto the 

Californiva bench in 1989, when 

she was appointed to the San 

Diego County Superior Court. 

She was elevated to the Fourth 

District Court of Appeal in 1994. 

Prior to coming onto the bench, 

she had been in private practice 

in San Diego.

Born in Los Angeles, Justice 

Haller graduated summa cum 

laude and Phi Beta Kappa from 

the University of California at Los 

Angeles and received her J.D. 

from California Western School 

of Law. She also has a master’s 

degree in history from San Diego 

State University. 

John P. Frank Award

Renowned appellate lawyer 

Sanford “Sandy” Svetcov 

received the John P. Frank 

Award, established by the 

Judicial Council of the Ninth 

Circuit to recognize “a lawyer 

2012 Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference Awards

Associate Justice Judith L. Haller, right, receives the American Inns of 

Court Award from Senior Circuit Judge Mary M. Schroeder.

Sanford “Sandy” Svetcov, Esq.
39

Judges Receiving Awards in 2012

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Senior Judge Arthur L. 

Alarcón, Hispanic of the Year, 

National Latino Peace Officers 

Association; Judge Carlos T. 

Bea, Graciela Olivarez Award, 

University of Notre Dame, The 

Law School; Senior Judge Alfred 

T. Goodwin, honored by the 

Oregon Supreme Court on 

which he served for nearly a 

decade; Senior Judge Procter 

Hug, Jr., honored for his 35 

years of service on the bench, 

Nevada Chapter of the Federal 

Bar Association; Judge Mary 

H. Murguia, Mark Santana 

Law-Related Education Award, 

the Arizona Foundation for Legal 

Services, and the Lider Award 

from the greater Phoenix area 

group, 40 Hispanic Leaders 

Under 40; and Judge N. Randy 

Smith, inducted to Idaho Hall of 

Fame for advancing the common 

good of those residing in the 

"Gem State."

Central District of California

Bankruptcy Judge Sheri 

Bluebond, Fellow, American 

College of Bankruptcy; Chief 

District Judge Audrey B. 

Collins, Outstanding Jurist 

Award, Los Angeles County 

Bar Association, and the Joan 

Dempsey Klein Distinguished 

Jurist Award, California Women 

Lawyers; District Judge Andrew 

J. Guilford, “True Founder of 

the School of Law,” University 

of California, Irvine, School 

of Law; Senior District Judge 

Ronald S. W. Lew, recognized for 

his 30 years of judicial service, 

Southern California Chinese 

Lawyers Association, and the 

Justice Armand Arabian Leaders 

in Public Service Award, Encino 

Chamber of Commerce; Legacy 

Builder Award, Chinatown 

Service Center; Judges’ Tribute, 

Southwestern Law School, 

Centennial Celebration; District 

Judge Virginia A. Phillips, Public 

Service Award, Asian Pacific 

American Bar Association, 

Los Angeles County, and the 

Alicemarie H. Stotler Award, 

Federal Bar Association, Orange 

County; Senior District Judge 

Otis D. Wright, II, Judges Tribute, 

Southwestern Law School, 

Centennial Celebration.

Northern District of California

Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler, 

Women Leaders in Law Honoree, 

The Recorder; Magistrate Judge 

Paul S. Grewal, Federal Judge 

of the Year, Santa Clara County 

Trial Lawyers Association; 

Senior District Judge Thelton E. 

Henderson, Glenn T. Seaborg 

Award, University of California, 

Berkeley, Athletics, and the 

American Lawyer Lifetime Achiever 

Award, The American Lawyer.

District of Guam

Chief District Judge Frances 

Marie Tydingco-Gatewood, 

Guam’s Girl Scout Great, Guam 

Girl Scouts; Alumni Achievement 

Award, University of Missouri, 

Kansas, School of Law.

District of Idaho

Magistrate Judge Mikel H. 

Williams, Professionalism 

Award, Idaho State Bar, Fourth 

Judicial District.

District of Montana

Senior District Judge Donald 

W. Molloy, Judicial Recognition 

Award, Montana Criminal Defense 

Trial Lawyers; Distinguished Alumni 

Award, University of Montana 

Alumni Association.

Eastern District of Washington

Magistrate Judge James P. 

Hutton, James Oldham Award, 

Eastern District of Washington 

STEP Program; Senior District 

Judge Edward F. Shea, Trial 

Judge of the Year Award, 

American Board of Trial 

Advocates, Washington Chapter.

Western District of Washington

Bankruptcy Judge Karen 

A. Overstreet, Making a 

Difference through Community 

Service Award, American Bar 

Association, Small Firm and 

General Practice Division.
40

The Ninth Circuit Library is a 

network of 24 law libraries 

housed in federal courthouses 

throughout the West. A 

knowledgeable and experienced 

library staff conducts research 

and disseminates information 

to judges, attorneys, court staff 

and the public. 

The library system traces its 

roots back nearly 120 years 

to a single library established 

in San Francisco to serve the 

needs of the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Ninth 

Circuit. At that time, the 

responsibility for maintaining 

a collection of law books was 

assigned to the clerk of court. 

While the library remains an 

organ of the court of appeals 

statutorily, it now also serves the 

district courts and bankruptcy 

courts of the circuit. All told, 

more than 400 judges and their 

chambers staff make use of 

library services. 

The libraries also provide 

professional research assistance 

using a variety of resources. 

This assistance is provided 

by 36 professional librarians, 

a third of whom have a 

J.D. in addition to graduate 

librarianship degrees. 

Reduced operating budgets 

have forced the Judiciary 

to examine the costs and 

usefulness of its library 

programs nationwide. Studies 

undertaken in 2010 and 

2012 considered the scope 

of the library program along 

with usage and costs. The 

studies found that judges and 

chambers value library services 

and often call upon the library 

for assistance.

According to library sampling 

data, circuit libraries serve 

nearly 70,000 users annually 

and respond to over 40,000 

requests for information and 

other research assistance. 

While judges, chambers staff 

and other court employees 

made most of the requests, 

nearly one fifth of the questions 

came from lawyers, litigants and 

the general public.

Ninth Circuit librarians provide 

assistance in using tablet 

computers and other mobile 

devices to access Lexis, Westlaw 

and other legal resources. 

Library staff also tracks news 

and court activities and regularly 

pushes information out to judges 

and court staff via the web, 

email and other means. 

Working with judges, the library 

has sought to contain costs by 

reducing subscriptions more than 

half in the last 10 years. Several 

libraries have been reduced in size 

and others may be consolidated 

or closed in the future.

The need for person-to-person 

contact will continue. Studies have 

shown that personal interaction 

between library staff and court 

clients is at its most effective in 

the courthouses.

Circuit Law Libraries Keep Pace with Technology

Ninth Circuit library staff in San Francisco include, seated from left, Benh 

Loc, Julie Horst, Nancy Tsang, Emily Newman, Filiberto Govea, and 

Sally Bingham. Standing from left are James Goodlett, Rollins Emerson, 

Konrad Steiner, Patricia Villalta, Lisa Larribeau, Trish McCurdy, Edward 

Hosey, and Eric Wade.
41

Federal trial courts in the Ninth 

Circuit have begun using a new 

jury orientation video completed 

in 2012. The 18-minute video is 

intended to convey to prospective 

jurors the importance of serving 

on a jury and explains the juror 

selection process from summons 

through voir dire.

The video addresses the 

most current issues in jury 

service, including juror misuse 

of smartphones and other 

electronic devices to improperly 

gather information about a 

case from the Internet, instead 

of relying only on the testimony 

and evidence presented in the 

courtroom. Such activities have 

led to mistrials in both federal 

and state courts.

The new video features remarks 

by retired U.S. Supreme Court 

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. 

Also appearing are Judge 

Richard A. Paez of the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the Ninth 

Circuit, Judge Susan Y. Illston 

of the U.S. District Court for the 

Northern District of California, 

and a number of former jurors, 

who recount their experiences 

during a trial and after a verdict 

is delivered.

The video has been distributed 

to jury administrators in the 

15 U.S. district courts in the 

Ninth Circuit, which takes in 

the states of Alaska, Arizona, 

California, Hawaii, Idaho, 

Montana, Nevada, Oregon and 

Washington, along with the U.S. 

Territory of Guam and the

Commonwealth of the 

Northern Mariana Islands.

The project was 

undertaken by the 

Ninth Circuit’s Jury 

Trial Improvement 

Committee, working 

through the Office of 

the Circuit Executive and 

using funding provided 

by the circuit and several 

district courts.

The video is available 

for viewing online at: 

http://tinyurl.com/

federaljuryvideo2013

Jury Orientation Video Completed

District Judge Susan Y. Illston 

of the Northern District of 

California speaking with the 

jury during the taping of the 

jury video.
42

The United States Bankruptcy 

Court for the Central District of 

California serves more than 18 

million people living in seven 

Southern California counties. Its 

divisions in Los Angeles, Riverside, 

Santa Ana, Santa Barbara, and 

Woodland Hills received 111,909 

bankruptcy filings in fiscal year 

2012, the most in the country.

More than 30,000 cases were 

filed by self-represented debtors. 

About 60 percent of self-filers 

successfully completed the 

bankruptcy process while the 

other 40 percent had their cases 

dismissed for various reasons. 

All of them required a greater 

amount of court services than 

a lawyer would typically need, 

further stretching already thin 

court resources.

The court is trying to make 

the bankruptcy process more 

understandable to self-represented 

debtors through self-help centers, 

Internet websites, community 

meetings and other resources. The 

local bar and various community 

groups also are being encouraged 

to lend a hand by providing free 

legal representation.

A 2012 report by the court 

found that a self-represented 

debtor is almost eight times 

more likely to have a Chapter 

7 case dismissed than a debtor 

represented by counsel. The 

odds are even worse in Chapter 

13 cases, which are often filed 

by homeowners seeking to avoid 

foreclosure. A self-represented 

debtor has less than a 1-percent 

chance of successfully completing 

a Chapter 13 bankruptcy.

The report found that many selfrepresented debtors in the Central 

District are low-income and 

non-English speaking. Although 

usually eligible for free legal 

assistance, many rely, instead, on 

a bankruptcy petition preparer, or 

BPP, who charges between $200 

and $1,200 to prepare forms to 

be submitted to the court. The 

use of a BPP is often not revealed 

in the filing, but the practice 

is thought to be widespread, 

particularly among Hispanics 

and Filipinos who turn to their 

neighborhood “notario” for help.

While some BPPs operate 

legitimately, anecdotal evidence 

suggests that many failed to fulfill 

their duties in a timely fashion. 

They usually have no legal 

training and gave questionable 

legal advice. Unscrupulous BPPs 

also are thought to be behind 

the filing of cases without the 

knowledge of the debtor named 

in the case, and the practice of 

“hijacking” cases to forestall 

foreclosure by falsely transferring 

trust deeds into the name of 

another debtor in hopes of 

gaining an automatic stay.

The growing problem of nonattorneys filing cases for debtors 

led the court to implement a 

Debtor ID Program. Anyone 

filing any document without 

an attorney of record is now 

required to show photo ID. 

Should questions later arise 

about the filing, the third-party 

filer can be ordered into court. 

The system has enabled the court 

to identify dozens of BPPs who 

submitted shoddy work and have 

been ordered to return their fees.

The court also is making it easier 

for self-represented debtors to 

file and keep track of their cases. 

The Central District is one of three 

bankruptcy courts participating 

in the Pathfinder Electronic Filing 

Project, a national program 

that will allow self-represented 

debtors to electronically prepare 

and submit Chapters 7 and 13 

bankruptcy petitions. The test 

courts were to begin offering 

electronic filing to self-represented 

debtors in late 2012.

Nation’s Busiest Bankruptcy Court

Sees Explosion of Self-Filers

27.6%

19.1%

8.9%

2012 Pro Se Bankruptcy Case Filings

% of Total Bankruptcy Filings, Fiscal Year

Central District of California

Ninth Circuit

National Total
43

Committee Turns to Internet, Newsletter

to Promote Community Outreach

The Ninth Circuit’s Courts and 

Community Committee is the 

only circuit-level committee 

dedicated solely to the task of 

improving public understanding 

of the federal judiciary. The 

committee focuses its efforts on 

community outreach and media 

relations. Committee members 

include federal judges, court 

staff, attorneys and journalists.

In 2012, the committee began 

publishing a quarterly newsletter 

for judges and court staff, and 

unveiled a revamped Internet 

website – http://community.

ce9.uscourts.gov –accessible 

to the general public. Both the 

newsletter and website are used 

to publicize successful community 

outreach programs being 

undertaken by various courts 

in the circuit. In addition, the 

website provides judges and court 

staff with information about how 

to organize their own programs. 

The website also makes use of 

social media, offering a blog and 

Twitter feed to those interested in 

community outreach.

All of the federal courts in the 

Ninth Circuit are involved in 

community outreach to some 

degree. Events and activities 

organized in 2012 included:

• A Law Day naturalization 

ceremony conducted by 

the U.S. District Court 

for the Eastern District 

of Washington. The 

Citizenship & Immigration 

Services and several 

community organizations 

assisted the court in 

providing the program 

held May 1 at the Masonic 

Temple Auditorium. The 

Spokane City mayor and 

Spokane County Bar 

Association president 

addressed the attendees. 

Magistrate Judge Cynthia 

Imbrogno administered 

the citizenship oath and 

Pledge of Allegiance to new 

citizens, and U.S. Attorney 

Michael C. Ormsby gave a 

Law Day address. 

• A High School Teachers’ 

Judicial Academy held in 

June and an iCivics Middle 

and Junior High School 

Teachers’ Institute held in 

July, both at the federal 

courthouse in Seattle. 

Some 60 teachers from the 

western half of the state 

participated in the programs. 

The judicial academy helped 

teachers to better understand 

the U.S. Constitution, federal 

and state judiciaries, and 

federal issues including 

immigration, criminal law 

and civil rights. The middle 

and junior high school 

teachers’ program focused 

on how to make use of 

retired Justice Sandra Day 

O’Connor’s iCivics program 

available online at www.

iCivics.org.

• The Court Connection 

teacher institute held in 

September in the Southern 

District of California. More 

than 20 San Diego area 

educators were invited to 

Magistrate Judge Cynthia Imbrogno presents certificate to a new 

citizen during a naturalization ceremony held at the U.S. district 

court in Spokane, Washington.
44

the Edward J. Schwartz 

Federal Building and U.S. 

Courthouse for a day-long 

workshop focusing on 

understanding the judicial 

branch and the work of the 

courts. The visiting teachers 

observed actual sentencing 

hearings and participated in 

a mock trial.

• A Law Day event held in April 

at the U.S. District Court 

for the Central District of 

California. Local high school 

students throughout Los 

Angeles County participated 

in the 3-day event. The 

program included mock trials 

and presentations by judges, 

court staff, attorneys, pretrial 

services officers, probation 

officers, and the U.S. 

Marshals Service. Volunteers 

from Justice Corps and 

Trinity Law School worked 

with court staff to ensure the 

success of the program. 

• The 11th annual Teachers’ 

Institute held in October 

at the U.S. District Court 

in Los Angeles. The event 

included participation in a 

video conference hosted by 

the U.S. District Court for the 

District of Columbia. The 

bicoastal event involved 

30 teachers at the Spring 

Street courthouse in L.A., 

and 20 teachers at the 

federal courthouse in 

Washington, D.C. District 

Judge Richard J. Leon of 

the D.C. District provided 

an overview of the judiciary 

and fielded questions from 

the teachers. Constitutional 

scholar Robert S. Peck of the 

Center for the Constitution 

at James Madison’s 

Montpelier demonstrated 

use of the Socratic method 

to teach Supreme Court 

precedents and apply them 

to contemporary issues.

• A Federal Court Power 

Lunch held in October at 

the U.S. Bankruptcy Court 

for the Central District of 

California. Several Los 

Angeles Police cadets 

learned about judges and 

attorneys, trials, the Bill 

of Rights and the three 

branches of the U.S. 

government. The cadets 

also participated in a 

Jeopardy-style game at the 

end of the presentations. 

Speakers included judges, 

attorneys, court staff, and a 

deputy U.S. marshal.

• A November visit by high 

school students to the 

Richard H. Chambers U.S. 

Courthouse in Pasadena. 

Some 40 La Canada High 

School students observed 

proceedings before the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals. 

Students watched oral 

arguments in an Arizona 

death penalty case, which 

they had discussed a week 

earlier with Deputy Federal 

Public Defender Guy Iversen 

of the Office of the Federal 

Public Defender in Los 

Angeles. Following the 

proceeding, the group met 

with the judges who had 

heard the appeal. 

Bankruptcy Judge Sandra R. 

Klein, above, served as emcee 

during “Power Lunch” held at 

the U.S. bankruptcy court in 

Los Angeles. Students, below, 

participate in mock trials during 

Law Day event held at the U.S. 

district court in Los Angeles.
45

• The eighth annual 

CourtWorks program 

sponsored by the U.S. District 

Court for the District of 

Arizona and ASU College 

of Law. Some 250 eightgraders from Phoenix 

participated in mock trials 

held in October at the 

Sandra Day O’Connor U.S. 

Courthouse. Representatives 

from the offices of the federal 

public defender and U.S. 

attorney, along with pretrial 

and probation officers and 

deputy U.S. marshals made 

presentations. 

• A Constitution Day 

celebration in September 

by the U.S. District Court 

for the District of Guam. 

The observance included a 

naturalization ceremony in 

which Chief District Judge 

Frances Marie TydingcoGatewood administered the 

citizenship oath to more than 

50 new citizens. Alicia A.G. 

Limtiaco, the U.S. attorney 

for the districts of Guam and 

the Northern Mariana Islands 

led the Pledge of Allegiance. 

Since being established in 2001 

by the Judicial Council of the 

Ninth Circuit, the committee 

has conducted periodic surveys 

to determine what kinds of 

community outreach are 

occurring. The results were 

shared with interested judges 

and court staff, often leading to 

new outreach efforts, which the 

committee sought to promote 

and assist. On the media side, 

the committee sponsored or 

helped organize more than a 

dozen well-received programs to 

educate journalists about legal 

processes and court operations.

The committee is considering 

greater use of the Internet to 

conduct educational outreach 

and will encourage broader 

collaboration among all of the 

courts in the circuit in undertaking 

community outreach.

Teachers participate, top, in Court Connection program held at the 

U.S. district court in San Diego. Circuit Judge Mary H. Murguia 

pictured above with students who participated in the eighth annual 

CourtWorks program at the U.S. district court in Phoenix, Arizona.
46

The United States Court of 

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 

welcomed some 150 law clerks 

for an orientation program 

held September 19-20, 2012, 

at the James R. Browning U.S. 

Courthouse in San Francisco. 

Ninth Circuit Chief Judge 

Alex Kozinski welcomed the 

law clerks. Several circuit, 

district and magistrate judges 

participated in the training 

session. Also participating 

were Circuit and Court of 

Appeals Executive Cathy A. 

Catterson, Clerk of Court 

Molly C. Dwyer, Chief Circuit 

Mediator Claudia L. Bernard, 

Circuit Librarian Eric D. Wade, 

Information Technology 

Director Ryan L. Means, and 

other court staff. 

Court of Appeals Welcomes New Law Clerks
47

Administrative Changes Around the Circuit

William Bezzant is the acting 

clerk of court of the United States 

District Court for the District of 

Northern Mariana Islands. He 

was appointed in November 

2012 to serve until recruitment of 

clerk of court/part-time magistrate 

judge for the court is completed. 

Mr. Bezzant has served 20 years as the court’s 

systems manager then as chief deputy clerk. He 

earned his B.A. degrees in accounting and 

economics from California State University, Hayward. 

Mr. Bezzant worked as an auditor in San Francisco 

before venturing to Micronesia 32 years ago.

Chad Boardman is the chief 

probation officer for the District 

of Nevada. He was appointed 

on March 20, 2012. Mr. 

Boardman began his career as 

a deputy probation officer in 

Mono County, California, in 

1995. In 1997, he moved to 

Las Vegas to accept a position as a U.S. pretrial 

services officer for the District of Nevada. Mr. 

Boardman became a U.S. probation officer for the 

District of Nevada in 2000 and served as a 

supervisor, assistant deputy chief, and deputy chief 

before his appointment as chief.

Gina L. Faubion was 

appointed the chief pretrial 

services officer for the Eastern 

District of California on January 

3, 2012. Ms. Faubion had 

served previously as a supervisory 

pretrial services officer in the 

district’s Sacramento division 

since 2008. She began working as a pretrial services 

officer in the district in 2003. Prior to her federal 

experience, Ms. Faubion was an adult probation 

officer in San Antonio, Texas, from 1995 to 2003. 

She received her bachelor’s degree in criminal justice 

from the University of Texas, San Antonio. 

Andrea George is the 

executive director of the Federal 

Defenders of the Eastern District 

of Washington and Idaho. From 

1989 to 2011, she served as an 

assistant federal defender for the

District of Minnesota and held the 

position of senior litigator from 

2005 to 2011. Ms. George received her B.A. from 

the University of Wisconsin, Madison, in 1984 and 

her J.D. in 1989 from Hamline University School of 

Law in St. Paul, Minnesota. She serves on the faculty 

of the National Criminal Defense College in Macon, 

Georgia; the Wisconsin Trial Academy; and the Trial 

Academy sponsored by the Office of the Alternate 

Defense Counsel in Denver, Colorado. 

Tyler P. Gilman was appointed 

the clerk of court of the U.S. 

District Court for the District of 

Montana on October 9, 2012. 

Prior to his appointment, Mr. 

Gilman had served as a law 

clerk to District Judges Donald 

W. Molloy, Charles C. Lovell, 

and Dana L. Christensen in the District of Montana 

since 2003. He earned a bachelor’s degree in 

political science from the University of Montana, 

Missoula, in 2000 and a JD from the University of 

Texas, School of Law, in 2003. 

Steven G. Kalar was 

appointed the federal public 

defender for the Northern District 

of California on October 9, 

2012. Mr. Kalar has worked in 

the Office of the Federal Public 

Defender for the Northern 

District of California since 1998 

and was promoted to senior litigator in 2003. Prior 

to that, he worked briefly as an associate in the San 

Francisco law firm of Morrison & Foerster, LLP. Mr. 

Kalar received his A.B. in 1988 from Harvard 

University, where he graduated cum laude, and his 
48

J.D. in 1996 from the University of California, 

Hastings College of the Law, where he served as a 

board member and associate notes editor of the 

Hastings International and Comparative Law 

Review. Following law school, he clerked for 

Judge Harry Pregerson of the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Brian D. Karth was appointed 

as the district court executive and 

clerk of court of the U.S. District 

Court for the District of Arizona 

in January 2012. Mr. Karth 

previously served as the 

bankruptcy court clerk for the 

District of Arizona for nearly four 

years. He graduated from the University of 

Southern California and Arizona State University. 

He held various management positions in Arizona 

(Maricopa County) Superior Court, City of Phoenix 

Municipal Court, and the U.S. Department of 

Justice, Executive Office for Immigration Review. 

Mr. Karth has taught and served in the field of 

judicial administration at the federal, state and local 

levels for over 26 years. 

Sean McAvoy was appointed 

the district court clerk of the U.S. 

District Court for the Eastern 

District of Washington on 

December 17, 2012. Prior to 

his appointment, Mr. McAvoy 

had served as the bankruptcy 

court clerk for the Northern 

District of Iowa since 2000. In his time as 

bankruptcy court clerk, Mr. McAvoy excelled in local 

court governance, administration and stewardship, 

and has been active in numerous national 

initiatives. He also received the Director’s Award for 

Outstanding Leadership in 2008. Before joining the 

federal judiciary, Mr. McAvoy spent six years working 

within the Arizona State Court System in positions 

ranging from child support case administrator to the 

director of Arizona’s third largest superior court. 

Prior to his career in court administration, he was a 

decorated Russian linguist in the U.S. Army. Mr. 

McAvoy received a B.A. from the University of 

Arizona and a master’s degree from the University 

of Phoenix. He is a fellow of the Institute for 

Court Management’s Court Executive 

Development Program.

George Prentice was 

appointed as the clerk of the 

U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the 

District of Arizona in January 

2012. Prior to that, he served as 

clerk of the U.S. Bankruptcy 

Court for the Western District of 

Texas, clerk of the U.S. Bankruptcy 

Court for the Northern District of Iowa, and as trial 

court administrator for the 20th Judicial District of 

Nashville, Tennessee, and management analyst with 

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

Mr. Prentice has a master’s of justice degree from 

The American University in Washington, D.C., and a 

bachelor’s degree, cum laude, in political science 

from the University of New Orleans. He is a fellow 

of the Institute for Court Management’s Court 

Executive Development Program.
49

Space & Security
50

Long Wait for More Space Ends in San Diego

The United States District Court for 

the Southern District of California is 

one of the nation’s busiest federal trial 

courts. Headquartered in San Diego, 

the court has the third heaviest criminal 

caseload in the country generated by 

illegal immigration and drug smuggling 

along the California portion of the 

U.S.-Mexico border. The workload, 

which has risen steadily over the years, 

is projected to further increase in the 

future, likely requiring additional judges 

and courtrooms.

While the district received five 

new judgeships in 2002, it took 

another 10 years to provide a 

partial answer to the court’s space 

needs. The new Courthouse Annex, 

which was completed in November 

2012, adjoins the Edward J. 

Schwartz Federal Building and U.S. 

Courthouse, which currently houses 

the court. The new structure provides 

an additional six courtrooms and 

12 judicial chambers with room for 

more in the future. It also will house 

the offices of the Clerk of Court and 

Pretrial Services. Additional tenants 

include the U.S. Marshals Service, 

the Internal Revenue Service and the 

General Services Administration.

The new annex was built on a 

2.5-acre site, formerly occupied by 

an historic but decaying hotel. It 

was designed by Richard Meier 

& Partners Architects LLP, an 

internationally renowned designer 

of public structures. Hensel Phelps 

Construction Co. carried out the 

construction, which began in 

December 2009. 
51

The new building features two spacious 

jury assembly rooms, above. A hedgelined maze, below, is one of two art 

installations by artist Robert Irwin. The 

other installation is a 32-foot-tall acrylic 

prism in the building’s rotunda (see 

photo, inside front cover).

The shining white Courthouse Annex rises 16 stories and boasts 

467,000 square feet of space, about a third of which will be used 

by the court. Extensive use of glass in the design provides natural 

lighting through much of the building during the daytime, and 

some floors make use of natural ventilation, taking advantage 

of San Diego's temperate climate. The building employs energy 

efficient technology throughout and has been proposed for LEED 

Gold Status by the U.S. Green Building Council.

New technology also is present in the courtrooms, which feature 

video monitors in the jury boxes and a white-noise generator to 

ensure that sidebar discussions between judge and attorneys 
52

cannot be heard. The building 

provides two jury assembly rooms 

and a staff training center.

Visitors enter the Courthouse 

Annex through a circular glassclad rotunda. The rotunda 

features a 32-foot tall acrylic 

prism, one of two installations 

by San Diego-based artist 

Robert Irwin. The other 

installation is a zigzag ramp 

bordered by rows of hedges 

alongside the new building.

The General Services 

Administration oversaw the 

$380-million project with 

extensive input from the court 

through the combined oversight 

of three chief district judges. 

Current Chief Judge Barry Ted 

Moskowitz will preside at a 

ribbon-cutting ceremony when 

the building is dedicated in April 

2013. His predecessor as chief, 

Senior District Judge Irma E. 

Gonzalez, was present at the 

groundbreaking, while District 

Judge Marilyn L. Huff was chief 

during the initial project scoping 

and lobbying efforts. Clerk of 

Court W. Samuel Hamrick, Jr., 

has led the staff support effort 

throughout the process.

“The court wanted a design that 

would be inviting and convey the 

concept of transparency in the 

judicial process. It has turned out 

well, we think,” Hamrick said.

Clerk of Court W. Samuel Hamrick, Jr., speaking with staff in newly 

constructed office space. Pictured below is the west-facing exterior of 

the courthouse.
53

Judges and staff of the United States 

Bankruptcy Court for the Southern 

District of California are preparing 

to mark the centennial of the Jacob 

Weinberger U.S. Courthouse, the 

first permanent federal facility to be 

built in San Diego.

Opened in 1913, the U.S. Post 

Office and Customs House also 

served as a federal courthouse 

and provided space for several 

agencies. It served as a face of 

the federal government during the 

Panama-California Exposition held 

in San Diego in 1915.

The building housed the busy U.S. 

District Court for the Southern 

District of California for more than 

half a century. A growing docket 

led to construction of additional 

courtrooms in the 1950s and 

60s. The court soon outgrew the 

building and, in 1976, moved into 

a new federal office complex built 

on an adjacent site.

Empty for several years, the 

building was being readied for 

Immigration and Naturalizaton 

Service use when two federal 

judges intervened in 1985. The 

late Chief Judge Emeritus Richard 

H. Chambers of the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and 

the late U.S. District Judge John S. 

Rhoades proposed restoring and 

modernizing the courthouse for 

use by the bankruptcy court.

The two judges successfully rallied 

political and community support 

for the project. In 1988, Congress 

allocated funds for the restoration 

and also authorized designating the 

building as the Jacob Weinberger 

U.S. Courthouse in honor of the first 

federal judge to sit in courthouse. 

Work commenced in 1990 and 

was completed four years later 

at a cost of $12.9 million. 

The courthouse was officially 

rededicated on April 22, 1994. 

The three-story structure makes use 

of two architectural styles, Classical 

Revival and Spanish Colonial 

Revival. The striking combination 

includes a 70-foot-long colonnade, 

a two-story portico supported by 

10 massive concrete columns, and 

five-story, Mission-style towers at 

each end of the structure.

 

The first-floor lobby features tall,

arched windows lining the front

façade, mahogany entry doors, 

double-globe sconces, a terrazzo 

floor and vaulted ceilings. A 

modernized open-cage elevator 

carries visitors to the courtrooms 

on the second floor. The original 

courtroom used by Judge 

Weinberger, boasts a 20-foot 

coffered ceiling. Artwork in the 

courthouse includes paintings 

created in the 1930s by Work 

Projects Administration artists.

The Jacob Weinberger U.S. 

Courthouse is currently used by 

four bankruptcy judges and Clerk 

of Court staff.

Stately Weinberger Courthouse Nears a Milestone
54

Judges, court staff and special 

guests gathered June 21, 2012, 

for a centennial celebration of 

the William O. Douglas United 

States Courthouse and Federal 

Building in Yakima, Washington.

The program was hosted by 

the U.S. District Court for the 

Eastern District of Washington. 

Speakers included Chief 

District Judge Rosanna Malouf 

Peterson, District Judge Lonny 

R. Suko, Senior District Judge 

Justin L. Quackenbush, and 

representatives of U.S. Senators 

Maria Cantwell and Patty 

Murray of Washington, and U.S. 

Rep. Doc Hastings.

Also making remarks was 

Cathleen Douglas Stone, widow 

of the late U.S. Supreme Court 

Justice William O. Douglas, for 

whom the courthouse is named. 

Justice Douglas served from 1939 

to 1975, the longest tenure of any 

associate justice in history.

The program conclued with 

a lecture entitled “Near 

Wilderness: Yakima and William 

O. Douglas,” given by historian 

Michael Sullivan, who was 

introduced by John Baule, 

director of the Yakima Valley 

Museum. 

Yakima Courthouse Centennial

Eastern District of Washington judges participating in the Yakima 

Courthouse Centennial included, from left: Magistrate Judge James P. 

Hutton, Senior District Judge Justin L. Quackenbush, Judge Lonny R. 

Suko, and Chief District Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson.
55

The James R. Browning 

United States Courthouse in 

San Francisco and the Spring 

Street U.S. Courthouse in 

Los Angeles were designated 

national landmarks by the U.S. 

Department of the Interior on 

October 17, 2012.

The Browning courthouse, 

which opened in 1905 as both 

a courthouse and post office, 

now serves as the administrative 

headquarters for the U.S. Court 

of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 

Designed by James Knox Taylor, 

the supervising architect of the 

U.S. Treasury, the courthouse is 

considered one of the nation's 

most beautiful public buildings. 

It was added to the National 

Register of Historic Places in 

1971. In 2004, Congress 

authorized the naming of the 

building for the Ninth Circuit's 

late chief judge emeritus, the 

Honorable James R. Browning.

A San Francisco landmark, the 

Browning courthouse sustained 

fire damage in the 1906 

earthquake but was closed by the 

1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, 

which caused extensive structural 

damage. Judges of the court and 

elected leaders rallied support for 

its repair and restoration, resulting 

in a $91 million project that 

included seismic improvements to 

protect against future earthquakes. 

The building reopened in 1996, 

seven years to the day after the 

Loma Prieta earthquake.

Over its 107-year history, the 

Browning courthouse has been 

the venue for many important 

legal rulings, including most 

recently a decision striking 

down a California constitutional 

amendment prohibiting same-sex 

marriage.

The Spring Street courthouse 

is the downtown division of 

the U.S. District Court for the 

Central District of California. 

Built between 1937 and 1940, 

it was the third federal building 

to be constructed in Los Angeles 

and also once housed a post 

office. It was added to the 

National Register of Historical 

Places in 2006.

The Spring Street courthouse 

also has a colorful history. It 

was the venue for the first ruling 

that public school segregation 

was unconstitutional, the 1946 

Mendez v. Westminster School 

District lawsuit, and the 1973 

federal government case against 

Daniel Ellsberg for leaking the 

"Pentagon Papers," according 

to the U.S. General Services 

Administration. 

Federal Courthouses in San Francisco,

Los Angeles Designated National Landmarks

Above: James R. Browning United 

States Courthouse in San Francisco. 

Left: United States Courthouse 

located on Spring Street in 

downtown Los Angeles.
56

Billings Courthouse

Dedicated

Federal judges gathered 

September 18, 2012, for the 

dedication of a new federal 

courthouse in Billings, Montana. 

The ceremony concluded the 

27-month construction project, 

which was completed four 

months ahead of schedule. 

Speakers included Ninth Circuit 

Judge Sidney R. Thomas, who is 

a native of Bozeman, Montana, 

and has his chambers in Billings. 

In his remarks, Judge Thomas 

remembered the late chief judges 

of the U.S. District Court for 

Montana, the Honorable James 

F. Battin and the Honorable 

New Bakersfield

Courthouse Opens

A new federal courthouse opened 

for business July 16, 2012, in 

Bakersfield, California. The stateof-the-art courthouse provides 

a courtroom, judicial chambers 

and office space for related court 

units. The building features high 

ceilings and tall windows, which 

provide for natural lighting much 

of the day. The project was 

made possible through a $28.5 

million funding from the American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act. 

The new courthouse houses a 

magistrate judge, the clerk’s 

office, U.S. Probation and Pretrial 

Services offices, and the U.S. 

Marshals Service. An official 

building dedication was held 

September 28, 2012.

William J. Jameson, and the 

former chief judge of the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals, the 

Honorable James R. Browning, 

who was born and raised in 

Belt, Montana. The courthouse, 

Judge Thomas said, “will be 

imbued with their spirit of justice, 

public service, and extraordinary 

judicial administration.”

Congress authorized designating 

the building the James F. Battin 

United States Courthouse on 

December 19, 2012.
57

Courthouses Under Construction

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

entry lobby 

pavilion 

Prince Jonah Kuhio Kalaniana’ole Federal Building 

and U.S. Courthouse, Honolulu, Hawaii

John M. Roll U.S. Courthouse, Yuma, Arizona

Gross Square Footage: 56,791

Design/Build Team: Sundt Construction & Ehrlich Architects

Occupancy Date: June 2013

Gross Square Footage: 862,269

Architects: Gensler and Associates

General Contractor: Swinerton

Completion Date: Courthouse (Phase I) 2014, 

Federal Building (Phase II) 2017
58

Courthouses In Design Phase

U.S. District Courthouse

Los Angeles

Gross Square Footage: 550,000

Design/Build Team: 

Clark Construction & SOM

Occupancy Date: March 2016

Gross Square Footage: 

23,000

Owner/Developer:

Eureka Skyline 26 Partners

Occupancy Date:

January 2015

U.S. District Courthouse

Eureka, California
59

The Work of the Courts
60

The United States Court of 

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 

saw a moderate increase in new 

filings and a slight dip in case 

terminations but ended fiscal year 

2012 with its pending caseload 

virtually unchanged.

New appeals filed with the Ninth 

Circuit numbered 12,684 in FY 

2012, up 4.5 percent from the 

prior year. The Ninth Circuit 

remained the nation’s busiest 

appellate court with 22.1 percent 

of all new appeals nationally. 

Appellate filings nationwide 

numbered 57,501, up 4.3 percent 

overall and by as much as 12.3 

percent among the individual 

circuits. Only the Second, Seventh 

and Tenth circuits reported fewer 

filings from the prior year.

The Ninth Circuit disposed 

of 12,735 cases in FY 2012, 

down 2.2 percent from the prior 

year, and ended the year with 

a pending caseload of 14,132 

cases, down 0.4 percent. 

Immigration matters and 

appeals brought by inmates in 

state or federal prisons within 

the circuit constituted two-thirds 

of the new filings, while more 

than half of all appeals were 

brought by litigants who were 

not represented by a lawyer.

Breakdown of New Appeals

District courts, which serve as 

trial courts in the federal judicial 

system, generated 8,092 appeals, 

or 63.8 percent of the court’s new 

filings in FY 2012. As expected, 

larger district courts produced 

greater numbers of appeals. The 

Central District of California, 

the busiest court in the circuit, 

generated 2,329 appeals, up 

4 percent from prior year. The 

Eastern District of California had 

the next largest number of new 

appeals with 1,104, down 12 

percent. New appeals from the 

Western District of Washington 

and the Southern District of 

California rose by 16 percent and 

15.3 percent, respectively.

Of the appeals of district 

court decisions, 6,419 were 

civil appeals and 1,673 were 

criminal appeals. On the civil 

side, the U.S. government was a 

plaintiff or defendant in 1,104 

cases, or 17.2 percent of the 

total. Prisoner petitions involving 

habeas corpus, capital habeas 

corpus, civil rights, prison 

conditions and other matters 

numbered 2,777. On the 

criminal side, 490 appeals were 

for drug offenses, 439 for illegal 

immigration, 237 for property 

offenses, 150 for offenses 

involving firearms and explosives, 

111 for sex offenses and 103 for 

violent offenses.

Appeals of agency decisions 

numbered 3,675, up 17.4 

percent from the prior year. 

Within this category are appeals 

of decisions by the Board of 

Immigration Appeals. BIA 

appeals numbered 3,501, up 

18.2 percent, and accounted for 

27.6 percent of all new filings. 

The Ninth Circuit had 49.8 

percent of the total BIA appeals 

filed nationally in FY 2012, more 

than any other circuit.

Original proceedings commenced 

in FY 2012 numbered 721with 

the bulk involving second or 

successive habeas corpus 

petitions and mandamus appeals.

Terminations and Pending Cases

The court terminated 12,735 in 

FY 2012, down 2.2 percent from 

the prior year. Of the total, 8,372 

cases were terminated on the 

merits, 1,562 after oral argument 

and 6,376 after submission on 

the briefs. Merit terminations 

included 1,347 criminal cases 

and 1,440 administrative agency 

appeals. Another 4,363 cases 

were terminated on procedural 

grounds by judges and court staff. 

Judicial panels produced 605 

published and 7,333 unpublished 

opinions in merits terminations.

Caseload Measure 2011 2012 Change 2011-12

Filings 12,141 12,684 4.5%

Terminations 13,025 12,735 -2.2%

1Pending Cases 14,183 14,132 -0.4%

Appellate Caseload Profile, 2011-2012 1

1

2011 pending cases revised

Court of Appeals Caseload Holds Steady 
61

Type of Appeal

2011

Filings

2012

Filings

Change

2011-12

% of Circuit

Total

2011

Terminations

2012

Terminations

Change

2011-12

2011

Pending

2012

Pending

Change

2011-12

Civil

U.S. Prisoner Petitions 492 513 4.3% 4.0% 503 628 24.9% 479 375 -21.7%

Private Prisoner Petitions 3,108 2,777 -10.6% 21.9% 3,202 3,601 12.5% 3,316 2,521 -24.0%

Other U.S. Civil 632 591 -6.5% 4.7% 608 649 6.7% 720 657 -8.8%

Other Private Civil 2,179 2,538 16.5% 20.0% 2,135 2,196 2.9% 2,272 2,624 15.5%

Criminal 1,624 1,673 3.0% 13.2% 1,598 1,705 6.7% 1,811 1,783 -1.5%

Other

Bankruptcy 179 196 9.5% 1.5% 149 164 10.1% 196 231 17.9%

Administrative Appeals 3,130 3,675 17.4% 29.0% 4,033 3,092 -23.3% 5,112 5,785 13.2%

Original Proceedings 797 721 -9.5% 5.7% 797 700 -12.2% 135 156 15.6%

Circuit Total 12,141 12,684 4.5% 13,025 12,735 -2.2% 14,041 14,132 0.6%

National Appellate Total 55,126 57,501 4.3% 57,357 57,570 0.4% 43,633 43,545 -0.2%

Ninth Circuit as % 

of National Total 22.0% 22.1% 0.0% 22.7% 22.1% 0.6% 32.2% 32.5% 0.3%

2 Filings, Terminations and Pending Cases by Appeal Type, 2011-2012

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

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

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

Median Time Intervals in Months for Merit Terminations

of Appeals, 2011-2012 3

Number of Months

By Stage of Appeal

Ninth Circuit National

2011 2012 2011 2012

1From Filing of Notice of Appeal or Docket Date to 

Filing of Appellee's Last Brief 8.7 7.8 6.2 6.0

From Filing of Appellee's Last Brief to Oral 

Argument or Submission on Brief 8.2 7.8 4.4 4.5

From Oral Argument to Last Opinion 

or Final Order 1.5 1.1 2.2 2.1

From Submission on Brief to Last Opinion 

or Final Order 0.3 0.2 0.6 0.4

1From Filing of Notice of Appeal or Docket Date to 

Last Opinion or Final Order 17.4 15.3 11.0 9.8

From Filing in Lower Court to Last Opinion 

or Final Order in Appeals Court 36.0 33.8 29.3 29.0

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

1

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

appeals from administrative agencies.

Among cases terminated on 

the merits, 4,649 were affirmed 

or enforced and 434 disposed 

of through consolidation. The 

remaining 3,289 cases were 

dismissed, reversed, remanded 

or disposed of by other means. 

The court’s overall reversal rate 

was 7.7 percent, compared 

to a national average of 6.8 

percent. By category, reversal 

rates ranged from 3.7 percent for 

prisoner appeals to 7.3 percent 

for administrative appeals to 15 

percent in civil matters involving 

the government.

The court’s pending caseload was 

reduced to 14,132 in FY 2012, 

down slightly from 14,183 the 

previous year. Among the pending 

cases, 35.5 percent had been 

pending less than 6 months, 24.4 

percent pending 6 to 12 months, 

and 40.2 percent for more than 

12 months.

Median Time Intervals

Median time intervals, which 

measure how long it takes for 

cases decided on the merits to 

proceed through the appellate 

process, was reduced in FY 

2012. The median time 

interval from filing of a notice 

of appeal to final disposition of 

a case was 15.3 months, down 

from 17.4 months the previous 

year. Briefing accounted for 

7.8 months, down from 8.7 

months. The median time 

interval from the filing of a 
62

case in a lower court to final 

appellate disposition was 33.8 

months down from 36 months 

the year before.

The national median time 

intervals in FY 2012 were 9.8 

months from notice of appeal to 

final disposition by a circuit court 

of appeals, and 29 months from 

the filing of a case in a lower 

court to final disposition by a 

circuit court.

Once an appeal was fully 

briefed, Ninth Circuit judges 

decided cases fairly quickly. 

In FY 2012, the median time 

interval was 1.1 months for a 

case in which oral arguments 

were heard, and .2 months for a 

case submitted on briefs. 

Pro Se Filings and Terminations

Pro se appeals involve at least one 

party who is not represented by 

counsel. In FY 2012, new appeals 

by pro se litigants numbered 

6,449, up 3.1 percent from 

the prior year. Pro se litigants 

accounted for 50.8 percent of all 

appeals opened during the year. 

Prisoner petitions, 2,898, and 

agency appeals, 1,487, made up 

68 percent of pro se appeals. The 

majority of pro se appeals, 4,227 

cases, involved decisions of the 

district courts of the circuit.

The court terminated 7,066 

pro se appeals in FY 2012, 

up 10.1 percent. Of that 

number, 2,498 were closed on 

procedural grounds, while 4,568 

were terminated on the merits 

either after oral argument or 

submission on the briefs.

5 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals En Banc Ballots, 2008-2012

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

2012 913 33 19 14

2011 826 1 28 13 14

2010 1,002 58 24 34

2009 1,014 36 14 22

2008 1,208 31 19 12

1

En banc call withdrawn in one case.

District Appeals % of Total

Alaska 101 0.8%

Arizona 831 6.6%

C. Calif. 2,329 18.4%

E. Calif. 1,104 8.7%

N. Calif. 902 7.1%

S. Calif. 609 4.8%

Guam 10 0.2%

Hawaii 156 1.2%

Idaho 121 1.0%

Montana 201 1.6%

Nevada 602 4.7%

Northern Mariana Islands 12 0.1%

Oregon 368 2.9%

E. Wash. 182 1.4%

W. Wash. 564 4.4%

Bankruptcy 196 1.5%

Administrative Agencies, Total 3,675 29.0%

 IRS 55 0.4%

 National Labor Relations Board 29 0.2%

 BIA 3,501 27.6%

 Other Administrative Agencies 90 0.7%

Original Proceedings 721 12.5%

Circuit Total 12,684

4 Source of Appeals and Original Proceedings Commenced, 2012

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

Administrative agency cases previously reported as immigration service (INS) are shown under 

Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and U.S. Tax Court is shown under IRS.
63

Judges of the United States Court

of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

1. Alex Kozinski Pasadena, CA

2. Alfred T. Goodwin Pasadena, CA

3. J. Clifford Wallace* San Diego, CA

4. Procter Hug, Jr.* Reno, NV

5. Mary M. Schroeder Phoenix, AZ

6. Jerome Farris* Seattle, WA

7. Harry Pregerson Woodland Hills, CA

8. Arthur L. Alarcón* Los Angeles, CA

9. Dorothy W. Nelson Pasadena, CA

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

11. Stephen Reinhardt* Los Angeles, CA

12. John T. Noonan* San Francisco, CA

13. Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain Portland, OR

14. Edward Leavy* Portland, OR

15. Stephen S. Trott* Boise, ID

16. Ferdinand F. Fernandez* Pasadena, CA

17. Andrew J. Kleinfeld* Fairbanks, AK

18. Michael Daly Hawkins Phoenix, AZ

19. A. Wallace Tashima* Pasadena, CA

20. Sidney R. Thomas Billings, MT

21. Barry G. Silverman Phoenix, AZ

22. Susan P. Graber Portland, OR

23. M. Margaret McKeown San Diego, CA

24. Kim McLane Wardlaw* Pasadena, CA

25. William A. Fletcher San Francisco, CA

26. Raymond C. Fisher Pasadena, CA

27. Ronald M. Gould* Seattle, WA

28. Richard A. Paez Pasadena, CA

29. Marsha S. Berzon San Francisco, CA

30. Richard C. Tallman Seattle, WA

31. Johnnie B. Rawlinson Las Vegas, NV

32. Richard R. Clifton Honolulu, HI

33. Jay S. Bybee Las Vegas, NV

34. Consuelo M. Callahan Sacramento, CA

35. Carlos T. Bea San Francisco, CA

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

37. Sandra S. Ikuta* Pasadena, CA

38. N. Randy Smith Pocatello, ID

39. Mary H. Murguia Phoenix, AZ

40. Morgan Christen Anchorage, AK

41. Jacqueline H. Nguyen Pasadena, CA

42. Paul J. Watford Pasadena, CA

43. Andrew D. Hurwitz Phoenix, AZ

*Not Pictured

Judges in Order of Seniority

18 7 2 1 5 9 13

20

22 21 23

25

26

28

29 30

31

32 33

34

35 36

38

40 41 39

42

43
64

En Banc Cases

En banc courts, which consist 

of 11 judges rather than three, 

are used to resolve intra-circuit 

conflicts or other legal questions 

of exceptional importance. 

In FY 2012, en banc courts 

were convened quarterly and 

considered 14 cases. For the 

year, the court received 913 

petitions seeking en banc review 

of which 19 were granted. En 

banc decisions reached by the 

court in FY 2012 numbered 22, 

21 after oral argument and one 

after submission on the briefs.

Death Penalty Cases

The court ended the fiscal year 

with 105 pending death penalty 

cases from six states. Arizona 

and California had 53 and 32 

pending cases, respectively. 

There were 11 pending cases in 

Nevada, four each in Idaho and 

Washington and one in Oregon. 

Within the circuit, another 720 

death penalty cases are pending 

before state supreme courts and 

federal trial courts of the circuit. 

Since 1976, there have been 

71 executions by states within 

the circuit.

Contributions by Active, Senior and 

Visiting Judges

The court ended FY 2012 with 

28 active circuit judges and 15 

senior circuit judges. During 

the year, active circuit judges 

participated in 65 percent of 

all cases terminated on the 

merits, up slightly from prior 

year. Senior judges of the circuit 

were involved in 24.9 percent of 

the cases, while visiting judges 

helped decide 4.1 percent. 

Over the course of the year, 44 

circuit and district judges from 

other circuits and districts, both 

active and senior, sat with the 

court of appeals.

In addition to sitting on panels, 

senior circuit judges served on 

screening and motions panels 

and various administrative 

court committees.
65

United States district courts serve 

as trial courts in the federal judicial 

system. The 15 district courts in 

the Ninth Circuit received 66,217 

criminal and civil filings or 18.9 

percent of the 349,745 district 

court filings nationally in fiscal year 

2012. Total filings in the circuit 

decreased by 2.8 percent from 

FY 2011. 

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.

In FY 2012, district courts in the 

Ninth Circuit had the highest 

criminal caseload in the nation. 

Criminal cases numbered 18,094, 

or 25.4 percent of the national 

total, while criminal defendants 

numbered 22,762, which was 

24.3 percent of the national total.

Criminal defendants charged 

with immigration offenses 

accounted for 37.3 percent of all 

criminal defendants in the circuit. 

Immigration offenders included 

those who entered or attempted 

to enter the United States illegally 

and those found to be in the U.S. 

illegally under 8 USC § 1326.

The Ninth Circuit had the highest 

number of criminal defendants 

charged with drug offenses in the 

U.S. in FY 2012. District courts 

in the circuit reported 7,730 drug 

defendants, which constituted 

33.9 percent of all criminal 

defendants in the circuit. Among 

drug offenses, 3,395 defendants 

faced marijuana-related charges, 

which constituted 43.9 percent of 

all drug defendants in the circuit. 

Criminal defendants charged 

with all other drug offenses 

numbered 4,335.

The Ninth Circuit had the 

most defendants charged with 

Caseload Measure 2011 2012

1Change

2011-2012

Civil Filings 46,373 48,123 3.8%

Criminal Filings 21,740 18,094 -16.8%

Total Filings 68,113 66,217 -2.8%

Civil Terminations 46,968 47,455 1.0%

Criminal Terminations 21,936 20,277 -7.6%

Total Terminations 68,904 67,732 -1.7%

2Pending Civil Cases 39,748 40,416 1.7%

Pending Criminal Cases 16,023 14,179 -11.5%

2Total Pending Cases 55,771 54,595 -2.1%

Civil Case Termination

Index (in months) 10.15 10.21 0.6%

Criminal Case Termination

Index (in months) 8.76 8.38 -4.3%

2Overall Case Termination

Index 9.71 9.67 -0.4%

Median Months (from filing

to disposition) Civil Cases 7.10 6.70 -5.6%

Median Months (from filing to

disposition) Criminal Defendants 5.10 5.70 11.8%

Median Months National Total

from filing to disposition) Civil Cases 7.30 7.80 6.8%

Median Months National Total

from filing to disposition) Criminal 

Defendants 6.40 7.20 12.5%

U.S. District Courts - Total Criminal and Civil Cases Filed, 6 Terminated and Pending, 2011-2012

Note: Pending totals for criminal cases exclude cases in which the only defendants pending in 

such cases had been fugitives more than 12 months before the end of the period indicated. 

Criminal cases commenced includes all cases filed as felonies or Class A misdemeanors but 

includes only those cases filed as petty offenses that were assigned to district judges rather than 

magistrate judges. Median computed only for 10 or more defendants. Beginning in March 

2012, the median time interval is computed from the proceeding date for a defendant (e.g., the 

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

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

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

data for previous periods.

1

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

2

2011 total pending civil cases and total pending cases revised.

District Courts Report Nation’s Highest Criminal Caseload
66

AK AZ

C. 

Calif.

E. 

Calif.

N. 

Calif.

S. 

Calif. GU HI ID MT NMI NV OR

E. 

Wash.

W. 

Wash.

2011 

Total 

2012 

Total 

Change

2011-12

Violent Offenses

Homicide 0 32 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 8 0 5 1 2 6 51 59 15.7%

Robbery 1 12 13 5 16 19 0 4 1 1 0 12 36 0 6 174 126 -27.6%

Assault 0 115 7 9 8 32 0 10 8 35 0 15 25 3 6 295 273 -7.5%

Other 1 30 5 2 21 1 0 3 2 11 0 15 5 8 3 132 107 -18.9%

Property Offenses

Burglary, 

Larceny 

& Theft 6 49 61 79 20 15 26 32 6 22 0 16 30 8 98 509 468 -8.1%

Embezzlement 2 12 6 6 6 9 1 3 7 6 0 10 4 1 7 88 80 -9.1%

Fraud 16 555 456 210 150 349 23 50 27 31 17 166 55 41 94 2,989 2,240 -25.1%

Forgery & 

Counterfeiting 1 20 39 15 14 3 1 11 1 4 3 2 19 3 4 130 140 7.7%

Other 2 4 1 1 7 3 0 0 2 1 0 2 2 2 9 63 36 -42.9%

Drug Offenses

Marijuana 6 2,377 126 131 26 553 1 16 8 36 0 10 15 29 61 3,777 3,395 -10.1%

All Other 

Drugs 98 502 497 282 253 1,660 29 99 118 108 8 132 170 101 278 4,084 4,335 6.1%

Firearms and 

Explosives 

Offenses 38 208 82 100 117 42 12 28 50 52 4 115 128 64 102 1,076 1,142 6.1%

Sex Offenses 15 85 56 66 31 78 5 8 23 50 5 56 42 20 35 621 575 -7.4%

Justice System 

Offenses 1 37 11 7 22 35 0 2 2 8 1 6 11 12 11 171 166 -2.9%

Immigration 

Offenses

Improper 

Reentry 

by Alien 1 3,145 484 239 166 2,324 0 7 89 5 0 90 183 82 75 8,571 6,890 -19.6%

Other 0 393 35 3 9 1,074 4 5 8 0 3 3 13 2 44 1,948 1,596 -18.1%

General Offenses 15 31 44 56 14 64 11 11 4 10 0 37 17 11 45 697 370 -46.9%

Regulatory 

Offenses 15 74 98 27 34 52 1 22 15 12 2 12 14 2 29 461 409 -11.3%

Traffic Offenses 2 3 1 14 27 0 13 43 0 0 0 0 1 0 251 620 355 -42.7%

All Offenses Total 220 7,684 2,023 1,253 941 6,314 127 356 371 400 43 704 771 391 1,164 26,457 22,762 -14.0%

7 U.S. District Courts - Criminal Defendants Commenced by Offense and District, 2011-2012

property offenses, 2,964, which 

include fraud, 2,240; burglary, 

larceny and theft, 468; forgery 

and counterfeiting, 140; 

embezzlement, 80; and other 

property offenses, 36. 

Defendants charged with firearms 

and explosive offenses numbered 

1,142, while violent offenses 

including homicide, robbery, and 

assault numbered 458. 

The border courts in the districts 

of Arizona and Southern 

California reported the highest 

number of criminal defendants 

with drug-related and immigration 

offenses in FY 2012. Defendants 

numbered 7,684 in the District 

of Arizona or 33.8 percent of 

all criminal defendants in the 

circuit. The Arizona court had 

2,879 defendants charged with 

drug offenses or 37.2 percent of 

all criminal defendants charged 

with drug offenses in the circuit. 

Defendants charged with 

immigration offenses numbered 

3,538 or 41.7 percent of all 

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

that were assigned to district judges rather than magistrate judges.
67

8 U.S. District Courts: Weighted and Unweighted Filings Per Authorized Judgeship, 2011-2012 

 Weighted Filings Per Judgeship Unweighted Filings Per Judgeship

District

Authorized

 Judgeships Civil Criminal

Supervision

Hearings

2011

Total

2012

Total

Change

2011-2012 Civil Criminal

Supervision

Hearings

2012

Total

Alaska 3 122 74 0.29 194 196 1.0% 103 73 1.67 178

Arizona 13 302 390 19.53 815 712 -12.6% 303 590 139.31 1,032

C. Calif. 28 626 60 4.53 655 691 5.5% 540 72 31.96 644

E. Calif. 6 947 176 8.73 1,098 1,132 3.1% 873 208 62.00 1,143

N. Calif. 14 611 60 4.38 631 675 7.0% 488 68 28.93 585

S. Calif. 13 279 305 17.53 581 602 3.6% 239 486 124.85 850

Hawaii 4 229 69 5.61 362 304 -16.0% 184 89 38.50 312

Idaho 2 409 162 6.41 516 577 11.8% 349 186 45.50 581

Montana 3 231 139 9.61 362 380 5.0% 223 133 63.67 420

Nevada 7 442 100 5.19 575 547 -4.9% 400 101 34.43 535

Oregon 6 414 110 9.30 505 533 5.5% 379 129 65.83 574

E. Wash. 4 207 88 17.16 312 312 - 216 97 121.75 435

W. Wash. 7 535 118 6.50 643 330 -48.7% 479 167 44.14 690

Circuit Total 110 5,354 1,851 114.77 7,249 6,991 -3.6% 4,776 2,399 802.54 7,979

Circuit Mean *** 412 142 8.83 558 538 -3.6% 367 185 61.73 614

Circuit Median *** 409 110 6.50 575 547 -4.9% 349 129 45.5 581

National Mean *** 355 118 5.30 478 478 - 333 148 35.36 516

National Total 673 386 118 5.26 509 520 2.2% 354 152 35.51 545

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

criminal defendants charged with 

immigration offenses. 

The Southern District of 

California had 6,314 defendants 

or 27.7 percent of all criminal 

defendants in the circuit. The 

district had 2,213 defendants 

charged with drug offenses and 

3,398 defendants charged with 

immigration offenses.

Civil Caseload

New civil filings in the district 

courts of the circuit numbered 

48,123, up 3.8 percent from 

FY 2011. The circuit accounted 

for 17.3 percent of the 278,442 

civil filings in the district courts 

nationally. Civil filings decreased 

nationally by 3.7 percent over 

the prior fiscal year.

Private civil cases, which 

numbered 38,529, accounted 

for 80.1 percent of all civil filings 

in FY 2012. Prisoner petitions 

were most numerous, totaling 

9,200 or 23.9 percent of all 

new private civil cases. The 

U.S. government acted as a 

plaintiff in 2,228 cases and as 

a defendant in 7,366 cases, 

accounting for 15.3 percent of 

all new civil filings.

Other major categories of new 

private civil filings were civil 

rights, 5,863 cases or 15.2 

percent; contracts, 4,222 cases 

or 11 percent; real property 

suits, 3,821 cases or 10 

percent; intellectual property 

suits, 3,040 or 8 percent; 

labor suits, 2,806 cases or 7.3 

percent; and other personal 

injury, 2,379 or 6.2 percent.

U.S. civil cases or civil cases 

in which the government was 

a party numbered 9,594. 

Social security cases were most 

numerous, 3,579 cases or 37.3

percent of the total. Other 
68

major categories were prisoner 

petitions 1,998 cases or 20.8 

percent, and contracts, 1,214 

cases or 12.7 percent.

Eleven district courts reported 

increased civil filings in fiscal 

year 2012 including the Central 

District of California, which had 

the largest civil caseload in the 

circuit and second in the nation 

with 15,739 filings, up 3.2 

percent from FY 2011. Other 

districts with increased civil filings 

include the districts of Alaska, 

Arizona, Northern California, 

Southern California, Idaho, 

Montana, Northern Mariana 

Islands, Oregon, Eastern 

Washington, and Western 

Washington.

Civil filings declined in the 

districts of Eastern California, 

Guam, Hawaii and Nevada. 

Civil case terminations in 

the Ninth Circuit numbered 

47,455, slightly up 1 percent 

from 46,968 in FY 2011. 

Civil terminations nationwide 

decreased by 10.4 percent to 

271,572. Pending civil cases 

totaled 40,416, up 1.7 percent.

Case Processing Times 

Case processing times in the 

district courts of the Ninth Circuit 

remained constant in fiscal year 

2012. The Case Termination 

Index, which computes how 

long it would take to clear the 

pending caseload if the current 

termination rate remained 

constant, was 9.67 months 

compared to 9.71 months the 

prior fiscal year.

The median time from filing 

to disposition of civil cases in 

the Ninth Circuit was down to 

6.7 months from 7.1 months 

the prior fiscal year, while the 

national median increased from 

7.3 to 7.8 months in FY 2012.

For criminal defendants, the 

median time from filing to 

disposition in the Ninth Circuit 

was 5.7 months compared to 

5.1 months in FY 2011. The 

national median time was 7.2 

months, up from 6.4 months the 

prior fiscal year.
69

United States bankruptcy courts 

in the Ninth Circuit experienced 

another significant decline in 

new case filings during fiscal 

year 2012. It was the second 

consecutive year in which new 

filings dropped after four years 

of steady increases.

Bankruptcy courts in the Ninth 

Circuit reported 305,524 new 

cases, down 20.1 percent from 

the prior fiscal year. Thirteen 

out of 15 districts in the circuit 

experienced a downturn in 

bankruptcy filings including the 

nation’s busiest venue, the U.S. 

Bankruptcy Court for the Central 

District of California.

The Central District bankruptcy 

court, which takes in the Los 

Angeles metropolitan area, saw 

its new filings drop 20 percent, 

the first decline since 2007. The 

Central District remains the busiest 

bankruptcy court in the nation with 

111,909 total filings reported.

Other districts in the circuit with 

large numbers of bankruptcy 

filings also reported significant 

decreases. The Eastern District 

of California, which takes in 

Sacramento, Fresno and the 

Central Valley, had 39,481 

new cases, down 23.3 percent. 

The District of Arizona reported 

30,135 new cases, down 23 

percent. Filings were down by 

21.1 percent to 28,935 in the 

Northern District of California, 

which includes the San Francisco 

Bay Area; by 13 percent to 

22,955 in the Western District 

of Washington, which takes in 

Seattle and Tacoma; by 25.9 

percent to 19,434 cases in the 

District of Nevada; by 17.6 

percent to 18,359 cases in the 

Southern District of California, 

which takes in San Diego; and 

by 12.2 percent to 16,048 

cases in the District of Oregon.

Throughout the circuit, Chapter 

7 cases were most numerous, 

accounting for 77.1 percent of 

all new filings. Chapter 13 filings 

amounted to nearly 22 percent of 

the circuit total with Chapters 11 

and 12 making up the remainder. 

Nonbusiness filings involving 

individual debtors accounted for 

96.7 percent of all new cases. 

Pro Se Bankruptcy Filings

Bankruptcy courts continued 

to deal with large numbers of 

self-represented filers, who are 

unfamiliar with bankruptcy law 

and court procedures, therefore 

requiring more assistance from 

court staff. A number of courts 

have established self-help 

centers for pro se filers and have 

encouraged their local bar to 

provide pro bono representation 

for some cases.

Pro se filings in the Ninth Circuit 

totaled 58,372 or 51.9 percent 

of all pro se filings nationally 

in FY 2012, the most of any 

Bankruptcy Filings Continue Downward Trend

Caseload Measure 2011 2012

Change

2011-2012

Filings

 Business Chapter 7 9,275 7,394 -20.3%

 Business Chapter 11 2,415 1,912 -20.8%

 Business Chapter 12 129 108 -16.3%

 Business Chapter 13 887 792 -10.7%

 Nonbusiness Chapter 7 281,847 228,217 -19.0%

 Nonbusiness Chapter 11 1,007 836 -17.0%

 Nonbusiness Chapter 13 86,639 66,250 -23.5%

 Total 382,199 305,509 -20.1%

Terminations 379,722 329,107 -13.3%

1Pending Cases 304,337 280,744 -7.8%

Business and Nonbusiness Bankruptcy Cases Commenced, by 9 Chapter of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, 2011-2012

1

2011 pending cases revised

Note: (1) Section 101 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code defines consumer (nonbusiness) debt as that 

incurred by an individual primarily for a personal, family, or household purpose. If the debtor is a 

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

the debt is business.

These figures include the following cases not reflected elsewhere:

Fiscal Year 2011: Arizona (Chapter 15 =1); Central Calif. (Chapter 15 = 3); Northern Calif. 

(Chapter 15 = 5); Idaho (Chapter 9 = 1); Western Wash. (Chapter 15 = 1)

Fiscal Year 2012: Arizona (Chapter 15 = 3); Central Calif. (Chapter 9 = 1, Chapter 15 = 2); 

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

Nevada (Chapter 15 = 1)
70

circuit. The Central District alone 

reported 30,900 pro se filings, 

which is more than the combined 

total of pro se filings in the 11th, 

Seventh, and Fourth circuits. 

Also reporting large numbers of 

pro se bankruptcy filings were 

the Eastern District of California 

with 7,135 filings; the District 

of Arizona, 6,861; the Northern 

District of California, 5,083; the 

District of Nevada, 2,214; the 

Western District of Washington, 

2,065; the Southern District 

of California, 1,699; and the 

District of Oregon, 1,384.

Terminations and Pending Cases

Bankruptcy courts in the circuit 

terminated 329,107 cases. The 

Central District of California, which 

has 24 authorized bankruptcy 

judgeships, had the highest 

number of cases terminated 

in the circuit with 120,433 or 

5,018 terminations per judgeship 

unweighted. The Eastern District 

of California, seven judgeships, 

followed with 41,460 cases 

terminated; the District of Arizona, 

seven judgeships, 33,444 cases; 

the Northern District of California, 

nine judgeships, 28,985 cases; 

the Western District of Washington, 

five judgeships, 24,486 cases; 

the District of Nevada, four 

judgeships, 24,026 cases; and the 

Southern District of California, four 

judgeships, 19,239 cases.

Pending caseloads at the end 

of the fiscal year varied among 

bankruptcy courts in the Ninth 

Circuit. The Central District 

of California saw its pending 

caseload decrease by 11.1 

percent to 68,088 cases. The 

District of Arizona reported a 7.3 

percent decrease to 42,101. In 

the Ninth Circuit as a whole, the 

pending caseload declined by 7.8 

percent.

Appointments, Transitions

In 2012, the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 

appointed five new bankruptcy 

judges: Fredrick E. Clement, 

appointed to the Eastern District of 

California; M. Elaine Hammond, 

appointed to the Northern District 

of California; Mark D. Houle, 

appointed to the Central District of 

California; Christopher B. Latham, 

appointed to the Southern District 

of California; and Gary Allan 

Spraker, appointed to the District 

of Alaska.

Two bankruptcy courts saw a 

change of leadership in 2012. 

Elevated to chief bankruptcy 

judge were Gary Allan Spraker 

of Anchorage in the District of 

Alaska, and Laura S. Taylor of San 

Diego in the Southern 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. In 2012, 11 recalled 

bankruptcy judges served in nine 

districts.

In May 2012, President Barack 

H. Obama signed the Temporary 

Bankruptcy Judgeships Extension 

Act of 2012 which extended 29 

existing temporary judgeships for 

an additional five years. In the 

Ninth Circuit, the act extended 

a total of five existing temporary 

judgeships in the Eastern District 

of California, the Northern 

District of California, and the 

District of Nevada.

District

2011

 Total Filings

2012

Total Filings

1Change

2011-2012

Alaska 1,019 841 -17.5%

Arizona 39,148 30,135 -23.0%

C. Calif. 139,882 111,909 -20.0%

E. Calif. 51,481 39,481 -23.3%

N. Calif. 36,663 28,935 -21.1%

S. Calif. 22,285 18,359 -17.6%

Guam 146 153 4.8%

Hawaii 3,566 2,672 -25.1%

Idaho 7,912 6,690 -15.4%

Montana 2,705 2,175 -19.6%

Nevada 26,239 19,434 -25.9%

N. Mariana Is. 4 11 -

Oregon 18,281 16,048 -12.2%

E. Wash 6,490 5,726 -11.8%

W. Wash. 26,389 22,955 -13.0%

Circuit Total 382,210 305,524 -20.1%

Note: Due to differences 

among districts in reporting 

intra-district transfers, the total 

provided above for cases 

pending on September 30, 

2012, may not equal the 

number obtained by adding 

totals for cases pending at the 

end of the prior period plus 

cases filed during the current 

period, then subtracting cases 

terminated during the current 

period.

1

Percent change not 

computed when fewer than 

10 cases reported for the 

previous period.

Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Courts, 2011-2012 10
71

Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Sees Workload Level Off

The Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy 

Appellate Panel hears appeals 

of decisions made by 

bankruptcy judges. The BAP 

operates under the authority 

of the Judicial Council of the 

Ninth Circuit. BAP judges, 

who are appointed by the 

judicial council, serve 

seven-year terms and may be 

reappointed to an additional

three-year term. BAP judges 

are precluded from hearing 

appeals arising from their 

The BAP is authorized seven 

bankruptcy judges but has kept 

one seat vacant since 2003 to 

reduce costs. While new filings 

have increased substantially 

since then, the BAP continues to 

operate with six judges as a costsaving measure. 

All district courts within the 

Ninth Circuit have issued 

general orders providing 

for the automatic referral of 

bankruptcy appeals to the BAP 

for disposition. However, if 

any party files a timely election 

to have the appeal heard by 

a district court, the appeal is 

transferred according to the 

consent rule.

New Filings

After three years of doubledigit growth, total annual 

filings leveled off in fiscal year 

2012. For the year, 1,015 

new appeals were filed, a slight 

increase of .4 percent from 

FY 2011. The BAP handled 

58 percent of all bankruptcy 

appeals, and the district 

courts handled 42 percent. 

Historically, the percentage 

of appeals that the BAP has 

handled has ranged between 

49 percent and 60 percent. 

Dispositions

The BAP disposed of 724 

appeals in fiscal year 2012, 

up 28 percent the prior fiscal 

year. Of those, 185 appeals 

were merits terminations. Oral 

argument was held in 163 

appeals, and 22 appeals 

The Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy 

Appellate Panel consists of, seated 

from left, Bankruptcy Judges Randall 

L. Dunn of the District of Oregon, 

Jim D. Pappas of the District of Idaho 

(chair of the BAP), Meredith A. Jury 

of the Central District of California; 

and standing from left, Bankruptcy 

Judges Eileen W. Hollowell of the 

District of Arizona, Bruce A. Markell 

of the District of Nevada, and Chief 

Bankruptcy Judge Ralph B. Kirscher 

of the District of Montana. 

District

Bankruptcy 

Appellate

Panel

1District 

Court Total

Alaska 4 3 7

Arizona 63 53 116

C. Calif. 266 160 426

E. Calif. 89 33 122

N. Calif. 44 42 86

S. Calif. 21 18 39

Hawaii 10 5 15

Idaho 5 4 9

Montana 7 21 28

Nevada 40 34 74

Oregon 4 12 16

E. Wash. 6 0 6

W. Wash. 31 40 71

Total 590 (58%) 425 (42%) 1,015

New Bankruptcy Appeal Filings

2012 11

1

The numbers for bankruptcy appeals to 

the district courts are taken directly from a 

statistical caseload table prepared by the 

Administrative Office of the United States 

Courts (“AOUSC Table B-23"). The numbers 

for bankruptcy appeals to the BAP are 

calculated based on data from AOUSC Table 

B-23 and on data from the BAP’s CM/ECF 

docketing system. The district court numbers 

include all appeals in which a timely election 

was made to have the appeal hear 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.

own districts.
72

were submitted on briefs. Of 

the 185 merits decisions, 28 

were published opinions. The 

reversal rate was 3 percent. 

The median time for an appeal 

decided on the merits was 9.8 

months.

Of the remaining 539 closed 

cases, 10 were terminated 

by consolidation; 122 were 

transferred to the district courts 

after appellee elections or in 

the interest of justice; and 407 

were terminated on procedural 

grounds, such as for lack of 

prosecution, lack of jurisdiction 

or voluntary dismissal. The 

BAP ended fiscal year 2012 

with 323 appeals pending, a 4 

percent decline from FY 2011.

Appeals to the Ninth Circuit

Appeals from a bankruptcy 

decision of either the BAP or 

a district court may be made 

to the Ninth Circuit Court 

of Appeals for second-level 

appellate review. In fiscal 

year 2012, 189 second-level 

appeals were filed. Of these, 

78 were appeals from decisions 

by the BAP and 111 were from 

decisions by the district courts. 

Thus, of the 724 appeals that 

were disposed of by the BAP, 

roughly 89 percent were fully 

resolved, with only about 11 

percent seeking second-level 

review.

BAP Use of Pro Tem Judges

The BAP continued to use 

bankruptcy judges from 

throughout the Ninth Circuit on 

a pro tem basis to assist with its 

large caseload. In fiscal year 

2012, the BAP used 16 pro tem 

appointees to assist with oral 

arguments and merits decisions. 

The BAP reached out eight of the 

Ninth Circuit’s newly appointed 

bankruptcy judges to provide them 

the opportunity to review trial work 

from the appellate perspective.

BAP Transitions

Chief Bankruptcy Judge Laura 

S. Taylor of the Southern District 

of California was appointed 

to a seven-year term on the 

BAP, replacing Judge Eileen 

W. Hollowell of the District 

of Arizona. Her term began 

January 1, 2013. 

Bankruptcy Judge Jim D. Pappas 

of the District of Idaho was 

reappointed to the BAP for 

a term of three years, which 

commenced on August 28, 

2012. Judge Pappas has served 

as chief judge of the BAP since 

2010 and will serve in that 

capacity until 2015.

Year

Appeals 

Total

1Raw Appeals

Received by BAP

2Net 

Appeals

BAP

3Net Appeals

District Court

4Election 

Rate

Percentage of 

Appeals

Heard by BAP

2010 783 481 396 387 49% 54%

2011 1,011 698 597 417 41% 59%

2012 1,015 712 590 425 42% 58%

Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appeal Filings, 2010-2012 12

1

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

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

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

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

2

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

BAP to district court by election or other transfer.

3

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

the bankruptcy court or transferred from the BAP.

4

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

heard in district court.
73

The Magistrate Judges Executive Board includes, seated from left, Judges Jennifer L. Thurston of Bakersfield, Valerie 

P. Cooke of Reno, David K. Duncan of Phoenix, Mary Alice Theiler of Seattle, Jeremiah C. Lynch of Missoula, and 

Deborah M. Smith of Anchorage. Standing from left are Joan Gee, executive secretary, Office of the Circuit Executive; 

Judges Joaquin V.E. Manibusan, Jr., of Guam, Stephen J. Hillman of Los Angeles, Joseph C. Spero of San Francisco, 

Jan M. Adler of San Diego, Richard Puglisi of Hawaii, Dennis J. Hubel of Portland, Oregon, James P. Hutton of Yakima; 

Chief Bankruptcy Judge Frank L. Kurtz of Yakima, a guest at the meeting; Assistant Circuit Executive Dr. Bob Rucker; and 

recalled Magistrate Judge Larry M. Boyle of Boise.

The Ninth Circuit continues its 

historical reliance on magistrate 

judges, who make invaluable 

contributions to the work of 

the federal trial courts. They 

assist district judges in a variety 

of judicial matters with duties 

ranging from handling petty 

offenses to taking felony pleas. 

Magistrate judges preside over 

preliminary proceedings, trial 

jurisdiction cases, and civil 

consent cases, review prisoner 

petitions, and perform other 

duties related to criminal and 

civil matters. 

In 2012, 101 full-time and seven 

part-time magistrate judges along 

with 27 recalled magistrate judges 

served in Ninth Circuit courts. 

They disposed of a combined 

247,631 judicial matters during 

the year, down 4.5 percent from 

fiscal year 2011.

Although preliminary proceedings 

continue to be the largest 

category, the total number 

declined by 8.3 percent 

to 100,598 in FY 2012. 

These proceedings included 

arraignments, initial appearances, 

detention hearings, and warrants 

for searches and arrests. Search 

warrants, which numbered 

13,057, was the only category 

that increased under preliminary 

proceedings in FY 2012.

Additional duties related to 

criminal matters totaled 49,215, 

down 8.1 percent. This category 

includes pretrial motions and 

conferences, taking of guilty 

pleas, hearings on probation 

revocation and supervised 

release, and evidentiary hearings. 

Pretrial conferences numbered 

18,866, down 11.9 percent.

Additional duties related to civil 

matters increased to 28,461 

dispositions, up 6.2 percent. 

Motions, pretrial conferences 

and settlement conferences made 

up the bulk of this work.

Trial jurisdiction cases, which 

include Class A misdemeanors 

and petty offenses, increased to 

40,264, up 2.9 percent. Petty 

offenses numbered 37,722, 

up 3.3 percent. Class A 

misdemeanors numbered 2,542, 

slightly down 1.9 percent.

Magistrate Judges Make Vital Contributions
74

2011 Total 2012 Total Change

2011-2012

Total Matters 259,209 247,631 -4.5%

Preliminary Proceedings 109,715 100,598 -8.3%

Search Warrants 11,684 13,057 11.8%

Arrest Warrants 7,833 7,609 -2.9%

Summonses 1,279 1,226 -4.1%

Initial Appearances 28,381 25,741 -9.3%

Preliminary Examinations 10,050 8,550 -14.9%

Arraignments 22,991 20,643 -10.2%

Detention Hearings 17,390 15,474 -11.0%

Bail Reviews/Nebbia Hearings 2,082 1,846 -11.3%

5Other 8,025 6,452 -19.6%

Trial Jurisdiction Cases 39,114 40,264 2.9%

 Class A Misdemeanors 2,591 2,542 -1.9%

 Petty Offenses 36,523 37,722 3.3%

Civil Consent Cases 4,508 4,627 2.6%

 Without Trial 4,454 4,562 2.4%

 Jury Trial 44 51 15.9%

 Nonjury Trial 10 14 40.0%

Additional Duties

Criminal 53,530 49,215 -8.1%

1Motions 636(b)(1)(A) 14,866 14,630 -1.6%

Motions 636(b)(1)(B) 342 180 -47.4%

Evidentiary Proceedings 221 242 9.5%

2Pretrial Conferences 21,425 18,866 -11.9%

Probation Revocation Hearings 

and Supervised Release 1,139 1,470 29.1%

Guilty Plea Proceedings 13,581 12,137 -10.6%

3Other 1,956 1,690 -13.6%

Civil 26,807 28,461 6.2%

Settlement Conferences 2,670 2,667 -0.1%

2Other Pretrial Conferences 5,058 4,942 -2.3%

1Motions 636(b)(1)(A) 13,434 14,523 8.1%

Motions 636(b)(1)(B) 1,925 2,334 21.2%

Evidentiary Proceedings 98 93 -5.1%

Social Security 518 702 35.5%

Special Master References 8 1 -87.5%

4Other 3,096 3,199 3.3%

Prisoner Petitions 8,069 7,463 -7.5%

State Habeas 4,359 3,381 -22.4%

Federal Habeas 472 449 -4.9%

Civil Rights 3,204 3,611 12.7%

Evidentiary Proceedings 34 22 -35.3%

6Miscellaneous Matters 17,466 17,003 -2.7%

Matters Disposed of by Ninth Circuit Magistrate Judges

2011-2012 13

1

Before 2000, category included contested motions 

only. Beginning in 2000, uncontested motions were 

added.

2

Before 2000, category did not include status 

conferences. Beginning in 2000, status conferences 

were added.

3

Category includes mental competency hearings, 

motion hearings, and writs.

4

Category includes fee applications, summary jury 

trials, and motion hearings. Beginning in 2006, early 

neutral evaluations were added.

5

Category includes material witness hearings and 

attorney appointment hearings.

6

Before 2000, this category included seizure/inspection 

warrants and orders of entry; judgement debtor 

exams; extradition hearings; contempt proceedings; 

Criminal Justice Act fee applications; naturalization 

proceedings; grand/other jury returns; civil and criminal 

IRS enforcement proceedings; calendar calls; and voir 

dire. Beginning in 2000, civil and criminal other jury 

matters and international prisoner transfer proceedings 

were added. Due to a reporting problem, CJA fee 

applications, a component of Miscellaneous Matters 

are estimated at their 2009 level.

Civil consent cases, in which a 

magistrate judge presides at the 

consent of the parties, numbered 

4,627, up 2.6 percent. The great 

majority of cases were disposed of 

without trial. 

Prisoner petitions numbered 7,463, 

down 7.5 percent from the prior fiscal 

year. State habeas and civil rights 

petitions made up the bulk of this work.

New Magistrate Judges and Governance

Nine new full-time magistrate judges 

were sworn into office in 2012. They 

were Bridget S. Bade, Leslie Ann 

Bowman, Bruce G. Macdonald, 

and Steven P. Logan of the District of 

Arizona; David H. Bartick and Karen 

S. Crawford of the Southern District 

of California; Stanley Boone and 

Allison Claire of the Eastern District of 

California; and Kandis A. Westmore 

of the Northern District of California.
75

Chief Magistrate Judge Candy 

W. Dale of the District of Idaho 

succeeded Magistrate Judge 

David K. Duncan of the District 

of Arizona as chair of the 

Magistrate Judges Executive 

Board. Judge Dale serves as an 

official observer at meetings of 

the Judicial Council of the Ninth 

Circuit. Appointed to the board 

in 2012 were Magistrate Judges 

Craig M. Kellison of the Eastern 

District of California, Peggy A. 

Leen of the District of Nevada, 

Charles R. Pyle of the District of 

Arizona, and R. Keith Strong of 

the District of Montana.

Members of the Magistrate 

Judges Executive Board joined 

the new magistrate judges for the 

circuit’s New Judges Orientation, 

held May 17-18, 2012 at 

the James R. Browning U.S. 

Courthouse in San Francisco.

The judges listened to a 

presentation by Magistrate 

Judge Andrew J. Wistrich on 

“The Psychology of Judging.” 

Other presentations focused on 

jury voir dire, case management 

issues, managing the media, 

juries and social networking, 

and training for new technology. 

Educational Programs

At the 2012 Ninth Circuit 

Judicial Conference, the 

Magistrate Judges Education 

Committee organized a panel 

discussion on federal habeas 

review under the Antiterrorism 

and Effective Death Penalty 

Act. Panel members include 

lawyers who argued Cullen 

v. Pinholster. They are James 

W. Bilderback, II, supervising 

deputy attorney general of 

California; Sean Kennedy, 

federal public defender for the 

Central District of California; 

and Mark Drozdowski, 

assistant federal public 

defender, also from the Central 

District. Kathleen M. Sullivan, 

a partner at the New York 

law firm of Quinn Emanuel 

Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, served 

as moderator.

Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin from the Eastern District of 

California introducing ‘How Not to Get Your Habeas Handed to You.’
76

Workload Unchanged for Federal Public Defenders

For the first time in six years, 

federal public defenders in the 

Ninth Circuit saw their caseload 

decline, albeit slightly, in fiscal 

year 2012. The total of new 

cases opened in the circuit was 

33,664 cases, down 0.8 percent 

from FY 2011.

The Central District of California, 

Northern District of California, 

District of Guam, and District of 

Montana were the only districts 

to report an increase in new 

cases opened by federal public 

defenders in FY 2012. Defenders 

opened 3,688 new cases in the 

Central District numbered, up 

11.8 percent. The Northern 

District followed with 1,761 

cases, up 47 percent; the District 

of Montana, 678 cases, up 9.4 

percent; and the District of Guam, 

124 cases, up .8 percent.

Elsewhere in the circuit, 11 districts 

experienced a decline in cases 

opened. The District of Arizona 

had 12,033 new cases, down 5.4 

percent from the prior fiscal year. 

It was the largest numeric decrease 

in the circuit. The Western District 

of Washington followed with 

1,342 cases, down 12.6 percent; 

Eastern District of California, 

1,700 cases, down 5.9 percent; 

District of Alaska, 302 cases, 

down 17.5 percent; Southern 

Cases 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Change

2011-2012

Opened 29,700 30,552 31,691 33,929 33,664 -0.8%

Closed 29,233 29,316 31,508 33,733 33,376 -1.1%

Pending 9,340 10,580 10,753 10,950 11,236 2.6%

Ninth Circuit Federal Defender Organizations: 

Cases Opened, Closed and Pending, 2008-2012 14

District

Opened

2011

Opened

2012

Change

2011-2012

Closed

2011

Closed

2012

Change

2011-2012

Pending

2012

Alaska 366 302 -17.5% 347 348 0.3% 80

Arizona 12,724 12,033 -5.4% 12,510 12,297 -1.7% 1,283

C. Calif. 3,299 3,688 11.8% 3,387 3,323 -1.9% 1,667

E. Calif. 1,806 1,700 -5.9% 2,051 1,776 -13.4% 789

N. Calif. 1,198 1,761 47.0% 1,196 1,671 39.7% 592

1S. Calif. 7,934 7,881 -0.7% 7,538 7,525 -0.2% 3,680

Guam 123 124 0.8% 113 131 15.9% 75

Hawaii 568 521 -8.3% 603 551 -8.6% 461

1Idaho 306 303 -1.0% 313 289 -7.7% 144

1Montana 620 678 9.4% 594 716 20.5% 210

Nevada 1,131 1,100 -2.7% 1,099 1,110 1.0% 722

Oregon 1,458 1,420 -2.6% 1,505 1,445 -4.0% 801

1E. Wash. 861 811 -5.8% 868 839 -3.3% 310

W. Wash. 1,535 1,342 -12.6% 1,609 1,355 -15.8% 422

Circuit Total 33,929 33,664 -0.8% 33,733 33,376 -1.1% 11,236

National Total 122,813 137,764 12.2% 120,932 135,579 12.1% 48,148

Circuit Total as % of

 National Total 27.6% 24.4% -3.2% 27.9% 24.6% -3.3% 23.3%

Federal Defender Organizations: Summary of Representations by District, 2011-2012 15

1

Community Defender Organizations: In addition to handling criminal defenses and appeals, public defenders are assigned to court-directed prisoner 

and witness representations, bail/pre-sentencing, and probation and parole revocation hearings. 

Note: Eastern Washington and Idaho are combined into one organization, and Northern Mariana Islands is not served by a defender organization.
77

District of California, 7,881 cases, 

down .7 percent; Eastern District of 

Washington, 811 cases, down 5.8 

percent; District of Hawaii, 521 

cases, down 8.3 percent; District 

of Oregon, 1,420 cases, down 

2.6 percent; District of Nevada, 

1,100 cases, down 2.7 percent; 

and the District of Idaho, 303 

cases, down 1 percent. New 

cases opened nationally totaled 

137,764, up 12.2 percent from 

FY 2011. 

Total cases closed by federal 

public defenders numbered 

33,376 in FY 2012, down 1.1 

percent. The Northern District of 

California had the highest increase 

in number of cases closed with 

1,671 cases, up 39.7 percent. 

The District of Montana followed 

with 716 cases closed, up 20.5 

percent; the District of Guam, 

131 cases, up 15.9 percent; the 

District of Nevada, 1,110, up 1 

percent; and the District of Alaska, 

348, up .3 percent. Cases closed 

nationwide numbered 135,579, 

up 12.1 percent from FY 2011.

Congress created the Office 

of the Federal Public Defender 

to fulfill the constitutional 

requirement that indigents 

charged with federal crimes 

be provided with no-cost, 

professional legal representation. 

Congress funds public defender 

and community defender offices 

through the Defender Services 

Division of the Administrative 

Office of the United States Courts.

Community defender 

organizations are non-profit legal 

service organizations staffed by 

non-government employees, 

while public defender offices 

are federal agencies staffed by 

federal judiciary employees. 

Both types of organizations are 

staffed with experienced federal 

criminal law practitioners who 

provide a consistently high level 

of representation. In addition to 

criminal defense and appeals, 

public defenders are assigned 

to court-directed prisoner and 

witness representations, bail/presentencing, and probation and 

parole revocation hearings.

By statute, judges of a court 

of appeals select and appoint 

federal public defenders to 

four-year terms. The court 

makes its initial appointment 

after a nationwide recruitment 

and the use of a local screening 

committee. A federal public 

defender may be reappointed 

if the court concludes that he 

or she is performing in a highly 

satisfactory manner based upon 

a broad survey and performance 

evaluation process.

In 2012, Andrea K. George 

became the executive director 

of the Federal Defenders of the 

Eastern District of Washington 

and Idaho, a Community 

Defender Program with up to a 

15-member board of directors 

and staffed offices in Spokane and 

Yakima. Federal public defenders 

reappointed in 2012 include 

Richard Curtner of the District 

of Alaska, Jon M. Sands of the 

District of Arizona, Steven T. Wax 

of the District of Oregon, and Peter 

C. Wolff of the District of Hawaii. 

Federal public 

defenders met 

during the circuit 

conference to 

consider funding 

questions and 

other issues.
78

United States probation officers 

prepare presentence reports 

on convicted defendants and 

supervise offenders who have 

been placed on probation, 

supervised release, parole or 

conditional release. In the Ninth 

Circuit, some 913 probation 

officers are performing these 

duties in various settings, from 

courthouses in major cities to 

one-person offices in rural areas.

Probation officers investigate 

the offense conduct and the 

defendant’s personal background 

and history. They identify 

applicable guidelines and policy 

statements, and calculate the 

defendant’s offense level and 

criminal history category. They 

report the resulting sentencing 

range, identifying factors 

relevant to the appropriate 

sentence. Presentence reports 

assist a judge in sentencing 

convicted defendants. 

In the area of supervision, 

probation officers monitor 

persons who are released to 

the community after serving 

prison sentences. They assist 

supervised individuals by 

directing them to services 

including substance abuse and 

mental health treatment, medical 

care, employment assistance, 

literacy and training programs, 

and cognitive-behavioral 

treatment therapies to foster 

long-term positive changes to 

reduce recidivism. In addition, 

105 searches were conducted 

by officers in fiscal year 2012. 

Officers work diligently to protect 

the community, while promoting 

long-term change. 

Presentence Reports

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 17,447 reports in FY 

2012, down 4 percent from the 

prior year. Officers also wrote 68 

non-guideline presentence reports, 

prepared for crimes in which 

the USSC has not promulgated 

guidelines, which were down 

65 percent in FY 2012. There 

were 253 supplemental reports 

completed to the U.S. Bureau of 

Prisons for defendants who did not 

receive presentence reports, down 

by 46.1 percent from FY 2011.

Offenders Under Supervision

Persons under supervision in the 

Ninth Circuit numbered 21,889 

in FY 2012, up 2.4 percent 

the prior year. The circuit 

accounted for 16.5 percent of 

the national total of 132,340 

persons under supervision.

Among those under supervision, 

3,895 were on probation, down 

4 percent while 17,792 were 

on supervised release, up 3.9 

percent from FY 2011. Another 

171 persons were on parole, 

down 5 percent and 31 cases 

were the Bureau of Prisons 

Custody type of supervision. 

The districts of Western 

Washington, Northern Mariana 

Islands, and Nevada had a 

decrease in the number of 

supervision cases, while the rest 

of the Ninth Circuit experienced 

an increase of supervision cases. 

Drug offenders remain the 

largest group of persons under 

supervision both in the Ninth 

Circuit and nationwide. In 

FY 2012, drug offenders 

under supervision in the circuit 

numbered 9,254 cases, up 

4.2 percent from the prior 

year. Drug cases accounted for 

42.3 percent of persons under 

supervision in the Ninth Circuit.

Revocations and Early Terminations

Ninth Circuit cases that were 

revoked and closed after postconviction supervision numbered 

4,063, up 11.7 percent in FY 

Probation Officers Serve Courts, Communities

Persons Under Supervision 2011 2012 Change 2011-2012

1From Courts 4,058 3,895 -4.0%

2From Institutions 17,327 17,792 2.7%

Total 21,385 21,687 1.4%

Ninth Circuit Federal Probation System: 

Persons Under Post-Conviction Supervision, 2011-2012 16

1

Includes judge and magistrate judge probation

2

Includes parole, special parole, mandatory release, and military parole
79

2012. Of the revocations, 

259 were from probation 

sentences and 3,791 were from 

supervised release terms. The 

Ninth Circuit had 25 percent 

or 4,063 cases of the 16,249 

cases revoked nationally.

Since 2002, the Committee 

on Criminal Law of the Judicial 

Conference of the United States 

has encouraged officers to identify 

offenders who qualify for early 

termination. 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. 

Ninth Circuit cases terminated 

early numbered 1,224, up 8.5 

percent from the prior year.

Federal pretrial services and 

probation services officers seek 

to reduce recidivism by using 

“evidence-based practices” 

to make informed decisions 

about the supervision risks 

defendants may pose. The 

Post-Conviction Risk Assessment 

(PCRA) is designed to improve 

post-conviction supervision by 

providing information, which 

directs strategic resource 

allocation—directing attention 

and services to the highest 

risk offenders. Officers in 

the Ninth Circuit completed 

25,893 assessments (18,621 

initial assessments and 7,272 

re-assessments). The circuit 

completed 18.38 percent 

of the 140,869 assessments 

completed nationally.

The Administrative Office of the 

U.S. Courts and Federal Judicial 

Center are also studying the 

efficacy of federal reentry court 

programs in reducing recidivism. 

The FJC designed a multiyear randomized experimental 

study following a reentry court 

program developed by the AO. 

The Central District of California 

is one of the five districts 

participating in this study.

Transition

In 2012, one new chief 

probation officer was appointed, 

Chad Boardman in the District 

of Nevada.

Ninth Circuit Federal Probation System: Persons Under Post-Conviction Supervision by District, 2011-2012

From Courts Referred by Institutions

District 1Probation Supervised

Release 2Parole 3BOP Custody Persons UnderSupervision, 2011

Persons Under

Supervision, 2012

Change

2011-2012

Alaska 84 226 2 11 310 323 4.2%

Arizona 760 2,880 21 7 3,536 3,668 3.7%

C. Calif. 914 4,745 38 0 5,587 5,697 2.0%

E. Calif. 243 1,413 18 0 1,644 1,674 1.8%

N. Calif. 458 1,335 23 0 1,752 1,816 3.7%

S. Calif. 294 2,158 13 0 2,374 2,465 3.8%

Guam 58 101 2 5 153 166 8.5%

Hawaii 86 687 2 0 750 775 3.3%

Idaho 101 383 2 3 448 489 9.2%

Montana 87 611 4 4 672 706 5.1%

Nevada 249 817 7 0 1,099 1,073 -2.4%

N. Mariana Is. 11 27 0 1 41 39 -4.9%

Oregon 258 816 16 0 1,044 1,090 4.4%

E. Wash. 58 470 1 0 510 529 3.7%

W. Wash. 234 1,123 22 0 1,465 1,379 -5.9%

Circuit Total 3,895 17,792 171 31 21,385 21,889 2.4%

1

Includes judge and magistrate judge probation

2

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

3

BOP = Bureau of Prisons

17
80

United States 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 pose a danger 

to the community or to certain 

persons through criminal activity. 

Pretrial services officers also 

conduct investigations to 

determine the suitability of a 

defendant to participate in the 

Office of the U.S. Attorney’s 

Pretrial Diversion Program. They 

are responsible for supervision 

of those defendants who are 

deemed appropriate and 

accepted into the program. 

Case Activations

Pretrial services offices in the 

Ninth Circuit accounted for 

over 35.8 percent of all case 

activations nationally. In fiscal 

year 2012, case activations 

numbered 38,765, down 1.5 

percent from FY 2011. New 

case activations nationally were 

108,273, down 4.2 percent from 

the prior year.

 

Offenses Charged

Immigration offenses nationwide 

numbered 43,051 and accounted 

for nearly 40 percent of all cases 

activated nationally in FY 2012. 

Of these, 23,933 or 56 percent 

were from the Ninth Circuit, with 

18,393 or 43 percent originating 

from the District of Arizona. 

Drug offenses rank as the second 

most common type of offense 

both nationally at 48 percent 

and within the Ninth Circuit at 58 

percent. The District of Arizona 

led the circuit in drug offenses 

with 2,818 cases reported. 

Pretrial Bail Reports

In FY 2012, pretrial services 

officers in the Ninth Circuit 

prepared 37,916 written prebail reports and 538 post-bail 

reports. Bail reports were 

prepared in 99.1 percent of 

the cases activated. Officers 

conducted 10,035 pretrial bail 

interviews. Excluding cases 

involving illegal aliens, officers 

made recommendations to the 

court in 92.7 percent of cases in 

which interviews were conducted. 

Officers recommended release 

in 50.8 percent of the cases. 

U.S. attorneys in the circuit 

recommended release in 43 

percent of these cases. 

In FY 2012, a total of 5,810 

defendants were released and 

received for supervision, down 

slightly from FY 2011. Of 

these, 4,364 were released on 

standard supervision; 1,215 

supervised on a courtesy basis 

from another district or circuit, 

up 8 percent. The remaining 

231 defendants were on 

pretrial diversion caseloads.

2012 Immigration Cases

43,051 Activations

Ninth Circuit excluding Arizona

District of Arizona 

Rest of United States

Ninth Circuit Pretrial Services Officers Are Nation’s Busiest

Pretrial Services Cases Activated in Ninth Circuit Courts, 2011-2012

Caseload Measure 2011 2012 Change 2011-2012

Reports 38,403 37,916 -1.3%

Interviews 10,328 10,035 -2.8%

Cases Activated 39,343 38,765 -1.5%

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.”

18
81

Defendant Contact Written Reports

District Interviewed

1Not

 Interviewed 2Prebail Postbail

No Reports 

Made

Total Cases

Activated 2011

Total Cases

Activated

2012

Change

2011-12

Alaska 107 111 212 0 6 249 218 -12.4%

Arizona 1,658 20,379 21,953 50 34 21,899 22,037 0.6%

C. Calif. 1,480 1,008 2,454 27 7 2,487 2,488 -

E. Calif. 539 610 1,064 61 24 1,119 1,149 2.7%

N. Calif. 518 540 785 268 5 1,056 1,058 0.2%

S. Calif. 3,702 3,890 7,487 77 28 7,963 7,592 -4.7%

Guam 102 28 121 0 9 98 130 32.7%

Hawaii 253 62 305 2 8 342 315 -7.9%

Idaho 96 277 364 2 7 348 373 7.2%

Montana 217 181 388 3 7 450 398 -11.6%

Nevada 475 314 778 9 2 843 789 -6.4%

N. Mariana Is. 36 8 42 0 2 32 44 37.5%

Oregon 316 432 742 2 4 801 748 -6.6%

E. Wash. 122 257 208 6 165 486 379 -22.0%

W. Wash. 414 633 1,013 31 3 1,170 1,047 -10.5%

Circuit Total 10,035 28,730 37,916 538 311 39,343 38,765 -1.5%

National Total 58,399 49,874 102,152 2,913 3,208 112,969 108,273 -4.2%

Circuit % of 

National 17.2% 57.6% 37.1% 18.5% 9.7% 34.8% 35.8% 1.0%

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

1

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

defendants were interviewed in other districts.

2

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

19 Pretrial Workload, 2011-2012

Violations

Of 12,137 cases in release status, 

1,303 had violations reported 

to the court in FY 2012. They 

include 86 felony violations, 71 

misdemeanor violations, 14 for 

other violations, and 124 for failure 

to appear. Technical violations, 

such as positive urine tests for 

illegal substances and violations of 

electronic monitoring conditions, 

made up the remainder.

Evidence-Based Practices

All districts in the Ninth Circuit 

now use the Pretrial Services 

Risk Assessment, or PTRA, to 

make informed decisions about 

supervision risks each defendant 

may pose. Several districts also 

use this “evidence-based” tool 

as a cost-containment strategy 

to ensure that the majority of 

alternative to detention funds are 

used for higher risk defendants.

Defendants placed on diversion 

in the Ninth Circuit continues to 

rise. Additionally, some districts 

have implemented diversion 

courts which allow successful 

defendants to have their cases 

dismissed. The “Alternative to 

Prison Solutions” pilot diversion 

program in the Southern 

District of California seeks to 

reduce recidivism by addressing 

criminogenic needs. District 

Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo, 

Magistrate Judges Barbara L. 

Major, and William McCurine, Jr., 

pretrial services officers, and others 

utilize a collaborative problem 

solving approach to deter future 

criminal activity and affect positive 

behavior change in participants. 

The program has been successful 

with over 250 participants, who 

undergo an intensive 12-month 

court supervision program. 

Participants are U.S. citizens 

charged with “bringing in and 

harboring certain aliens” and 

are all held accountable for 

their offense. Custodial cost 

savings total $4.5 million for the 

U.S. Department of Justice and 

additional savings in regard to 

judicial officers, prosecutors, and 

post-conviction supervision.
82

1Petit Juror Utilization Rate 

Percent Not Selected or Challenged 

District

Grand Juries

Empaneled, 2012

Petit Juries

Selected, 2012 2011 2012 Change 2011-2012

Alaska 1 9 26.4 27.5 1.1

Arizona 12 104 39.2 33.8 -5.4

C. Calif. 24 172 50.8 47.2 -3.6

E. Calif. 10 81 43.5 43.8 0.3

N. Calif. 8 78 35.5 43.6 8.1

S. Calif. 7 118 41.9 42.6 0.7

Guam 2 2 43.6 30.8 -12.8

Hawaii 4 8 40.3 37.3 -3.0

Idaho 6 32 26.7 21.2 -5.5

Montana 4 43 28.7 27.6 -1.1

Nevada 3 30 46.6 44.0 -2.6

N. Mariana Is. 4 6 43.0 49.2 6.2

Oregon 11 48 31.2 28.1 -3.1

E. Wash. 6 29 26.3 22.8 -3.5

W. Wash. 4 43 29.7 32.0 2.3

Circuit Total 106 803 *** ***

Circuit Average 13 100 36.9 35.4 -1.5

National Total 783 4,899 *** ***

National Average 8 51 37.7 37.3 -0.4

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

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

were not selected or challenged. Other jurors not selected or challenged who were not called to the courtroom or 

otherwise did not participate in the actual voir dire.

20 Juror Utilization, 2011-2012

Juror Utilization
83

Interpreter Usage by District Courts, 2012

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

2011

Total

2012

Total

Change

2011-12

Arabic 0 0 10 21 15 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 78 69 -11.5%

Armenian 0 1 81 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 7 199 103 -48.2%

Cantonese 0 0 33 112 129 8 0 11 0 0 5 0 3 0 4 440 305 -30.7%

Farsi 0 0 27 0 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 36 -28.0%

Japanese 0 0 1 0 6 6 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 24 18 -25.0%

Korean 0 0 233 5 18 32 16 28 0 0 9 0 0 0 49 252 390 54.8%

Mandarin 0 13 149 3 139 23 10 5 0 3 55 0 2 0 12 274 414 51.1%

Navajo

(Certified) 0 67 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 112 67 -40.2%

Navajo

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

Russian 0 8 31 150 2 6 0 0 0 0 9 0 1 1 19 107 227 112.1%

Sign

(American) 0 6 11 11 0 14 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 5 38 50 31.6%

Sign

(Mexican) 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 -

Spanish Staff 86 51,747 2,094 989 490 25,634 0 0 0 0 240 0 612 0 0 82,742 81,892 -1.0%

Spanish

(Certified) 1 21,426 2,999 1,400 1,402 354 0 23 161 6 242 0 510 526 946 31,712 29,996 -5.4%

Spanish

(Non-Certified) 0 31 0 0 0 0 0 60 251 63 134 0 38 30 15 1,001 622 -37.9%

Tagalog 3 0 5 0 13 0 3 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 41 29 -29.3%

Vietnamese 2 0 74 10 77 38 0 4 0 0 2 0 0 0 139 312 346 10.9%

All Others 0 277 105 161 39 186 0 13 0 0 32 0 9 2 120 1,048 944 -9.9%

Total 92 73,577 5,853 2,872 2,336 26,327 29 147 412 73 740 0 1,178 559 1,317 118,430 115,512 -2.5%

21

Court Interpreters
84

Caseload Measure 

2011 2012

Change 

2011-2012

Per Judgeship 

Unweighted, 2012

District Court

 Filings 460 462 0.4% 154

 Terminations 504 499 -1.0% 166

 1Pending 678 665 -1.9% 222

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 1,019 841 -17.5% 421

 Terminations 1,107 1,166 5.3% 583

 Pending 1,098 773 -29.6% 387

District of Alaska

Authorized Judgeships

 District 3

 Bankruptcy 2

 Magistrate

 Full-time 2

 Part-time 3

Authorized places of holding court: Anchorage, Fairbanks, Juneau, Ketchikan, Nome

12011 total pending cases revised.

Caseload Measure

 

2011 2012

Change 

2011-2012

Per Judgeship 

Unweighted, 2012

District Court

 Filings 12,596 10,364 -17.7% 797

 Terminations 12,497 11,643 -6.8% 896

 1Pending 6,618 5,354 -19.1% 412

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 39,148 30,135 -23.0% 4,305

 Terminations 36,704 33,444 -8.9% 4,778

 1Pending 45,409 42,101 -7.3% 6,014

District of Arizona

Authorized Judgeships

 2District 13

 Bankruptcy 7

 Magistrate

 Full-time 14

 Part-time 1

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

12011 total pending cases revised. 

2Includes one authorized temporary judgeship.

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

Caseload Measure

 

2011 2012

Change 

2011-2012

Per Judgeship 

Unweighted, 2012

District Court

 Filings 16,571 17,086 3.1% 601

 Terminations 16,523 16,986 2.8% 607

 1Pending 12,723 12,856 1.0% 459

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 139,882 111,909 -20.0% 4,663

 Terminations 144,486 120,433 -16.6% 5,018

 1Pending 76,608 68,088 -11.1% 2,837

Central District of California

Authorized Judgeships

 2District 28

 3Bankruptcy 24

 Magistrate

 Full-time 24

 Part-time 1

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

12011 total pending cases revised. 

2Includes one authorized temporary judgeship.

3Includes three authorized temporary judgeships.

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

District Caseloads
85

12011 total pending cases revised.

2Includes one authorized temporary judgeship.

3Modesto applies only to bankruptcy court.

Caseload Measure

 

2011 2012

Change 

2011-2012

Per Judgeship 

Unweighted, 2012

District Court

 Filings 6,496 6,235 -4.0% 1,039

 Terminations 7,105 6,590 -7.2% 1,098

 1Pending 8,367 8,011 -4.3% 1,335

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 51,481 39,481 -23.3% 5,640

 Terminations 50,038 41,460 -17.1% 5,923

 1Pending 36,102 34,120 -5.5% 4,874

Eastern District of California

Authorized Judgeships

 District 6

 2Bankruptcy 7

 Magistrate

 Full-time 12

 Part-time 0

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

12011 total pending cases revised.

Caseload Measure

 

2011 2012

Change 

2011-2012

Per Judgeship 

Unweighted, 2012

District Court

 Filings 7,369 7,851 6.5% 561

 Terminations 7,951 7,359 -7.4% 526

 1Pending 6,578 7,036 7.0% 503

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 36,663 28,935 -21.1% 3,215

 Terminations 33,998 28,985 -14.7% 3,221

 1Pending 36,796 36,740 -0.2% 4,082

Northern District of California

Authorized Judgeships

 District 14

 Bankruptcy 9

 Magistrate

 Full-time 11

 Part-time 0

Authorized places of holding court: Eureka, Oakland, Salinas, San Francisco, San Jose, Santa Rosa

12011 total pending cases revised.

2El Centro applies only to the district court.

Caseload Measure

 

2011 2012

Change 

2011-2012

Per Judgeship 

Unweighted, 2012

District Court

 Filings 8,887 8,935 0.5% 687

 Terminations 8,802 9,564 8.7% 736

 1Pending 5,852 5,539 -5.3% 426

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 22,285 18,359 -17.6% 4,590

 Terminations 21,345 19,239 -9.9% 4,810

 1Pending 14,035 13,150 -6.3% 3,288

Southern District of California

Authorized Judgeships

 2District 13

 Bankruptcy 4

 Magistrate

 Full-time 11

 Part-time 0

Authorized places of holding court: 2El Centro, San Diego
86

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

12011 total district court pending cases revised.

Caseload Measure

 

2011 2012

Change 

2011-2012

Per Judgeship 

Unweighted, 2012

District Court

 Filings 127 115 -9.4% 115

 Terminations 114 141 23.7% 141

 1Pending 138 154 11.6% 154

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 146 153 4.8% 385

 Terminations 168 125 -25.6% 271

 Pending 144 172 19.4% 327

District of Guam

Authorized Judgeships

 2District 1

 Bankruptcy 0

 Magistrate

 Full-time 1

 Part-time 0

Authorized place of holding court: Hagatna

12011 total pending cases revised.

2Includes one temporary judgeship.

Caseload Measure

 

2011 2012

Change 

2011-2012

Per Judgeship 

Unweighted, 2012

District Court

 Filings 1,634 1,065 -34.8% 266

 Terminations 1,612 1,132 -29.8% 283

 1Pending 1,203 1,142 -5.1% 286

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 3,566 2,672 -25.1% 2,672

 Terminations 3,290 2,868 -12.8% 2,868

 1Pending 2,927 2,731 -6.7% 2,731

District of Hawaii

Authorized Judgeships

 2District 4

 Bankruptcy 1

 Magistrate

 Full-time 3

 Part-time 1

Authorized place of holding court: Honolulu

1

2011 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.

Caseload Measure

 

2011 2012

Change 

2011-2012

Per Judgeship 

Unweighted, 2012

District Court

 Filings 869 1,005 15.7% 503

 Terminations 891 928 4.2% 464

 1Pending 987 1,066 8.0% 533

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 7,912 6,690 -15.4% 3,345

 Terminations 8,034 7,634 -5.0% 3,817

 1Pending 7,324 6,380 -12.9% 3,190

District of Idaho

Authorized Judgeships

 District 2

 Bankruptcy 2

 Magistrate

 Full-time 2

 Part-time 0

Authorized places of holding court: Boise, Coeur d’Alene, Moscow, Pocatello, 2Twin Falls
87

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

12011 total pending cases revised.

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

Caseload Measure

 

2011 2012

Change 

2011-2012

Per Judgeship 

Unweighted, 2012

District Court

 Filings 51 63 23.5% 63

 Terminations 33 39 18.2% 39

 1Pending 109 134 22.9% 134

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 4 11 - 3

 Terminations 1 7 - 7

 1Pending 14 18 28.6% 1

District of Northern Mariana Islands

Authorized Judgeships

 District 1

 2Bankruptcy 0

 Magistrate

 Full-time 0

 Part-time 0

Authorized place of holding court: Saipan

12011 total pending cases revised.

Caseload Measure

 

2011 2012

Change 

2011-2012

Per Judgeship 

Unweighted, 2012

District Court

 Filings 970 980 1.0% 327

 Terminations 896 921 2.8% 307

 1Pending 826 838 1.5% 279

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 2,705 2,175 -19.6% 2,175

 Terminations 2,686 2,483 -7.6% 2,483

 1Pending 3,621 3,313 -8.5% 3,313

District of Montana

Authorized Judgeships

 District 3

 Bankruptcy 1

 Magistrate

 Full-time 3

 Part-time 1

Authorized places of holding court: Billings, Butte, Great Falls, Helena, Missoula

12011 total pending cases revised.

2Includes one authorized temporary judgeship.

Caseload Measure

 

2011 2012

Change 

2011-2012

Per Judgeship 

Unweighted, 2012

District Court

 Filings 3,658 3,419 -6.5% 488

 Terminations 3,592 3,413 -5.0% 488

 1Pending 3,968 3,984 0.4% 569

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 26,239 19,434 -25.9% 4,859

 Terminations 28,149 24,026 -14.6% 6,007

 1Pending 29,121 24,527 -15.8% 6,132

District of Nevada

Authorized Judgeships

 District 7

 2Bankruptcy 4

 Magistrate

 Full-time 7

 Part-time 0

Authorized places of holding court: Carson City, Elko, Ely, Las Vegas, Lovelock, Reno
88

12011 total pending cases revised.

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

Caseload Measure

 

2011 2012

Change 

2011-2012

Per Judgeship 

Unweighted, 2012

District Court

 Filings 2,950 2,978 0.9% 496

 Terminations 3,082 3,054 -0.9% 509

 1Pending 2,958 2,893 -2.2% 482

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 18,281 16,048 -12.2% 3,210

 Terminations 17,842 16,653 -6.7% 3,331

 1Pending 20,446 19,841 -3.0% 3,968

District of Orgeon

Authorized Judgeships

 District 6

 Bankruptcy 5

 Magistrate

 Full-time 6

 Part-time 1

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

12011 total pending cases revised.

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

Caseload Measure

 

2011 2012

Change 

2011-2012

Per Judgeship 

Unweighted, 2012

District Court

 Filings 1,256 1,271 1.2% 318

 Terminations 1,146 1,192 4.0% 298

 1Pending 1,097 1,162 5.9% 291

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 6,490 5,726 -11.8% 2,863

 Terminations 6,395 6,098 -4.6% 3,049

 1Pending 6,112 5,740 -6.1% 2,870

Eastern District of Washington

Authorized Judgeships

 District 4

 Bankruptcy 2

 Magistrate

 Full-time 2

 Part-time 0

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

12011 total pending cases revised.

Caseload Measure

 

2011 2012

Change 

2011-2012

Per Judgeship 

Unweighted, 2012

District Court

 Filings 4,219 4,388 4.0% 627

 Terminations 4,156 4,271 2.8% 610

 1Pending 3,669 3,761 2.5% 537

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 26,389 22,955 -13.0% 4,591

 Terminations 25,479 24,486 -3.9% 4,897

 1Pending 24,580 23,050 -6.2% 4,610

Western District of Washington

Authorized Judgeships

 District 7

 Bankruptcy 5

 Magistrate

 Full-time 5

 Part-time 2

Authorized places of holding court: Bellingham, Seattle, Tacoma, Vancouver
We would like to thank the judges 

and staff of the Southern District of 

California for their assistance, and 

the General Services Administration 

for providing photographs of the new 

and old courthouses in San Diego.

89
Cathy A. Catterson, Circuit & Court of Appeals Executive

P.O. Box 193939, San Francisco, CA 94119-3939

Ph: (415) 355-8800, Fax: (415) 355-8901

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov