Ninth Circuit

United States Courts

ANNUAL REPORT
Seated from left are Chief District Judge Audrey B. Collins (CAC); Senior 

Circuit Judge Procter Hug, Jr.; Circuit Judge Sidney R. Thomas; Chief 

Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski; Circuit and Court of Appeals Executive Cathy 

A. Catterson; Circuit Judge M. Margaret McKeown; and Chief District 

Judge Irma E. Gonzalez (CAS). Standing from left are **District Court 

Clerk Lance S. Wilson (NV); Senior District Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr., 

(CAC); Senior District Judge Robert H. Whaley (WAE); Chief District Judge 

Roger L. Hunt (NV); Chief Magistrate Judge Karen L. Strombom (WAW); 

Chief Bankruptcy Judge Randall J. Newsome (CAN), Chief Probation 

Officer William Corn (WAW), and Chief Pretrial Services Officer Sandra 

D. Hall (CAE). Not pictured: District Judge Charles R. Breyer (CAN), 

*Bankruptcy Court Clerk Jon D. Ceretto (CAC), *Chief Bankruptcy Judge 

Robert J. Faris (HI), Bankruptcy Court Clerk Gloria Franklin (CAN), Circuit 

Judge Ronald M. Gould, *Circuit Judge Susan P. Graber, *Chief Probation 

Officer Yador J. Harrell (CAN), *Chief District Judge Robert S. Lasnik 

(WAW), *Senior District Judge Stephen M. McNamee (AZ), *Chief Pretrial 

Services Officer Timothy McTighe (WAW), District Court Clerk Victoria 

Minor (CAE), *Chief District Judge John W. Sedwick (AK), *Senior Circuit 

Judge David R. Thompson, Chief District Judge Vaughn R. Walker (CAN), 

and Chief District Judge B. Lynn Winmill (ID).

*Term expired September 30, 2009.

**District Court Clerk Lance S. Wilson standing in for District Court Clerk 

Victoria Minor.

Judicial Council of the 

Ninth Circuit
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 confi dence in the judiciary.

Judicial Council of the 

Ninth Circuit

missioN stAtemeNt
2 Judicial Council Mission Statement

3 Foreword by Chief Judge Alex Kozinski

5 Ninth Circuit Overview

6 Judicial Council and Administration 

10 New Judges

12 New Senior Judges

15 In Memoriam 

18 Courts Find New Ways to Respond 

to Influx of Pro Se Cases 

19 Sentencing Commission Hears from Judges

20 Ninth Circuit Pro Bono Recognition 

21 Ninth Circuit Bench, Bar Making Transition 

to Electronic Documents

22 Judicial Conference Navigates Turbulent Times

24 Judicial Conference Award Presentations

26 Judge Fletcher Honored for Lifetime of Work

Wellness Committee Sponsors 

Pre-Retirement Seminar for Judges

27 Courts Encouraged to Develop Policies 

for Electronic Devices 

28 IT Conference for Pretrial & Probation

29 Ninth Circuit COOP Conference Focuses on Disaster Recovery

30 Central District Participates in Great Southern 

California Shakeout Drill

31 Ninth Circuit Fuels Team Effort in Pacific Island Courts

32 International Visitors Include Contingent of Thai Judges

Ninth Circuit Overview

Judicial Transitions

Ninth Circuit Highlights

34 Ninth Circuit, General Services 

Administration Rededicate Seattle Courthouse

36 Judge McNamee Honored for Space 

& Security Committee Service

37 Courthouses in Design Phase

38 Courthouse Under Construction

40 Court of Appeals

45 District Courts

49 Bankruptcy Courts

51 Bankruptcy Appellate Panel

53 Magistrate Judge Matters

55 Federal Public Defenders

57 Probation Officers

59 Pretrial Services Officers

61 Juror Utilization

62 Court Interpreters

64 District Caseloads

Space & Facilities

The Work of the Courts

Table of Contents
Foreword

The federal courts of the Ninth 

Circuit are among the busiest 

in the nation, dispensing criminal 

justice and settling civil disputes in 

nine western states and two Pacific 

Island jurisdictions. Our judges, 

supported by dedicated court 

staff, deal every day with diverse 

and challenging legal questions. 

Their decisions can have profound 

effects on the environment and our 

society, or pertain to just one person 

struggling for a better life. In 

matters large and small, they strive 

to follow the law while providing 

the highest level of service to litigants and the public at large. 

The 2009 Ninth Circuit Annual Report looks back at their work 

this past year. I hope you find the report informative and 

encourage you to provide us with feedback.

Both operationally and in the area of new initiatives, 2009 

was another noteworthy year for the Ninth Circuit. Our 

bankruptcy courts reported record filings, reflecting 

ongoing weakness in the economy. District courts saw 

their caseloads rise, led by significant increases in criminal 

filings. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, meanwhile, 

experienced a welcome dip in new filings, due largely to 

fewer immigration matters. The court made the most of 

the lull by increasing its case terminations and reducing its 

pending caseload.

For the year, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reported 

12,223 new appeals, down 8.1 percent from 2008. It 

remained the nation’s busiest appellate court with 21.4 

percent of all new appeals nationally. Appellate filings 

nationwide were down 7.1 percent.

District courts, which serve as trial courts in the federal system, 

reported 62,221 criminal and civil cases opened in 2009. 

Filings were up 12.4 percent from 2008, more than double the 

increase reported by district courts nationally. Criminal filings 

numbered 17,932, up 16.9 percent from the prior year. 

Chief Judge 

Alex Kozinski

Bankruptcy courts in the circuit reported 339,005 new 

cases, a 56.6 percent increase. This followed a 70 percent 

increase in filings in 2008. Bankruptcy courts in 14 of 

the 15 judicial districts of the circuit saw filings jump with 

Arizona, California and Nevada particularly hard hit.

All of the courts continue to face the challenges 

posed by pro se cases in which at least one party is not 

represented by counsel. These cases, which generally 

require additional time and effort by court staff due to 

the self-represented litigant’s unfamiliarity with the law, 

have grown steadily in recent years. In 2009, pro se cases 

comprised 48.5 percent of the new appeals opened 

by the court of appeals, 35.4 percent of the new civil 

cases reported by the district courts and 15.8 percent 

of the bankruptcy filings received by the bankruptcy 

courts. Prisoner petitions and immigration matters 

make up the bulk of the pro se cases at the trial court 

and appellate levels.

In responding to the challenges posed by pro se cases, 

courts are improving their case management techniques 

and providing additional assistance to self-represented 

litigants. Several of our district courts have established 

self-help clinics, while bankruptcy courts continue 

to offer debtor assistance programs and educational 

seminars. At the court of appeals, pro se cases are 

vigorously screened and those having merit often 

receive pro bono representation. Dozens of attorneys 

throughout the circuit have generously given time 

and expertise to represent pro se litigants through a 

court-sponsored program. These volunteer efforts 

were recognized with receptions at the Ninth Circuit’s 

courthouses in Pasadena, San Francisco and Seattle.

In the area of new initiatives, the Judicial Council of the 

Ninth Circuit in December approved an experimental 

pilot program to allow limited use of cameras in the 

district courts as a means of increasing public access to 

the judicial process. The program, the outgrowth of a 

resolution adopted by the 2007 Ninth Circuit Judicial 

Conference, is limited to civil, non-jury trials. Cases 
4 Annual Report 2009 

In the area of space and facilities, 2009 saw the completion 

of a three-year project to renovate and modernize the 

William Kenzo Nakamura U.S. Courthouse in Seattle. 

Federal judges and representatives of the General Services 

Administration gathered in June to rededicate the building 

for use by the court of appeals. New courthouses were 

opened in Great Falls, Montana, and Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, 

where the court of appeals held a special sitting in March as 

part of a community celebration for the new building.

During the year, new funding was found for much 

needed projects. The American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act, enacted in March, provided $350 

million to the Ninth Circuit for courthouse projects in 

Honolulu, Hawaii, Billings, Montana and Bakersfield, 

California. In September, Congress authorized 

additional funding to make possible the construction 

of a new 16-story courthouse annex in San Diego. 

Judges of the Southern District of California held a 

groundbreaking ceremony for the project in December. 

Sufficient funding for a new courthouse in Los Angeles, 

another pressing space need, has yet to be allocated.

Judges recognized during the year included Circuit Judge 

M. Margaret McKeown, who received the 2009 Founder’s 

Award from the American Bar Association Immigration 

Justice Project. Circuit Judge Richard Paez was the 

recipient of the Benjamin Aranda Award from the Mexican 

American Bar Association in Los Angeles. Circuit Judge 

Consuelo M. Callahan received the ATHENA Award from 

Greater Stockton Chamber of Commerce. Circuit Judge 

Kim McLane Wardlaw was presented with the Ernestine 

Stahlhut Award from the Women Lawyers Association 

of Los Angeles. Senior Circuit Judge Dorothy W. Nelson 

was selected by Los Angeles County Bar Association as its 

2009 Outstanding Jurist, and Circuit Judge Harry Pregerson 

received the Tom Bradley Lifetime Achievement Award 

from the Shelter Partnership organization.

Ninth Circuit courts mourned the passing of a 

number of judges during the year. They included an 

esteemed colleague from the Court of Appeals, Senior 

Circuit Judge Melvin T. Brunetti, Senior District Judge 

Napoleon A. Jones, Jr., of the Southern District of 

California and Senior District Judge Robert M. Takasugi 

of the Central District of California.

We invite you to review this report further for more 

information about the work of the courts of the West.

are proposed by a chief district judge and approved by 

the chief judge of the circuit. The circuit is developing 

a model Local Rule and sample guidelines for courts 

considering participating in the program.

The council also moved toward adoption of suggested 

principles and practices for use of electronic devices in 

courthouses and courtrooms by jurors, the bar, media 

and the public. The recommendations, which are meant 

to assist district and bankruptcy courts in developing 

electronic device policies, were developed by a special 

subcommittee drawn from standing circuit committees 

involved with information technology, jury trials and 

media relations. Special consideration was given to jurors 

to avoid their inappropriate use of the devices to conduct 

research or communicate with others about trials.

The slow pace of judicial appointments and the lack of 

new judgeships continued to impact courts of the circuit 

in 2009. Six nominations for district court judgeships were 

made over the course of the year. Three nominees were 

confirmed, all in December. Two of the new judges filled 

vacancies on the Central District of California bench, while 

the third was seated in the Northern District of California. 

There were 13 vacant judgeships among the district courts 

at year’s end. The Court of Appeals began and ended 

the year with two vacancies and no nominees. One of 

the vacancies was a new judgeship that became effective 

January 21, 2009, the court’s first new judgeship in 25 years.

The judiciary welcomed the introduction in September 

of the Federal Judgeship Act of 2009. The bill would 

authorize 63 new judgeships for the nation’s federal trial 

and appellate courts with a third of the new positions 

allocated to courts in the Ninth Circuit. No court is in 

greater need of new judgeships than the Eastern District 

of California, whose judges carry caseloads nearly three 

times larger than the national average and who are 

terminating cases at nearly twice the national average. 

The Eastern District would gain four permanent 

judgeships and one temporary judgeship under the 

legislation. We are hopeful Congress will concur in the 

need for the new positions and move to approve the bill.

Also during the year, the Judicial Council of the Ninth 

Circuit made one appointment to the Ninth Circuit 

Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, and the BAP judges chose 

a new chief judge. Judges of the district courts filled six 

vacant magistrate judge positions.
Ninth Circuit Overview 5

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 court.

Judicial districts within the Ninth Circuit are 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 is the largest and busiest of federal 

circuits.

Judges serving on the circuit and district courts are 

known as Article III judges, a reference to the article in 

the Constitution establishing the federal judiciary. Article 

III judges are nominated by the president, confi rmed by 

the Senate and serve lifetime appointments upon good 

behavior. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has been 

authorized 29 judgeships and ended 2009 with two vacant 

positions. For most of the year, the district courts were 

authorized 112 judgeships, 13 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 court 

of appeals, 21 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, 61 senior judges heard cases, presided over 

procedural matters, served on committees and conducted 

other business during 2009.

Ninth Circuit Overview

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 the court 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. 

In 2009, bankruptcy courts in the Ninth Circuit 

were authorized 68 permanent and fi ve temporary 

judgeships. The district courts were authorized 100 fulltime and 12 part-time magistrate judges. Several courts 

also utilized recalled magistrate judges. 

Unless otherwise noted, statistics in this report cover 

the 2009 calendar year.
6 Annual Report 2009 

The Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit is the governing 

body of the United States Courts for the Ninth Circuit. 

The 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)]. 

Among the noteworthy actions taken by the Judicial 

Council in 2009 was the approval in December of a 

pilot program permitting the use of cameras, on an 

experimental basis, in the federal trial courts of the 

circuit. The Pilot District Court Public Access Program 

limits use of cameras to civil non-jury trials with the 

permission of the chief district judge and approval from 

the chief judge of the circuit. The first case proposed 

for camera coverage, a challenge to a California voter 

initiative banning same-sex marriage, was later halted due 

to procedural errors by the district court in modifying 

its Local Rules to allow cameras. The circuit is in the 

process of developing a model Local Rule and suggested 

guidelines to assist courts considering participating in the 

pilot program. 

Also during the year, the Judicial Council:

• Tentatively approved “principles and practices”

to assist district and bankruptcy courts in developing 

policies on the use of electronic devices in the 

courthouse and courtroom.

• Requested that district and bankruptcy courts review 

their local rules to assure conformity with federal 

rules. The Circuit Library conducted a review of all 

districts’ rules to assist the districts in the process.

• Encouraged district courts to deal with potential 

problems of judicial temperament by establishing 

an ombudsman to serve as an intermediary between 

the bench and bar. Complaints brought to the 

Judicial Council & Administration

ombudsman would be communicated to the 

chief district judge or their delegate. The idea 

was discussed at the bench-bar breakfast of the 

2009 Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference.

• Approved for comment and notice an 

amendment to the rules governing operation 

of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, which hears 

appeals for bankruptcy court decisions. The 

amendment would allow the BAP to sit en banc

for cases deemed of exceptional importance. 

An en banc court would consist of all of the 

judges of the BAP, rather than a three-judge 

panel.

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.

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.

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 Ancer L. Haggerty of the District 

of Oregon served as chair of the conference from 

February 2008 to January 2009. He was succeeded by 

Chief District Judge John W. Sedwick of the District 

of Alaska, who served as chair from February 2009 

to September 2009. Chief District Judge Vaughn 

R. Walker of the Northern District of California 

assumed the gavel in October 2009.
Ninth Circuit Overview 7

Elevated to chief district judge during the year were District 

Judges Ralph R. Beistline, District of Alaska; Audrey B. 

Collins, Central District of California; Susan Oki Mollway, 

District of Hawaii; Ann L. Aiken, District of Oregon; and 

Lonny R. Suko, Eastern District of Washington

Conference of Chief Bankruptcy Judges

The Conference of Chief Bankruptcy Judges advises the 

Judicial Council on the administration of the bankruptcy 

courts within the circuit. The conference, which also 

meets twice per year, consists of chief bankruptcy 

judges from each district and the chief bankruptcy judge 

of the BAP. Chief Bankruptcy Judge Robert J. Faris 

of the District of Hawaii chaired the conference from 

May 2008 to November 2009, when he was succeeded 

by Chief Bankruptcy Judge Randall J. Newsome of 

the Northern District of California, who will chair the 

conference until September 2010.

Elevated to chief bankruptcy judge during the year was 

Bankruptcy Judge James M. Marlar of the District of 

Arizona.

Magistrate Judges Executive Board

The Magistrate Judges Executive Board communicates 

to the Judicial Council on behalf of the more than 100 

Executive Committee

Offi ce of the Circuit Executive

Cathy A. Catterson 

Circuit & Court of Appeals Executive

Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit

Chief Judge Alex Kozinski

Judicial Conference 

Executive Committee

• Lawyer Representatives 

Coordinating 

Committee

Associations of

Judicial Offi cers

• Conference of Chief 

District Judges

• Conference of Chief 

Bankruptcy Judges

• Magistrate Judges 

Executive Board

Liaison Committees

• District Clerks

• Bankruptcy Clerks

• Chief Probation

& Chief Pretrial 

Services Offi cers

• Jury Trial 

Improvement

• Ninth Circuit

Judges Education

• Pacifi c Islands

• Public Information & 

Community Outreach

• Self Represented 

Litigants (Pro se)

• Space & Security

• Wellness

• Advisory Board

• Alternative Dispute 

Resolution

• Capital Case

• Court-Council 

Committee on 

Bankruptcy Judge 

Appointments

• Federal Public 

Defenders

• Information 

Technology

• Jury Instructions

Advisory Standing 

Committees
8 Annual Report 2009 

full-time, part-time and recalled magistrate judges serving in 

the district courts. The 14-member board meets twice a year 

and holds a session with all magistrate judges at the annual 

circuit conference. Magistrate Judge Karen L. Strombom of 

the Western District of Washington is the current chair. Her 

term began in July 2008 and will expire in July 2010.

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 

management and pro se (self-represented) litigation units. The 

Office of the Appellate Commissioner, also in the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals Clerk’s Office, reviews Criminal 

Justice Act vouchers for cases that come before the court of 

appeals.

Associated Court Units

Ninth Circuit courts also rely on several important courtrelated agencies to ensure the fair administration of justice. 

The district courts maintain oversight of U.S. Probation 

and Pretrial Services offices. Pretrial services officers are 

responsible for background investigations and reports on 

defendants awaiting trial, while probation officers supervise 

persons convicted of federal crimes after their release into 

the community. All but one judicial district in the circuit is 

served by either a federal public defender or a community 

defender, who represents 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.

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 its administrative decisions and 

policies. By statute, the circuit executive is the 

administrative assistant to the chief judge of the 

circuit and secretary to the council. The circuit 

executive and her staff assist in identifying circuitwide needs, conducting studies, developing and 

implementing policies, and by 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 annual Ninth 

Circuit Judicial Conference.
Judicial Transitions
10 Annual Report 2009 10 Annual Report 2009

distriCt Judge

Judge Jacqueline H. Nguyen 

was confi rmed by the Senate to 

serve as a district judge for the 

Central District of California on 

December 1, 2009. She received 

her commission on December 

4, 2009, becoming the fi rst 

Vietnamese-American Article 

III judge in the United States. Judge Nguyen served 

previously as a California Superior Court judge in Los 

Angeles County from 2002 to 2009. She served as the 

supervising judge for the Alhambra courthouse just prior 

to her appointment to the federal bench. She was the 

fi rst Vietnamese-American judge appointed in the State 

of California. Judge Nguyen was an assistant United 

States attorney from 1995 to 2002 in the U.S. Attorney’s 

Offi ce in the Central District of California, where she 

served for two years as a deputy chief in the General 

Crimes Section, Criminal Division. Judge Nguyen began 

her career as an associate with the law fi rm of Musick, 

Peeler & Garrett in Los Angeles from 1991 to 1995. She 

received her A.B. from Occidental College in 1987 and 

her J.D. from the University of California at Los Angeles, 

School of Law, in 1991. Judge Nguyen also studied at 

Waseda University in Tokyo, Japan, from 1985 to 1986. 

She maintains chambers in Los Angeles.

mAgistrAte Judges

Judge David T. Bristow was 

appointed a magistrate judge for 

the Central District of California 

on June 22, 2009. Prior to coming 

onto the bench, Judge Bristow 

was an attorney and shareholder at 

Reid & Hellyer, APC, in Riverside, 

Calif., from 2003 to 2009. From 

1997 to 2003, he was an attorney with several law fi rms in 

Riverside, including Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, 

from 1999 to 2003, and Burke, Williams & Sorenson 

from 1998 to 1999. He served as a deputy public 

defender from 1996 to 1997 and as a deputy district 

attorney from 1994 to 1996, both in San Bernardino 

County. Judge Bristow received his B.A. in 1985 from 

the California State University at San Bernardino, where 

he was an executive editor of the university’s Chronicle 

Newspaper. He received his J.D. from the University of 

the Pacifi c, McGeorge School of Law, in 1993. Judge 

Bristow served as a lawyer representative on the Ninth 

Circuit’s Judicial Conference Executive Committee from 

2006 to 2009. He maintains chambers in Riverside. 

Judge John Richard Creatura 

was appointed a magistrate 

judge for the Western District of 

Washington on March 17, 2009. 

Prior to coming onto the bench, 

Judge Creatura was a trial attorney 

with the law fi rm of Gordon, 

Thomas, Honeywell, Malanca, 

Peterson & Daheim, LLP, in Tacoma, Wash., from 1979 

to 2009. He served on the fi rm’s board of directors 

and was board chair in 1997 and 1998. Judge Creatura 

received his undergraduate degree from Tufts University 

in 1974 and his law degree from the University of the 

Pacifi c, McGeorge School of Law, in 1978. Before 

graduation, he served as a law clerk to then-Ninth Circuit 

Court of Appeals Judge Anthony M. Kennedy. Judge 

New Judges
Judicial Transitions 11

Creatura served on a number of Ninth Circuit committees 

including the Advisory Board, the Advisory Committee 

on Rules, and the Lawyer Representatives Coordinating 

Committee. He also served on the Civil Justice Reform Act 

Committee for the Western District of Washington. Judge 

Creatura maintains chambers in Tacoma.

Judge William V. Gallo was 

appointed a magistrate judge for the 

Southern District of California on 

October 15, 2009. Prior to coming 

onto the bench, he served his 

country in Iraq in both military and 

civilian capacities. A Marine Corps 

reservist called up in 2003, he initially 

served as commanding offi cer of the First Marine 

Expeditionary Force headquarters group, then as staff 

judge advocate, the senior legal advisor to the commanding 

general of the expeditionary force, from 2003 to 2005. He 

returned to Iraq in 2008 as a civilian, serving as director of 

the Law and Order Task Force in Iraq, working directly for 

General David Petraeus, then commander of all U.S. troops 

in Iraq. Judge Gallo served as federal prosecutor in the in 

the Southern District of California from 1991 to 2009 and 

Northern District of Illinois from 1989 to 1991. He 

worked as a state prosecutor in the Yuma County (Arizona) 

Attorney’s Offi ce from 1986 to 1989. Judge Gallo received 

his undergraduate degree from Duquesne University in 

Pittsburgh in 1976 and his law degree from Loyola 

University, School of Law, in 1979. Judge Gallo served in 

the Marine Corps and Marine Corps Reserve from 1978 to 

2005, retiring at the rank of colonel. He maintains 

chambers in San Diego.

Judge John E. McDermott was 

appointed a magistrate judge for the 

Central District of California on 

July 2, 2009. Prior to coming onto 

the bench, Judge McDermott was a 

senior litigation partner at Howrey 

LLP, in Los Angeles. He previously 

was a senior litigation partner at two 

other Los Angeles law fi rms, Cadwalader, Wickersham, & 

Taft LLP from 1994 to 1997 and McDermott, Will & 

Emery from 1987 to 1990. He also worked from 1981 to 

1987 at Memel, Jacobs, Pierno, Gersh & Ellsworth in Los 

Angeles, where he held various positions including 

co-managing partner and chairman of the litigation 

department. Judge McDermott worked from 1972 to 

1981 at Western Center on Law and Poverty, Inc., rising 

from staff attorney to executive director. He was an 

associate at Latham & Watkins in Los Angeles from 1971 

to 1972. He taught courses at the USC Law School from 

1980 to 1981 and from 1973 to 1974. Judge McDermott 

received his B.A. from Ohio Wesleyan University in 1968 

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

maintains chambers in Los Angeles.

Judge Jennifer L. Thurston was 

appointed a magistrate judge for 

the Eastern District of California 

on December 31, 2009. Prior to 

her appointment to the bench, she 

served as a California Superior 

Court pro tem judge (Kern County) 

from 2007 to 2009. Judge 

Thurston was a deputy county counsel, Offi ce of the 

County Counsel, Kern County, from 1997 to 2009. 

Prior to that, she was a Kern County district attorney 

and law clerk in 1997. She served as vice president of 

Kern County Bar Association’s Executive Committee in 

2009 and served on its board of directors from 2003 to 

2007 and from 2008 to 2009. Judge Thurston received 
12 Annual Report 2009 

mAgistrAte Judges CoNtiNued

her B.S. from the California State University at 

Bakersfi eld in 1989 and her J.D. in 1997 from the 

California Pacifi c, School of Law, in Bakersfi eld. She 

maintains chambers in Bakersfi eld. 

Judge Nandor J. Vadas was 

appointed a full-time magistrate 

judge for the Northern District of 

California on November 5, 2009. 

He had served the court previously 

as a part-time magistrate judge from 

2004 to 2009. Prior to coming onto 

the bench, he served as deputy 

district attorney in Humboldt County, California, from 

1999 to 2004; as an assistant U.S. attorney for the 

Northern District of California, from 1989 to 1998; and 

as a deputy district attorney for the City and County of 

San Francisco from 1983 to 1989. He engaged in private 

practice and real estate development from 1978 to 1983. 

Judge Vadas received his B.A. from the University of 

California at Santa Cruz in 1974 and his J.D. from the 

University of California, Hastings College of the Law, in 

1978. He maintains chambers in Eureka. 

NeW seNior Judges

Judge Maxine M. Chesney was 

confi rmed by the Senate to serve as 

a district judge for the Northern 

District of California on May 8, 

1995. She received her commission 

on May 10, 1995, and took senior 

status on June 30, 2009. Prior to her 

appointment to the federal bench, 

Judge Chesney served as a California Superior Court judge 

(City and County of San Francisco) from 1983 to 1995 

and as a California Municipal Court judge in San Francisco 

from 1979 to 1983. She worked in the Offi ce of the San 

Francisco District Attorney as a senior trial attorney, head 

trial attorney, and assistant chief deputy from 1968 to 

1979. Judge Chesney received her B.A. from the 

University of California at Berkeley in 1964 and her J.D. 

from the University of California, Boalt Hall School of 

Law, in 1967. She maintains chambers in San Francisco.

Judge Helen W. Gillmor was 

confi rmed by the Senate to serve as a 

district judge for the District of Hawaii 

on October 7, 1994. She received her 

commission on October 11, 1994. 

Judge Gillmor served as chief judge of 

the district from 2005 to 2009 and 

took senior status on June 30, 2009. 

Prior to coming onto to the federal bench, Judge Gillmor 

served as a district judge, District Court of Hawaii, First 

Circuit, from 1983 to 1985, and as a district judge, Hawaii 

State Family Court, First Circuit, from 1977 to 1983. She was 

a lecturer at the University of Hawaii in 1975. Judge Gillmor 

worked as a deputy public defender in the Offi ce of the 

Public Defender in Honolulu from 1972 to 1974. She served 

as a law clerk to Chief Justice William Richardson of the 

Hawaii State Supreme Court in 1972. Judge Gillmor received 

her B.A. from Queens College, City University of New York, 

in 1965, and her LL.B. from Boston University, School of 

Law, in 1968. She maintains chambers in Honolulu.
Judicial Transitions 13

Judge Ancer L. Haggerty was 

confi rmed by the Senate to serve as a 

district judge for the District of 

Oregon on March 25, 1994. He 

received his commission on March 

28, 1994. Judge Haggerty served as 

chief judge of the district from 2002 

to 2009 and took senior status on 

August 26, 2009. Prior to his appointment to the federal 

bench, Judge Haggerty served as a judge of the Oregon 

Circuit Court (Multnomah County) from 1990 to 1993 and 

as a judge of the Oregon District Court (Multnomah 

County) from 1989 to 1990. He was in private practice as a 

partner at Schwabe, Williamson and Schwabe from 1983 to 

1988 and was an associate at Souther, Spaulding, Kinsey, 

Williamson and Schwabe from 1977 to 1982. He entered 

active duty in the Marine Corps in 1966 and was released in 

1970 at the rank of 1st lieutenant after serving in Vietnam. 

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

Oregon at Eugene in 1967 and his J.D. from the University 

of California, Hastings College of the Law, in 1973. He 

maintains chambers in Portland.

Judge Garr M. King was confi rmed 

by the Senate to serve as a district 

judge for the District of Oregon on 

April 27, 1998. He received his 

commission on April 30, 1998, and 

took senior status on January 30, 

2009. Prior to coming onto the 

bench, he was a partner at Kennedy, 

King and Zimmer, LLP, from 1971 to 1998. Judge King 

was an associate then partner at Morrison and Bailey from 

1966 to 1971. He served as a deputy district attorney, 

Multnomah County, Oregon, from 1963 to 1966. Judge 

King worked as a trust offi cer at The Oregon Bank (now 

Bank of America) from 1961 to 1963. He entered active 

duty in the Marine Corps in 1954 and was released as 

sergeant in 1957. Judge King received his undergraduate 

degree from the University of Utah in 1959 and his LL.B. 

from Northwestern College of Law in Portland in 1963. 

He maintains chambers in Portland. 

Judge M. James Lorenz was 

confi rmed by the Senate to serve as 

a district judge for the Southern 

District of California on October 1, 

1999. He received his commission 

on October 5, 1999, and assumed 

senior status on October 25, 2009. 

Prior to his appointment to the 

bench, he was a partner at Lorenz, Alhadeff, Cannon and 

Rose, LLP, from 1988 to 1999; a partner at Finley, Kumble 

and Wagner from 1983 to 1987; and a partner at Lorenz, 

Alhadeff, Fellmeth, Arkin and Multer in 1982. Judge 

Lorenz served as a fi rst assistant U.S. attorney then U.S. 

attorney in the U.S. Attorney’s Offi ce for the Southern 

District of California from 1978 to 1981. He was a 

deputy district attorney in the San Diego County District 

Attorney’s Offi ce from 1966 to 1978. Judge Lorenz 

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

Berkeley in 1957 and his J.D. from California Western, 

School of Law, in San Diego in 1965. He maintains 

chambers in San Diego. 

Judge Marilyn Hall Patel was 

confi rmed by the Senate to serve as 

a district judge for the Northern 

District of California on June 26, 

1980. She received her commission 

on June 30, 1980. Judge Patel 

served as chief judge of the district 

from 1997 to 2004 and took senior 

status on October 30, 2009. Prior to her appointment to 

the federal bench, Judge Patel served as a California 

Municipal Court judge, Oakland-Piedmont Judicial 

District, from 1976 to 1980. She was an adjunct 

professor of law at the University of California, 
14 Annual Report 2009 14 Annual Report 2009

NeW seNior Judges CoNtiNued

Hastings College of the Law, from 1974 to 1976. Judge 

Patel engaged in private practice in San Francisco from 

1971 to 1976. Judge Patel received her B.A. from 

Wheaton College in Norton, Mass., in 1959 and her J.D. 

from Fordham University, School of Law, in 1963. She 

maintains chambers in San Francisco. 

Judge Alicemarie H. Stotler was 

confi rmed by the Senate to serve as 

a district judge for the Central 

District of California on May 1, 

1984. She received her commission 

on May 3, 1984. Judge Stotler 

served as chief judge of the district 

from 2005 to 2009 and assumed 

senior status on January 5, 2009. Prior to coming onto 

the bench, Judge Stotler engaged in private practice in 

Newport Beach, Calif., from 1983 to 1984. She served 

as a California Superior Court judge (Orange County) 

from 1978 to 1983; as a justice pro tem, Fourth District 

Court of Appeal, Division Two, San Bernardino, Calif., 

in 1977; and as a California Municipal Court judge, 

Harbor Judicial District, Newport Beach, from 1976 to 

1978. Judge Stotler also engaged in private practice in 

Tustin, Calif., from 1973 to 1976 and was a deputy 

district attorney in Orange County from 1967 to 1973. 

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

Southern California in 1964 and her J.D. from the USC 

Law School in 1967. She maintains chambers in Santa 

Ana.

Judge Robert H. Whaley was 

confi rmed by the Senate and 

received his commission to serve 

as a district judge for the Eastern 

District of Washington on June 

30, 1995. He served as chief 

judge of the district from 2005 to 

2009 and took senior status on 

July 12, 2009. Prior to his appointment to the federal 

bench, Judge Whaley served as a Washington Superior 

Court judge (Spokane County) from 1992 to 1995. He 

was a partner at Winston and Cashatt in Spokane from 

1972 to 1992. He also served as an assistant U.S. 

attorney for the Eastern District of Washington from 

1971 to 1972 and was a trial attorney for the Department 

of Justice, Land and Natural Resources Division, from 

1969 to 1971. Judge Whaley received his A.B. from 

Princeton University in 1965 and his J.D. from Emory 

University, School of Law, in 1968. He maintains 

chambers in Spokane. 

Judge Ronald M. Whyte was 

confi rmed by the Senate to serve as 

a district judge for the Northern 

District of California on February 

6, 1992. He received his 

commission on February 10, 1992, 

and assumed senior status on 

March 2, 2009. Prior to his 

appointment to the federal bench, Judge Whyte served 

as a California Superior Court judge (Santa Clara 

County) from 1989 to 1992. He engaged in private 

practice as an associate then partner with the law fi rm of 

Hoge, Fenton, Jones and Appel in San Jose, Calif., from 

1971 to 1989. Judge Whyte received his A.B. from 

Wesleyan University in 1964 and his J.D. from the USC 

Law School in 1967. He served as a lieutenant, Naval 

Reserve, Judge Advocate General’s Corps, from 1968 to 

1971. Judge Whyte maintains chambers in San Jose.
Judicial Transitions 15

iN memoriAm

Judge Melvin T. Brunetti, 75, of the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth 

Circuit, died on October 30, 2009. 

Nominated by President Reagan, 

Judge Brunetti was confi rmed by 

the Senate on April 3, 1985, and 

received his commission on April 4, 

1985. He assumed senior status on 

November 11, 1999. Prior to his appointment to the 

bench, Judge Brunetti was a shareholder in the fi rm of 

Allison, Brunetti, MacKenzie, Hartman, Soumbeniotis 

and Russell from 1978 to 1985; an associate then partner 

in the fi rm of Laxalt, Bell, Berry, Allison and LeBaron 

from 1970 to 1978; and an associate at Vargas, Bartlett 

and Dixon from 1964 to 1969. Judge Brunetti attended 

the University of Nevada and received his J.D. from the 

University of California, Hastings College of the Law, in 

1964. Judge Brunetti is survived by his wife, Gail; two 

children, Nancy and Bradley; two brothers, Larry and 

Frank; two grandchildren; and four great-grandchildren. 

Another son, Melvin Jr., is deceased. 

Judge Napoleon A. Jones, Jr., 69, a 

district judge of the U.S. District 

Court for the Southern District of 

California, died on December 12, 

2009. Nominated by President 

Clinton, Judge Jones was 

confi rmed by the Senate on 

September 14, 1994, and received 

his commission on September 15, 1994. Judge Jones 

took senior status on September 19, 2007. Prior to 

coming onto the federal bench, he served as a California 

Superior Court judge (San Diego County) from 1982 to 

1994 and as a Municipal Court judge in San Diego from 

1977 to 1982. He was in private practice in San Diego 

from 1975 to 1977. He began his career working fi rst as 

an intern then staff attorney for California Rural Legal 

Assistance in Modesto, Calif., from 1971 to 1973, 

followed by a stint as a staff attorney at the Defenders, 

Inc., of San Diego, from 1973 to 1975. Judge Jones 

received his B.A. from San Diego State University in 

1962 and his J.D. from the University of San Diego, 

School of Law, in 1971. He served in the Army from 

1962 to 1965. Judge Jones is survived by his wife of 19 

years, Rosalyn; a daughter by a previous marriage, Lena 

Laini Jones; and two grandsons.

Judge Donal D. Sullivan, 77, a 

retired bankruptcy judge of the 

U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the 

District of Oregon, died on 

January 23, 2009. He was initially 

appointed on October 1, 1969 and 

was appointed to a 14-year term on 

September 22, 1986. He served as 

chief bankruptcy judge from 1994 to 1997. Before his 

appointment, Judge Sullivan was the clerk of the U.S. 

District Court for the District of Oregon from 1965 to 

1969 and, before that, served as fi rst assistant U.S. 

attorney for the district from 1962 to 1965. He was an 

assistant attorney general for the State of Oregon from 

1960 to 1962. Judge Sullivan attended Loyola University 

and the Illinois Institute of Technology, and received his 

J.D. from De Paul University Law School in 1957. He 

served on active duty with the Marines in 1949 and was 

honorably discharged in 1953. Judge Sullivan was 

preceded in death by his wives, Marilyn and Carol, and is 

survived by his wife, Dede; two sisters; ten children and 

step-children; and 27 grandchildren and stepgrandchildren.
16 Annual Report 2009 16 Annual Report 2009

iN memoriAm CoNtiNued

Judge Robert M. Takasugi, 78, a 

district judge of the U.S. District 

Court for the Central District of 

California, died on August 4, 2009. 

Nominated by President Ford, 

Judge Takasugi was confi rmed by 

the Senate on May 6, 1976, and 

received his commission on May 7, 

1976. He assumed senior status on September 30, 1996. 

Prior to coming onto the federal bench, he served as a 

California Superior Court judge (Los Angeles County) 

from 1975 to 1976 and as a California Municipal Court 

judge in Los Angeles from 1973 to 1975. He engaged in 

private practice in Los Angeles, Calif., from 1960 to 1973 

and was a hearing examiner for the Los Angeles Police 

Commission from 1962 to 1965. He was a corporal in the 

Army from 1953 to 1955. Judge Takasugi received his 

B.S. from the University of California at Los Angeles in 

1953 and his J.D. from the USC Law School in 1959. He 

is survived by his wife, Dorothy; his son, Jon; and his 

daughter, Lee.
Ninth Circuit Highlights
18 Annual Report 2009 

courtS find neW WaYS to reSpond

to influX of PRO SE caSeS

Pro se cases, in which at least one party is not represented 

by legal counsel, continue to pose signifi cant challenges 

to all federal courts. These cases generally require additional 

time and effort by judges and court staff due to the selfrepresented litigant’s limited familiarity with the law. Federal 

courts in the Ninth Circuit have responded in various ways 

to assure that pro se cases are handled appropriately.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals received 5,931 pro se

appeals, which accounted for 48.5 percent of all new appeals 

in 2009. Prisoner petitions, 2,744, and agency appeals, 1,321, 

accounted for 68.5 percent of new pro se fi lings.

In 2009, district courts in the Ninth Circuit reported 15,663 

pro se fi lings, representing 35.4 percent of all civil fi lings 

in the circuit. Of these pro se fi lings, 68.5 percent were 

prisoner petitions and 31.5 percent were non-prisoner 

petitions. 

Bankruptcy courts reported 53,641 pro se fi lings, 

representing 15.8 percent of all bankruptcy fi lings in 

the circuit for 2009. Nationally, pro se fi lings represent 7 

percent of all bankruptcy fi lings.

The Court of Appeals migration to an electronic case 

management and fi ling system, completed in 2009, has 

improved the administration of pro se cases. The new 

system allows for the use of form-generated orders for 

greater effi ciency and uniformity. The system is being used 

to produce many of the initial orders issued in pro se appeals, 

such as orders to show cause relating to jurisdiction, fees 

and summary disposition. In addition, the court can now 

use the same system for fi ling pleadings and tracking cases 

within the court, instead of a separate system.

Finally, the court is now scanning all paper fi lings, including 

pro se fi lings, so that everything in every pro se case is now 

available for judges, court staff and litigants to view on 

Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system.

Another important technological advancement at both 

the trial and appellate court level is the promulgation of 

the National Three Strikes Database, which was designed 

and implemented by the Ninth Circuit and is being used in 

federal courts throughout the nation. The database makes 

it easier to identify pro se litigants who fi le cases found to 

be without merit. As a means of discouraging frivolous 

fi lings, those with three or more “strikes” are required to 

pay fi ling fees rather than proceeding in forma pauperis. 

Pro Se Clinics

In February 2009, the Central District of California 

opened a pro se clinic in the federal courthouse in 

downtown Los Angeles. The clinic is administered by 

a non-profi t law fi rm, Public Counsel. It offers on-site 

information and guidance to individuals representing 

themselves in federal civil suits. From February 2009 to 

December 2009, pro se litigants made 1,340 visits to the 

clinic. Of the total, 45.3 percent were fi rst-time visitors 

and 54.7 percent were repeat visitors.

The most common types of claims made by pro se

litigants who visited the Los Angeles clinic were civil 

rights, foreclosure and housing-related, employment 

discrimination, cases claiming diversity or supplemental 

jurisdiction, and intellectual property. About 13 percent 

of pro se litigants were defendants.

The Northern District of California also opened an 

on-site clinic in the federal courthouse in San Francisco. 

The program is sponsored by the Bar Association of San 

Francisco’s Volunteer Legal Services Program. 

Pro Se Committee

In 2009, the Ninth Circuit’s Committee on SelfRepresented (Pro se) Litigants Committee focused on 

creating educational and training opportunities for court 

staff and judges. The committee sponsored a pro se

conference and has been working with the Federal Judicial 

Center to create a federal bench guide on pro se issues. 

Pictured from left are Chief District Judge Roger L. Hunt of the 

District of Nevada and District Judge Susan R. Bolton of the 

District of Arizona. 
Ninth Circuit Highlights 19

The committee also continues to explore alternative 

case management practices and assists courts with the 

implementation and evaluation of their pro se programs.

The fifth annual Ninth Circuit Pro se Conference, held 

September 10-11 in Coronado, California, drew some 

100 district and magistrate judges, pro se law clerks, 

and other court staff. The event was supported by the 

Office of the Circuit Executive. All 15 judicial districts 

of the circuit and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 

participated. 

Senior Circuit Judge J. Clifford Wallace, who has 

chambers in San Diego, opened the conference by 

recognizing the dedication and effort by all those 

working on pro se litigation. District Judge A. Howard 

Matz of the Central District of California, who 

delivered the keynote address, was instrumental in the 

development of the Central District’s downtown Los 

Angeles federal pro se clinic. 

Northern District of California Magistrate Judge Edward 

M. Chen, who served as chair of the Pro Se Committee from 

2006 to 2009, welcomed the conference attendees. The 

program included several panel discussions led by experts on 

prison issues such as placement, protective segregation, and 

the grievance process; an update on pro se law clerk staffing 

formula; effective case management strategies; Alternative 

Dispute Resolution (ADR) as case management tool; and an 

update on the National Three Strikes database. 

Conference speakers included Erwin Chemerinsky, dean and 

distinguished professor of law at the University of California, 

Irvine School of Law and Richard Zorza, coordinator, 

National Self-Represented Litigation Network. The program 

also featured a demonstration of E-Pro se, an electronic 

document assembly system for pro se litigants developed by the 

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

Sentencing commiSSion HearS from JudgeS

J

udges and court staff from federal courts of the Ninth 

Circuit were among the witnesses who testified at a United 

States Sentencing Commission public hearing held May 27-28 

at Stanford Law School in Palo Alto, California.

The hearing was the second in a series of regional hearings 

called to mark the 25th anniversary of the Sentencing Reform 

Act of 1984, which established the USSC and authorized the 

commission to develop guidelines for use by federal judges in 

determining criminal sentences. The guidelines were initially 

mandatory but subsequently deemed to be advisory by the 

Supreme Court of the United States.

Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski and Circuit Judge 

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

Ninth Circuit led off the Stanford program, sharing views of 

sentencing issues from the appellate bench. 

Federal trial court judges from four western states also offered 

remarks. They included Chief District Judge Vaughn R. Walker 

(CAN); Chief District Judge Susan Oki Mollway (HI); Chief 

District Judge B. Lynn Winmill (ID); and Chief District Judge 

Robert S. Lasnik (WAW). District Judges Charles R. Breyer 

(CAN) and Edward F. Shea (WAE) also gave remarks.

Other witnesses included U.S. attorneys, federal public 

defenders, and probation officers from throughout 

the circuit.

Congress established the U.S. Sentencing Commission 

as an ongoing, independent agency within the judicial 

branch. Its seven voting members are appointed by 

the president and confirmed by the Senate, and serve 

six-year terms. The attorney general and the chair of 

the U.S. Parole Commission, or their designees, serve 

as ex officio members of the commission.

In calling the hearings, the USSC sought to hear 

directly from judges, federal prosecutors and defense 

counsel, academics and others involved with sentencing 

policy and practices. Topics included the effects of the 

Supreme Court’s 2005 Booker decision, which made the 

guidelines advisory, on both sentencing and appellate 

review of sentences.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals received more 

than 700 appeals in fiscal year 2009 related to either 

sentencing or sentencing and convictions. 
20 Annual Report 2009 

nintH circuit PRO BONO recognition

Lawyers from Northern California and the Pacifi c Northwest were recognized during the year for their 

pro bono representation of appellants before the United 

States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Receptions held in March at the James R. Browning U.S. 

Courthouse in San Francisco and in June at the William 

K. Nakamura U.S. Courthouse in Seattle acknowledged 

the contributions of lawyers, law fi rms and law schools to 

the Ninth Circuit pro bono program, which provides 

representation to about 200 appellants in civil cases each 

year. Cases are selected for the program based on legal 

merit and the lack of representation by legal counsel.

The Ninth Circuit pro bono program was begun in 1995 

by the court working with attorneys who serve as lawyer 

representatives of the judicial districts within the circuit. A 

lawyer representative or designee coordinates the program 

in each district, recruiting attorneys, maintaining lists of 

available attorneys and matching counsel to pro bono cases. 

Lawyers participating in the program are guaranteed an 

opportunity to argue the case before an appellate panel.

Receiving certifi cates were three district coordinators, 

Sanford “Sandy” Svetcov of the Northern District of 

California, Margaret Johns of the Eastern District of 

California and Andrew Jacobs of the Nevada and Arizona 

districts. Susan Gelmis, a supervising staff attorney and 

director of the Ninth Circuit pro bono program, singled out 

Mr. Svetcov, who has served as the Northern California 

coordinator since the program began.

Also recognized were the law schools at the University of 

California at Davis and Santa Clara University. Both schools 

have faculty-supervised programs in which third-year law 

students take pro bono cases, conducting research, writing 

briefs and arguing cases. UC Davis has been involved since 

the program began, while Santa Clara University joined in 

2006.

Certifi cates also were given to attorneys Charles L. Post, 

Thadd Blizzard, Todd R. Gregorian and Warrington S. 

Parker, III; and to the law fi rms of Latham & Watkins, 

which has taken 20 pro bono cases; and Morrison & Foerster, 

which has taken 33 cases.

Among those recognized from the Pacifi c Northwest was 

Leonard Feldman, the long-time pro bono coordinator for the 

districts of Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Washington. 

He has placed over 100 appeals for the program, a fair 

number of whom he has represented personally. Mr. 

Feldman also works with the University of Washington, 

School of Law Clinic, supervising students who take appeals 

through the Ninth Circuit’s pro bono program. 

Julie Ronken, former pro bono coordinator for the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals, and Matt Adams, attorney from the 

Northwest Immigrant Rights Project also received certifi cates 

for providing pro bono representation of appellants before the 

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

Also recognized were the law fi rms of Perkins Coie, LLP, 

and Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP; the University of Idaho, 

College of Law; and the University of Washington, School of 

Law, for their involvement in the circuit’s pro bono program.

Attorney Sanford “Sandy” Svetcov, left, receives a certifi cate of 

appreciation from Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski. 

Mr. Svetcov has coordinated the court of appeal’s Northern 

California pro bono program since 1995.
Ninth Circuit Highlights 21

reporting capabilities. There is no extra charge for fi ling 

electronically.

Court outreach to the legal community has helped smooth 

the way for the ECF rollout. 

Since 2008, court staff has conducted 50 hands-on 

training sessions in Anchorage, Seattle, Portland, Eugene, 

Billings, Boise, San Francisco, Sacramento, Honolulu, 

Phoenix, Tucson, Las Vegas, Los Angeles and San Diego. 

More than 2,800 attorneys, paralegals and legal secretaries 

have participated in the training.

One of the more important training sessions was held in 

February in Washington, D.C., for 150 attorneys and other 

staff of the Offi ce of Immigration Litigation in the U.S. 

Department of Justice. The OIL group represents the 

government in immigration appeals, which account for 

26.8 percent of the Ninth Circuit’s caseload.

Special sessions also have been provided to the offi ces 

of U.S. attorneys and to attorneys general in the western 

states.

Hands-on training continues to be offered monthly at the 

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

Ninth Circuit headquarters. Training videos and other 

materials also are available from the court’s ECF web site: 

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

While it may never be a paperless operation, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth 

Circuit is making a successful transition to the use of 

electronic documents.

The nation’s largest federal appellate court switched 

to an improved electronic case management in March 

2008 then introduced electronic case fi ling, or ECF, to 

the federal bar in September 2008. Since then, more 

than 23,000 attorneys have signed up to use ECF, which 

became mandatory in the Ninth Circuit on January 2, 

2009.

“I think we’re making good progress,” Clerk of Court 

Molly C. Dwyer said of the ECF implementation. “It 

has been a learning experience for the attorneys, for 

staff and for judges. I am grateful to everyone for 

their continued patience as we continue to refi ne the 

process.”

The court was averaging about 325 new ECF users each 

week and expects to eventually register more than 30,000 

attorneys for the service. Registration is mandatory for 

all attorneys and enables the court to associate attorneys 

with new or ongoing cases. 

ECF allows attorneys to fi le documents directly with the 

court via the Internet using standard computer hardware 

and software. The system offers numerous benefi ts 

for the bar, most notably 24-hour access, automatic 

email notice of case activity, and expanded search and 

The ECF team includes, 

front row from left, 

Bradley Ybarreta, John 

Maurer, Marianne 

Armenta, Denise 

Leonard, John Ilagan, 

Annette Wegscheider, 

Liz Noteware; back row 

from left, Tim Perdue, 

Howard Hom, Estela 

Urrutia, Tina Price, 

Don McFarland, Chris 

Bransford. Not pictured: 

Pat Harris, Tin 

Nguyen, Susan Soong, 

Kathleen Butterfi eld.

nintH circuit BencH, Bar maKing tranSition

to electronic documentS
22 Annual Report 2009 

Judicial conference naVigateS

turBulent timeS

The 2009 Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference, held July 20-23 in Monterey, California, drew nearly 600 judges, attorneys, court 

staff and special guests, including Secretary Janet Napolitano of the 

United States Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Solicitor 

General Elena Kagan.

The conference is held annually 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 such circuit.” Most of the judges who preside and lawyers who 

practice in the federal courts of the western United States participate.

Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski welcomed attendees to the 

annual event, which was last held in Monterey in 2004. Attorney Kelli L. 

Sager of Los Angeles presided over the event as chair of the Conference 

Executive Committee, while Chief Judge Irma E. Gonzalez of the 

Southern District of California served as program chair. 

Educational Programs

Organized around the theme “Navigating Through Turbulent Times,” 

the conference included programs on improving the administration of 

justice in the Ninth Circuit, U.S. economic woes and how upheavals 

in the media have changed news gathering and dissemination. Other 

presentations focused on cyber-crime, civil litigation involving climate 

change and judicial wellness. 

A special program to observe Abraham Lincoln’s 200th birthday 

was held on the opening day, featuring an enactment of a fi ctional 

conversation between General Ulysses S. Grant and Lincoln fi ve days 

after the Confederate surrender ended the Civil War. Circuit Judge 

Michael Daly Hawkins portrayed Grant, and Circuit Judge Stephen 

Trott assumed the role of Lincoln. 

General session presentations included “Where Have All the Reporters 

Gone?” The segment focused on the disappearance of traditional media 

and the emergence of new online media. Circuit Judge Mary M. Schroeder 
Ninth Circuit Highlights 23

to courts in the Ninth Circuit and its court system 

as a whole and proposed solutions to address them. 

Issues discussed included judicial temperament and 

demeanor and inconsistency in “local” rules. The panel 

was introduced by Circuit Judge N. Randy Smith of 

Pocatello. Panel members included Circuit Judge Sidney 

R. Thomas of Billings; District Judge Neil V. Wake of 

Phoenix; Chief Bankruptcy Judge Peter W. Bowie of 

San Diego; Chief Magistrate Judge Karen L. Strombom 

of Tacoma, Washington; Cathy A. Catterson, Ninth 

Circuit and Court of Appeals Executive; Richard 

H. Weare, District Clerk and Court Executive for 

the District of Arizona; and Robbin Itkin, a lawyer 

representative from the Central District of California.

A panel of experts discussed “Hollywood CyberCrime: Fact or Fiction?” The session focused on the 

possibility of cyber terrorists taking over the nation’s 

computer systems, crippling banks, businesses, and the 

government. They shared their inside views on what 

was technically possible and which scenarios were 

likely to be part of the real world. Panel members 

and moderator were introduced by Jo S. Levy, a lawyer 

representative from the District of Oregon. Experts 

included Scott Borg, director and chief economist, 

U.S. Cyber Consequences Unit; Ovie Carroll, director, 

Cybercrime Lab, Computer Crime and Intellectual 

Property Section, U.S. Department of Justice; Dorothy 

Denning, professor, Naval Post Graduate School; and 

Sean Varah, Ph.D., chief executive officer, MotionDSP.

of Phoenix introduced the panel, which included Chief District 

Judge Robert S. Lasnik of the Western District of Washington; 

Nina Totenberg, legal affairs correspondent for National Public 

Radio; Harold W. Fuson, Jr., executive vice president, Copley 

Press; and David Lat, founding editor of the website, Above 

the Law. Linda Greenhouse, Knight Distinguished Journalistin-Residence and Joseph Goldstein Senior Fellow in Law at 

Yale Law School, moderated the panel. 

In “The Economy in Crisis: The Practical and Legal Limits 

to Government Intervention” segment, experts discussed 

the practical and constitutional limits upon the executive, 

legislative, and judicial branches of the federal government 

amidst the U.S. financial crisis. Panelists included J. Bradford 

DeLong, professor of economics at the University of 

California at Berkeley; Richard A. Epstein, James Parker Hall 

distinguished service professor at the University of Chicago 

Law School; Joseph A. Grundfest, William A. Franke 

professor of law and business at Stanford Law School; 

and Ronald D. Sugar, Ph.D., chief executive officer and 

chairman of the board, Northrop Grumman Corporation. 

David A. Kaplan, contributing editor of Newsweek, 

moderated the panel. Introductions were made by Circuit 

Judge Milan D. Smith, Jr., of El Segundo, California. 

In the session on “Breakfast with the Bench – Improving 

the Administration of Justice in the Ninth Circuit: A Frank 

Discussion Between the Bench and Bar,” Ninth Circuit 

lawyer representatives were asked to respond to survey 

questions about problems, issues, or concerns pertaining 

Pictured on the opposite page from the top are Secretary Janet Napolitano, U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Circuit Judge 

Michael Daly Hawkins, and on the bottom from left are Magistrate Judges Suzanne H. Segal (CAC) and John Richard Creatura 

(WAW), and District Judge Marilyn L. Huff (CAS). On this page from the left are Conference Chair Kelli L. Sager, Chief Circuit 

Judge Alex Kozinski, and U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan.
24 Annual Report 2009 

The Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference provides an opportunity to 

recognize outstanding service to the legal profession and judicial 

system. Awards established by the Judicial Council of the Ninth 

Circuit, the Administrative Offi ce of the United States Courts, and 

the prestigious American Inns of Court are presented during the 

conference. The following recipients were announced for 2009:

Ninth Circuit Professionalism Award

Attorney Harry H. Schneider, Jr., received the 2009 American Inns 

of Court Ninth Circuit Professionalism Award, which recognizes “a 

senior practicing lawyer or judge whose life and practice display sterling 

character and unquestioned integrity, coupled with ongoing dedication 

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

Mr. Schneider is a widely respected trial lawyer and partner in the 

Seattle law fi rm of Perkins Coie. He has been a litigator for more than 

30 years with the fi rm, where his practice includes intellectual property, 

securities, professional liability defense, and trust and estate actions. 

Mr. Schneider has served on the American Bar Association’s 

Committees on Professional Discipline and Professional Liability 

and as a special counsel to the Washington State Bar Association’s 

Disciplinary Committee. He received his bachelor’s degree from the 

University of California at Berkeley in 1976 and his J.D. from the 

University of Chicago Law School in 1979.

The American Inns of Court, a national organization with 340 inns 

and more than 100,000 active and alumni members, is dedicated to 

excellence, civility, professionalism, and ethics in the practice of law. 

An American Inn of Court is an amalgam of judges, lawyers, and in 

some cases, law professors and law students. The inns are intended to 

improve the skills, professionalism and ethics of the bench and bar.

Alternative Dispute Resolution Awards

Dawn M. Osborne-Adams, of the U.S. District Court for the Central 

District of California in Los Angeles, received the 2009 Robert F. 

Peckham Award for Excellence in Alternative Dispute Resolution. 

The Peckham award recognizes judiciary employees who have 

signifi cantly advanced the delivery of effective court-based ADR 

programs in the circuit.

As manager of ADR programs for the Central District, Ms. 

Osborne-Adams provides ADR information and guidance to parties, 

counsel, judges, court staff, attorney settlement offi cers, academic 

institutions, other courts and the public. Her contributions include 

standardizing the system used to assign settlement attorneys to 

Judicial conference aWard preSentationS

Pictured from top: Circuit Judge 

Mary M. Schroeder (right) with 

Harry H. Schneider, Jr., Ninth 

Circuit Professionalism Award 

recipient; Senior Circuit Judge 

Dorothy W. Nelson with Dawn 

M. Osborne-Adams, 2009 

Peckham Award recipient; 

and Senior Circuit Judge 

Dorothy W. Nelson with Janet 

Martinez, senior lecturer and 

director of the Gould Center at 

Stanford Law School.
Ninth Circuit Highlights 25

cases, implementing a reimbursement policy for their out-ofpocket expenses, developing a statistical database for ADR cases, 

coordinating ADR programs with other courts, and promoting 

better understanding of ADR in the legal community and general 

public. She has managed the Central District program since 2006. 

Stanford Law School’s Gould Center for Conflict Resolution 

programs, received the 2009 Ninth Circuit ADR Education Award, 

which recognizes law schools that have significantly advanced 

ADR scholarship and research. Stanford Law School’s Gould 

Negotiation and Mediation Program integrates ADR principles 

into the legal education curriculum. The program consists of 

eight different courses, plus opportunities for clinical practice and 

research. Janet Martinez, senior lecturer and director of the Gould 

Center, accepted the award on behalf of the school at the Ninth 

Circuit Judicial Conference in Monterey, Calif.

John P. Frank Award

Also announced at the conference was the selection of attorney 

Thomas J. McDermott, Jr., as recipient of the 2009 John P. 

Frank Award. The Frank award recognizes a lawyer who has 

“demonstrated outstanding character and integrity; dedication to 

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

promoting collegiality among members of the bench and bar; and a 

lifetime of service to the federal courts of the Ninth Circuit.”

Mr. McDermott’s professional career spans 50 years and includes 

substantial service to the federal courts in the Ninth Circuit. He has 

handled over 200 complex cases in the past 20 years ranging from 

commercial, securities, high technology, consumer fraud, copyright, 

antitrust litigation, patent, and unfair competition. Some of the cases 

he handled included 40 class actions.

The last day of the conference included 

a segment on the ongoing debate about 

climate change and stricter environmental 

regulation. Panel experts discussed and 

examined recent trends in civil litigation 

arising from allegations about climate change. 

Chief District Judge Anthony W. Ishii, 

Eastern District of California, introduced 

the panel members and moderator. Panelists 

included David Bookbinder, chief climate 

counsel, Sierra Club; Sam Kazman, general 

counsel, Competitive Enterprise Institute; 

Ellen Peter, chief counsel, California Air 

Resources Board; and Robert A. Wyman, 

Jr., partner and global co-chair of Climate 

Change Practice Group, Latham & Watkins, 

LLP.

As an ongoing effort to ensure the well-being 

of judges and court staff throughout the 

Ninth Circuit, a health segment has become 

a regular part of the conference program. 

“Use It or Lose It: Mental Fitness at the 

Brain Gym” featured Dr. Michael Merzenich, 

Ph.D., co-founder and chief scientific officer 

of Posit Science, and a leading pioneer in 

brain plasticity research. Attorney Wendy 

Holton, Conference Executive Committee 

member from the District of Montana, 

introduced Dr. Merzenich to the conference 

attendees. 

Conversation with the Solicitor General

Solicitor General Elena Kagan participated 

in the “Conversation” segment of the 

conference, held on the closing day of the 

conference. Chief Judge Alex Kozinski and 

Kelli L. Sager engaged the solicitor general 

on a number of legal fronts, including how 

the government chooses its cases. 

Pictured right 

is Thomas J. 

McDermott 

receiving the John 

P. Frank Award 

in San Francisco 

from Steve 

Cochran, chair of 

the Ninth Circuit 

Advisory Board.
26 Annual Report 2009 

The Washington state legal community and 

invited guests from across 

the country gathered in 

Seattle to honor Senior 

Circuit Judge Betty Binns 

Fletcher of the United 

States Court of Appeals 

for the Ninth Circuit.

Judge Fletcher was 

honored at a law 

symposium held on March 6 at the University of 

Washington, School of Law. The event, which 

was hosted by members of the Washington 

Law Review, celebrated Judge Fletcher’s career 

achievements and contributions to the law, women’s 

rights and the UW School of Law.

For more than 30 years, Judge Fletcher has been 

a member of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 

Nominated by President Carter and confi rmed by 

the Senate in 1979, she is the court’s seventh most 

senior judge in years of service.

A Tacoma native and 1956 graduate of UW School 

of Law, Judge Fletcher is widely credited with 

breaking the “glass ceiling” that prevented women 

lawyers in Washington from rising to positions 

of greater authority and infl uence. In addition to 

being the fi rst woman from Washington to serve 

on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, she was 

the fi rst woman president of the King County 

Bar Association and the fi rst woman to serve on 

the Washington State Bar Association Board of 

Governors.

The symposium included a keynote address by 

Judge Fletcher’s son, Circuit Judge William A. 

Fletcher, who followed her onto the Ninth Circuit 

bench in 1998, and panel discussions of areas 

of the law which have been infl uenced by Judge 

Fletcher’s decisions. Panelists included deans 

and professors from some of the nation’s most 

prestigious law schools.

Judge fletcHer Honored

for lifetime of WorK

WellneSS committee SponSorS

pre-retirement Seminar for

JudgeS

The Ninth Circuit Wellness Committee sponsored a preretirement seminar in April that was attended by more than 

50 judges and their spouses. It was the fourth pre-retirement 

seminar organized by the Offi ce of the Circuit Executive and 

sponsored by the Wellness Committee, which was established 

by the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit to promote 

health and wellness among judges.

District of Nevada Judge Philip M. Pro, chair of the 

Wellness Committee, gave the welcoming and opening 

remarks. He has been a member of the committee since 

2000 and became chair in 2005.

The program included sessions on benefi ts, fi nancial 

planning, tax and estate planning, and presentations focusing 

on health, exercise and wellness. Panelists and speakers 

included Carol Sefren, chief of the Judges Compensation 

and Retirement Services Offi ce, Administrative Offi ce of 

the United States Courts; Richard Carlton, a professional 

counselor who staffs the Ninth Circuit’s Private Assistance 

Line Service (PALS); attorney Tom O’Rourke who specializes 

in tax and estate planning; attorney Karen P. Schaeffer who 

specializes in fi nancial planning; and the late Dr. Gene Cohen, 

director of the Center for Aging, Health and Humanities at 

George Washington University.

The seminar also featured a panel of judges discussing 

their experiences with taking senior status or retirement. 

Panelists included Senior Circuit Judge Jerome Farris of 

Seattle; Senior District Judge Consuelo B. Marshall (CAC); 

Recalled Magistrate Judge J. Kelley Arnold (WAW) who 

received a distinguished service award for his commitment 

to the Ninth Circuit’s wellness initiative; Fern Smith, former 

Federal Judicial Center director and Northern California 

district judge; and John E. Ryan, a former Central District 

bankruptcy judge. 

Pictured from left 

are Senior Circuit 

Judge Jerome Farris 

and Senior District 

Judge Consuelo B. 

Marshall (CAC).
Space & Facilities 27

courtS encouraged to deVelop policieS

for electronic deViceS

The Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit has sought 

to assist appellate, trial and bankruptcy courts in 

dealing with the use of electronic devices and wireless 

communications within a courthouse by the bar, public, 

media and jurors.

In October, the Judicial Council approved the distribution 

of a paper entitled “Principles and Practices for Electronic 

Devices,” which discussed issues to be considered in 

developing a court policy for electronic devices. The 

document was developed by a special subcommittee 

appointed by Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, who selected 

representatives from three standing circuit committees: 

Information Technology, Jury Trial Improvement, and 

Public Information and Community Outreach.

In addition to input from the committees, the council 

sought feedback from its advisory groups, which include the 

Conferences of Chief District Judges and Chief Bankruptcy 

Judges, and the Magistrate Judges Executive Board. The 

paper also was shared with members of the bar, including the 

Media Law Resource Center, journalists and others.

In developing the paper the subcommittee:

• Recognized the inherent authority of a judge 

presiding over a proceeding to control activities 

in his or her courtroom, including the use 

of electronic devices capable of wireless 

communications. 

• Concluded that a broad ban on electronic 

devices is not desirable and may not be feasible 

given the expanding wireless communications 

infrastructure and the extent to which the public 

now depends on this technology.

• Recommended that use of cell phones, “smart 

phones,” laptop computers and other devices 

for telephonic and data communications be 

allowed in public areas of a courthouse, but 

be restricted to data communications only in 

courtrooms. Use of devices for photography or 

audio and video recording would be prohibited 

in all locations.

• Acknowledged the potential for misuse 

of the technology and offered additional 

recommendations for safeguards pertaining to 

use by jurors.

• Advised that every effort be made to inform 

the general public and jurors about where and 

how electronic devices may be used in the 

courthouse, including notices posted in the 

courthouse and on the court’s website.

The committee noted that reporters, bloggers and 

other observers seated in the courtroom may use these 

devices to prepare and post online news accounts and 

commentary during the proceedings. 

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and a number of 

district courts in the circuit are currently considering 

policies based on recommendations found in the 

paper.
28 Annual Report 2009 

Ninth Circuit Welcomes 

New Law Clerks

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held its 

annual law clerk orientation program September 23-24 at the James 

R. Browning U.S. Courthouse in San Francisco. 

Some 150 incoming law clerks spent two days in meetings with 

judges and court staff, discussing a wide range of legal and 

operational matters. The program included sessions on immigration, 

habeas corpus law, the en banc process and procedures, sentencing and 

ethics. Highlights included remarks by U.S. Supreme Court Justice 

Anthony M. Kennedy, who was visiting the court and agreed to 

participate in an informal conversation moderated by Circuit Judge 

Richard R. Clifton of Honolulu. 

Also participating in the program were Chief Judge Alex Kozinski 

and Circuit Judges Sidney R. Thomas, Stephen Reinhardt, Michael 

Daly Hawkins, M. Margaret McKeown, Circuit and Court of 

Appeals Executive Cathy A. Catterson and Clerk of Court Molly C. 

Dwyer. Law clerks are selected by each of the court’s judges and 

generally serve for one year. 

it conference for pretrial

& proBation

The fi rst National Conference on Information 

Technology in U.S. Pretrial Services and U.S. Probation 

was held January 26-29 in Los Angeles. Organized by the 

U.S. Pretrial Services and the U.S. Probation offi ces of 

the Central District of California, in partnership with the 

Federal Probation and Pretrial Offi cers Association and 

others, the conference drew more than 420 offi cers and 

court staff.

The event included informational presentations on 

IT updates, state-of-the-art practices and technology, 

innovative programs, and much more. Participants 

included probation and pretrial services chiefs, deputy 

chiefs, and IT managers. The conference also welcomed 

more than 60 professionals representing 30 corporate 

sponsors of the event.

“All too often, our knowledge of technology has been 

gathered in piecemeal fashion from conferences and 

meetings or gleaned from emails and websites. But this 

cutting-edge conference brought everything together, pairing 

interesting general sessions with labs, workshops, and focused 

seminars,” said George M. Walker, chief pretrial services 

offi cer for the Central District.

A Microsoft Corp. executive set the stage for the conference 

by showing a video of how new technology is integrating 

computers, cell phones, touch technology, and much 

more into simple table top access. Another special guest 

presenter wowed the audience with research of how different 

generations utilize technology in different ways, and how the 

social media sites YouTube and Facebook are revolutionizing 

interpersonal communications. 

Contributing to the success of the program was staff of the 

Administrative Offi ce of the U.S. Courts, including the Offi ce 

of Probation and Pretrial Services and its IT division.
Ninth Circuit Highlights 29

In addition to COOP implementation after disasters, 

the conference also addressed the anticipated effects 

of a pandemic fl u, such as that posed by the avian 

fl u virus emerging from Southeast Asia. Attendees 

participated in “table-top” exercises meant to simulate 

the impacts of a pandemic fl u on the public and 

private sectors. Speakers included representatives 

from the San Francisco Department of Public Health.

The Administrative Offi ce of the United States Courts 

was represented at the conference by Bill Lehman, 

chief of Judicial Emergency Preparedness, and Craig 

Jenkins, chief of the Management Division, both of 

whom stressed the need for COOP training and testing. 

Jim Buchanan, senior educational specialist from the 

Federal Judicial Center, also attended.

Ninth Circuit staff involved in organizing and 

presenting the program included Heather Henson, 

then COOP coordinator, and Don Vincent, assistant 

circuit executive for IT. District Clerk Bruce Rifkin of 

the Western District of Washington and Deputy Clerk 

Anita Bock of the Northern District of California were 

among the moderators.

The conference opened with remarks from Chief 

District Judge Vaughn R. Walker of the Northern 

District and closed with comments by Circuit and 

Court of Appeals Executive Cathy A. Catterson.

High water was on the minds of many at the 2009 Ninth Circuit Continuity of Operations Planning 

Conference held January 7-9 in San Francisco. 

The event featured speakers from storm-ravaged courts 

in Florida, Iowa and Louisiana, and drew more than 

120 participants, including chief district judges, district 

executives, IT department heads and other court unit 

managers. It was one of the two COOP programs 

organized by the Offi ce of the Circuit Executive to keep 

judges and court staff thinking about how to carry on 

operations following a natural or man-made disaster. A 

second COOP conference took place March 11-13 in 

Honolulu.

Judging by Robert Phelps’ experience, recovery will never 

be easy, but it can be easier if you have a COOP plan in 

place. Phelps is the district clerk in the Northern District of 

Iowa, which suffered a devastating fl ood in June. He said 

he watched with disbelief as the Cedar River overfl owed 

its banks, swamping much of downtown Cedar Rapids, 

including the U.S. courthouse there.

The fl ood waters eventually reached mid-way up the fi rst 

fl oor of the building, taking out the court’s IT department 

and probation unit. The damage proved so extensive that 

the building was permanently abandoned.

Phelps said his court was very fortunate to have tested its 

COOP plan only the month before by relocating the entire 

operation to a divisional offi ce in Waterloo. Even with 

that experience, it was tough to get over the disorientation 

that a swift and radical change in environment produces, 

he said.

“If you don’t train, resuming normal operations is going to 

be near impossible,” said Phelps.

Similar stories were told by other guest speakers. Marla 

Hamilton, bankruptcy clerk for the Eastern District of 

Louisiana, focused on communications and lessons learned 

by her court during Hurricanes Katrina and Gustav. Travis 

Green, chief deputy district clerk in the Northern District 

of Florida, addressed infrastructure issues and fi nding 

alternate facilities after Hurricane Ivan, while Steve Beasley, 

supervising probation offi cer in the Middle District of 

Florida, discussed how probation and pretrial services were 

carried out under COOP.

nintH circuit coop conference focuSeS

on diSaSter recoVerY

Bill Lehman (right) of 

the Administrative Offi ce 

described the AO’s Judiciary 

Emergency Response Team. 
30 Annual Report 2009 

central diStrict participateS in great

SoutHern california SHaKeout drill

Some 500 judges and other court staff of the U.S. district court, bankruptcy court, and probation 

and pretrial services, for the Central District of 

California, including some circuit judges who 

maintain chambers in Los Angeles, participated in the 

Great California Shakeout Drill on October 15.

The “drop, cover, and hold” and shelter-in-place 

(SIP) exercises that took place were part of the 

Central District’s long term continuity of operations 

and emergency planning process.

“The drills ensure that we identify any potential 

problems,” said District Judge Dale S. Fischer, who 

serves on the district court’s security committee. 

“It allows us to verify that everyone knows his or 

her responsibilities in case of an emergency,” Judge 

Fischer added.

Seismology experts have predicted that a magnitude 

7.8 earthquake will eventually hit Southern California, 

one of several types of disasters to which the area is 

prone.
Ninth Circuit Highlights 31

Efforts to promote team management in courts of the Pacifi c Islands received a big boost in February when two 

former Ninth Circuit chief judges participated in a leadership 

training program in the Republic of Palau.

Senior Circuit Judge J. Clifford Wallace and Circuit Judge Mary 

M. Schroeder took part in the February 1-4 program, held in 

Palau’s capital city, Koror. It was the fi rst simultaneous visit to 

any Pacifi c Island jurisdiction by two former chief judges, who 

were welcomed enthusiastically by the local judiciary.

Palau, which became an independent nation in 1994, consists of 

a string of more than 340 islands roughly equidistant from the 

Philippines and Papua New Guinea. Only nine of the islands 

are inhabited and about two-thirds of the population resides in 

the capital city. 

Judge Wallace, who led the Ninth Circuit from 1991 to 1996, 

championed educational and training opportunities for Pacifi c 

Island judges and court staff and helped secure funding from 

the U.S. Department of the Interior for those activities. He 

is a chairman emeritus of the Ninth Circuit’s Pacifi c Islands 

Committee, which organized the various programs.

Judge Schroeder, chief judge from 2000 to 2007, began her term 

on the Pacifi c Islands Committee in December 2007.

The Palau event was organized in cooperation with the Pacifi c 

Judicial Council, an unincorporated non-profi t association of 

the supreme and superior courts of Palau, American Samoa, the 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Federated 

States of Micronesia and the U.S. Territory of 

Guam. The U.S. District Court in Guam is an active 

member of the council. The council was formed 

to provide a collaborative and educational forum 

for sharing ideas, information, and resources to 

improve the administration of the courts and the 

delivery of justice in the Pacifi c region. 

The training program was designed to promote a 

team approach to management between the chief 

judge and court manager. Members of the PIC 

committee held a roundtable report of recent judicial 

developments as well as joint leadership training with 

the chief justices, presiding judges and their chief 

administrators.

Judge Wallace discussed the role of the chief 

justice in a partnership with the chief judicial 

administrator, giving examples from his own 

experience in the Ninth Circuit. Each team was 

asked to consider a number of issues designed 

to strengthen the chief judge-court administrator 

relationship. Among the many ideas discussed was 

that of balancing chief justice accountability with 

effective delegation to staff.

Judge Wallace and Judge Schroeder praised 

the progress being made by the Pacifi c Island 

judiciaries, particularly their willingness to share 

ideas and experiences.

At the invitation of Palau Supreme Court Chief 

Justice Arthur Ngiraklsong, Judge Schroeder also 

spoke to the local bar, remarking upon the role of 

the federal courts in the internment of JapaneseAmerican citizens during World War II. The 

practice was upheld by the Ninth Circuit and U.S. 

Supreme Court in Hirabayashi v. U.S. The Ninth 

Circuit subsequently vacated its ruling in 1987 in an 

opinion written by Judge Schroeder.

nintH circuit fuelS team effort

in pacific iSland courtS

Left: Circuit 

Judge Mary M. 

Schroeder of 

Phoenix talks

to group.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 

frequently welcomes international visitors, including 

judges from other countries seeking information about 

the American legal system. In 2009, a group of 35 

judges from Thailand visited the James R. Browning 

U.S. Courthouse in San Francisco as part of a two-week 

course, focusing on consumer protection issues.

The Thai judiciary is attempting to fully implement 

Thailand’s Consumer Protection Act and Product 

Liability Act passed in 2008. The course was organized 

by the University of California, Berkeley School of 

Law, following a request received by Berkeley Law from 

Thailand’s Ministry of Justice seeking information on U.S. 

consumer protection and product liability laws. 

Thai judges who visited the court include Presiding Justice 

Rangron Pariponpochanapisuti of the Court of Appeal 

in Bangkok and Research Judge Thanarat Thangthong of 

the Offi ce of the Chief Judge of Region Four in Khon 

Khen. Several of the judges previously met Senior Circuit 

Judge J. Clifford Wallace in his visits to Thailand as part of 

his participation in international initiatives to improve the 

administration of justice in other countries. 

The visiting judges also met with Circuit Judges Stephen 

Trott, M. Margaret McKeown and Sandra S. Ikuta, and 

listened to oral arguments conducted at the Browning 

Courthouse. They also attended a presentation by 

Chief Circuit Mediator Claudia L. Bernard regarding 

appellate mediation and a presentation by Supervising 

Case Management Attorney Paul Keller on Ninth Circuit 

innovations in case management. 

international ViSitorS include

contingent of tHai JudgeS

Pictured above are Circuit Judges Stephen Trott and 

M. Margaret McKeown. Pictured below are Circuit Judges 

Trott, McKeown and Sandra S. Ikuta with the Thai judges.
Space & Security
34 Annual Report 2009 

Federal judges gathered June 22 in Seattle for the 

rededication of the William Kenzo Nakamura 

United States Courthouse for use by the U.S. Court 

of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The rededication ceremony marked the successful 

completion of a three-year project to renovate and 

modernize the historic structure, which opened in 

1940 and was the fi rst building in the West designed 

specifi cally for use as a federal courthouse. The 

courthouse was listed on the National Register of 

Historic Places in 1980 for its national and local 

signifi cance.

The ceremony, held in the courthouse’s new en banc

courtroom, also drew elected offi cials, community 

leaders, members of the bar, and representatives 

of the U.S. General Services Administration, which 

oversaw the renovation project.

Speakers included Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Alex 

Kozinski of Pasadena; Circuit Judge Richard C. 

Tallman and Senior Circuit Judge Betty Binns Fletcher, 

who have their chambers in the courthouse; and U.S. 

Rep. Jim McDermott of Seattle and local resident 

Steve Finley, who were instrumental in having the 

building named for a Japanese-American war hero. 

U.S. Senators Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell sent 

representatives with messages of congratulations to the 

court and community.

Robin G. Graf, acting regional administrator for the 

GSA’s Northwest/Arctic Region, served as master of 

ceremonies. Members of the Seattle Nisei Veterans 

Committee were present to post the colors and 

lead the assembly in the recitation of the Pledge of 

Allegiance.

The courthouse was rededicated in 2001 in the name 

of Private First Class William Kenzo Nakamura, a 

Seattleite who was awarded the Medal of Honor for 

heroism in World War II. One of the thousands 

of Americans of Japanese ancestry forced into 

government internment camps in 1942, Mr. Nakamura, 

nonetheless, enlisted in the Army. He was assigned to 

the all Japanese-American 442nd Regimental Combat 

Team and fought in Italy. On July 4, 1944, after single 

handedly eliminating an enemy machine gun position 

nintH circuit, general SerViceS

adminiStration rededicate Seattle courtHouSe
Space & Facilities 35

Pictured above on the opposite page is the Nakamura U.S. 

Courthouse and below from left are Congressman Jim 

McDermott, Circuit Judge Richard C. Tallman, and Rob Graf, 

GSA acting regional administrator for Region 10. Pictured 

above left on this page is Courtroom II located on the 7th floor. 

The artwork to the right and below, “The Effects of Good and 

Bad Government” by Caleb Ives Bach, illustrates the influence 

of ruling bodies on the public.
36 Annual Report 2009 

Judge McNamee 

Honored for Space & 

Security Committee 

Service

and volunteering to remain behind while his platoon 

evacuated from a ridge, he was killed by an enemy sniper.

Mr. Nakamura was posthumously awarded the 

Distinguished Service Cross, the country’s second highest 

military award. In 2000, President Clinton upgraded 

the award to a Medal of Honor, our country’s highest 

military honor.

The Nakamura Courthouse had been occupied primarily 

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

Washington, which relocated in 2004 to a new facility in 

the downtown area. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 

has had space in the courthouse since the early 1970s and 

is now the principal tenant. The court meets monthly 

in Seattle, considering approximately 350 appeals per 

year, mostly from Washington, Idaho and Montana with 

additional fi lings from Alaska and Oregon. The clerk of 

the court and the circuit mediator have offi ces here.

The GSA renovation and modernization project 

included security enhancements and restoration of 

the courtrooms and other interior spaces. All historic 

items such as furniture, paneling, fi xtures and doors 

were inventoried, carefully removed and stored while the 

construction was underway. As needed, historic pieces 

were repaired and restored before being returned to the 

courthouse.

In addition to modernization of electrical and mechanical 

systems, seismic upgrades have greatly enhanced the building’s 

ability to withstand a major earthquake. 

Renovation of the Nakamura Courthouse was expected to 

receive Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design 

(LEED) certifi cation, under the auspices of the U.S. Green 

Building Council. This certifi cation results from the design 

and specifi cation of energy effi cient building systems, the 

reuse and recycling of existing building materials, selection of 

new materials with low environmental impact and many other 

measures infl uencing the overall site and building design.

The M. A. Mortenson Construction Company acted as 

construction manager and constructor for the project, and 

Weinstein Architects and Urban Designers LLC supplied 

architectural services. 

Senior District Judge Stephen M. 

McNamee of the U.S. District Court for 

the District of Arizona was honored for 

his eight years of service as a member 

of the Ninth Circuit’s Space and Security 

Committee. Judge McNamee chaired the 

committee from 2006 to 2009. Jeffrey E. 

Neely, acting regional administrator of the 

General Services Administration, Pacifi c 

Rim Region, presented Judge McNamee 

with a framed certifi cate and photograph 

collection of courthouse projects 

completed during Judge McNamee’s tenure 

on the committee.
Space & Facilities 37

courtHouSeS in deSign pHaSe

Billings Courthouse

Gross Square Footage: 146,742

Architects:

 Design/Build ARRA, project run with

 Mortenson Construction

 & NBBJ (Seattle)

Completion Date: 2012 

Prince Jonah Kūhiō Kalaniana’ole 

Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse

Renovation

Gross Square Footage: 862,269

Architects: Gensler and Associates

Completion Date:

 Courthouse (Phase I) 2014

 Federal Building (Phase II) 2017

Bakersfi eld Courthouse

Gross Square Footage: 35,000

Architects: NBBJ (San Francisco)

Completion Date: 2012
38 Annual Report 2009 

San Diego United States Courthouse

Gross Square Footage: 466,886 

Architects: Richard Meier & Partners

Completion Date: 2013

courtHouSe under conStruction
The Work of The Courts
40 Annual Report 2009 

Refl ecting both diligent work by its judges and staff and a continuing decline in some types of 

fi lings, the United States Court of Appeals for the 

Ninth Circuit closed more appeals than it received in 

2009, reducing its pending caseload in the process.

The court continued to face the challenges posed 

by pro se appeals in which at least one party is not 

represented by legal counsel. These cases, which 

generally require additional time and effort by court 

staff due to the unrepresented litigant’s unfamiliarity 

with the law, have grown steadily in recent years and 

now comprise nearly half of the court’s caseload.

For the year, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 

reported 12,223 new appeals, down 8.1 percent from 

2008. It remained the nation’s busiest appellate 

court with 21.4 percent of all new appeals nationally. 

Appellate fi lings nationwide were down 7.1 percent 

and by as much as 17.5 percent among the individual 

circuits.

The court terminated 12,916 cases in 2009, up 2.6 

percent from 2008. The court’s pending caseload 

stood at 16,364 cases at year end, down 4.1 percent 

from the prior year.

The downturn in new fi lings in the Ninth Circuit 

and elsewhere was due largely to fewer appeals of 

decisions rendered by the U.S. Department of Justice’s 

Board of Immigration Appeals, which reviews actions 

taken by the nation’s immigration judges. Immigration 

appeals have been declining steadily since 2005, which 

represented the highpoint of a wave of new fi lings 

resulting from expedited BIA reviews ordered by the 

justice department following the 9/11 attacks of 2001. 

In the Ninth Circuit, BIA appeals numbered 3,280 in 2009, 

down almost 25 percent from the year before.

Breakdown of New Appeals

District courts generated 7,772 appeals, or 63.6 percent, 

of the 2009 new fi lings. Agency appeals, which include 

BIA cases, numbered 3,458, or 28.3 percent. Original 

proceedings, 847 cases, and bankruptcy, 146 cases, rounded 

out the fi ling categories.

The Central District of California, the largest and busiest 

court in the circuit, generated the greatest number of 

appeals among the district courts. In 2009, the Central 

District produced 2,129 appeals, or 27.4 percent of the 

total district court fi lings. The Central District fi lings were 

up by 20 cases from the prior year.

Ten other district courts in the circuit also generated more 

appeals in 2009, led by the Eastern District of California, 

1,143 appeals, up 9.6 percent; the Northern District of 

California, 857 fi lings, up 6 percent; the Southern District 

of California, 584 fi lings, up 8.8 percent; the Western 

District of Washington, 501 fi lings, up 14.9 percent; and 

the District of Oregon, 430 fi lings, up 10.8 percent.

Generating fewer appeals were the District of Arizona, 

729 fi lings, down 5.6 percent; the District of Hawaii, 117 

fi lings, down 32.4 percent; the District of Montana, 252 

fi lings, down 16 percent; and the District of Alaska, 103 

fi lings, down 15.6 percent.

Of the appeals originating in the district courts, 6,102, 

or 78.5 percent, were civil in nature. Prisoner petitions, 

including those brought against the federal government, 

number 3,325, or 42.8 percent of the total district court 

fi lings. Other private civil fi lings numbered 2,126, or 17.4 

percent of new fi lings.

Criminal fi lings numbered 1,670, or 13.7 percent of the total, 

up slightly from 1,655 fi lings the prior year. The circuit had 

12.5 percent of criminal appeals fi led nationally. The most 

numerous criminal appeals involved drug offenses, 461 fi lings; 

criminal immigration offenses, 432 fi lings; property offenses, 

240 fi lings; fraud, 197 fi lings; fi rearms and explosives offenses, 

162 fi lings; and sex offenses, 157 fi lings. Violent offenses 

numbered 90, down 13.5 percent from 2008.

court of appealS maKeS HeadWaY

WitH Hard WorK, dip in filingS

1

Caseload Measure

2008

Total

2009

Total

Change

2008-2009

Filings 13,299 12,223 -8.1%

Terminati ons 12,586 12,916 2.6%

*Pending Cases 17,057 16,364 -4.1%

*Total pending cases for 2008 revised.

AppellAte CAseloAd profile

2008 ANd 2009
The Work of the Courts 41

Type of Appeal

2008

Filings

2009

Filings

Change

2008-09

% of 

Circuit

Total

2008

Terminati ons

2009

Terminati ons

Change

2008-09

2008

Pending

2009

Pending

Change

2008-09

Civil

U.S. Prisoner

Peti ti ons 528 521 -1.3% 4.3% 434 450 3.7% 319 536 68.0%

Private Prisoner

Peti ti ons 2,761 2,804 1.6% 22.9% 1,941 2,166 11.6% 2,079 3,413 64.2%

Other U.S. Civil 608 651 7.1% 5.3% 689 668 -3.0% 860 747 -13.1%

Other Private 

Civil 2,010 2,126 5.8% 17.4% 2,158 2,220 2.9% 2,720 2,353 -13.5%

Criminal 1,655 1,670 0.9% 13.7% 1,737 1,733 -0.2% 2,116 1,841 -13.0%

Other

Bankruptcy 165 146 -11.5% 1.2% 178 195 9.6% 245 185 -24.5%

Administrati ve 

Appeals 4,611 3,458 -25.0% 28.3% 4,531 4,615 1.9% 7,992 7,084 -11.4%

*Original

Proceedings 961 847 -11.9% 6.9% 918 869 -5.3% 230 205 -10.9%

Circuit	Total 13,299 12,223 -8.1% 12,586 12,916 2.6% 16,561 16,364 -1.2%

Nati	onal	

Appellate	Total 61,492 57,138 -7.1% 59,283 61,024 2.9% 51,240 48,686 -5.0%

Ninth	Circuit		as	%	

of	Nati	onal	Total 21.6% 21.4% 0.2% 21.2% 21.2% 0.1% 32.3% 33.6% 1.3%

*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 enti tled “reopened,” which includes all reopened appeals, has replaced the 

category enti tled “reinstated.” Therefore, data on reopened cases for 2007 and thereaft er are not comparable to data published previously 

on reinstated cases.

 Number of Months

 Ninth Circuit Nati onal 

By Stage of Appeal 2008 2009 2008 2009

From Filing of Noti ce of Appeal to Filing Last Brief 6.5 6.4 5.8 5.7

From Filing of Last Brief to Hearing or Submission 11.0 13.0 4.8 4.5

From Hearing to Final Dispositi on 1.3 1.3 2.1 2.1

From Submission to Final Dispositi on 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.7

From Filing of Noti ce of Appeal to Final Dispositi on 19.0 17.4 12.7 12

From Filing in Lower Court to Final Dispositi on in Appellate Court 38.4 36.9 30.3 31.7

Note: The subtotals do not add up to the number for total cases because total cases include original proceedings not 

reported separately in this table. This table does not include data for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

3

2 filiNgs, termiNAtioNs ANd peNdiNg CAses by AppeAl type

2008 ANd 2009

mediAN time iNtervAls iN CAses termiNAted After heAriNg or submissioN

2008 ANd 2009
42 Annual Report 2009 

Terminations and Pending Cases

Of the 12,916 appeals closed in 2009, 5,679 were terminated 

on the merits, while 6,727 were terminated on procedural 

grounds. Another 510 cases were closed by consolidation. 

Of those cases terminated on the merits, 1,912 were decided 

after oral arguments and 3,767 after submission on the 

briefs. The majority of cases were terminated by the court 

on the basis of unpublished opinions.

Of the appeals terminated on the merits, the largest categories 

were administrative appeals, 2,050; criminal appeals, 1,190; 

and private civil, 1,115. The reversal rates in these categories 

were 10.5 percent for administrative appeals, 6.6 percent for 

criminal, and 16.1 percent for private civil. 

Most prisoner petitions were terminated on procedural 

grounds. In 2009, 78 petitions involving the U.S. 

government and 662 private petitions were decided on the 

merits. The reversal rates were 12.8 percent for the U.S. 

cases and 8.3 percent for the private cases.

En banc courts, used to resolve intra-circuit confl icts or 

other legal questions of exceptional importance, heard 18 

cases in 2009. En banc decisions reached by the court in 

2009 numbered 12, 11 of those following oral argument 

and one after submission on the briefs.

Of the 16,364 cases pending at year end, about 52.8 

percent had been pending for less than a year and 47.2 

percent for more than a year.

Median Time Intervals

Median time intervals, which measure how long it takes 

for cases decided on the merits to proceed through the 

appellate process, improved for the Ninth Circuit. The 

median time interval from fi ling of a notice of appeal to 

fi nal disposition of a case was 17.4 months in 2009, down 

from 19 months in 2008. The median time interval from 

the fi ling of a case in a lower court to fi nal disposition by 

the Ninth Circuit also improved to 36.9 months from 38.4 

months the year before.

Once an appeal was fully briefed, Ninth Circuit judges 

decided cases fairly quickly. In 2009, the median time 

interval for fi nal disposition was 1.3 months for a case in 

which oral arguments were heard, and .5 months for a 

case submitted on briefs, virtually unchanged from the 

prior year.

The national median time interval from notice of 

appeal to fi nal disposition by a circuit court of appeals 

was 12 months in 2009 compared to 12.7 months the 

prior year. But the national median time interval from 

the fi ling of a case in a lower court to fi nal disposition 

by a circuit court increased to 31.7 months, up from 

30.3 months in 2008.

Note: Totals include reopened and remanded appeals as well 

as original appeals. Administrati ve agency cases previously 

reported as immigrati on service (INS) are shown under Board 

of Immigrati on Appeals (BIA) and U.S. Tax Court is shown 

under IRS.

District

Appeals

Total %	of	Total

Alaska 103 0.8%

Arizona 729 6.0%

C. Calif. 2,129 17.4%

E. Calif. 1,143 9.4%

N. Calif. 857 7.0%

S. Calif. 584 4.8%

Hawaii 117 1.0%

Idaho 133 1.1%

Montana 252 2.1%

Nevada 557 4.6%

Oregon 430 3.5%

E. Wash. 195 1.6%

W. Wash. 501 4.1%

Guam 27 0.2%

Northern Mariana Islands 15 0.1%

Bankruptcy 146 1.2%

Administrati	ve	Agencies,	Total 3,458 28.3%

 IRS 49 0.4%

 Nati onal Labor Relati ons Board 10 0.1%

 BIA 3,280 26.8%

 Other Administrati ve Agencies 119 1.0%

Original	Proceedings 847 14.0%

Circuit	Total 12,223

sourCe of AppeAls ANd origiNAl 4 proCeediNgs CommeNCed, 2009
The Work of the Courts 43

Alex Kozinski Pasadena

James R. Browning San Francisco

Alfred T. Goodwin Pasadena

J. Clifford Wallace San Diego

Procter Hug, Jr. Reno

Otto R. Skopil Portland

Mary M. Schroeder Phoenix

Betty Binns Fletcher Seattle

Jerome Farris Seattle

Harry Pregerson Woodland Hills

Arthur L. Alarcón Los Angeles

Dorothy W. Nelson Pasadena

William C. Canby, Jr. Phoenix

Robert Boochever Pasadena

Stephen Reinhardt Los Angeles

Robert R. Beezer Seattle

Cynthia Holcomb Hall Pasadena

*Melvin T Brunetti Reno

John T. Noonan, Jr. San Francisco

David R. Thompson San Diego

Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain Portland

Edward Leavy Portland

Stephen S. Trott Boise

Ferdinand F. Fernandez Pasadena

Pamela Ann Rymer Pasadena

NiNth CirCuit Court of AppeAls Judges iN order of seNiority ANd ChAmbers loCAtioN

Thomas G. Nelson Boise

Andrew J. Kleinfeld Fairbanks

Michael Daly Hawkins Phoenix

A. Wallace Tashima Pasadena

Sidney R. Thomas Billings

Barry G. Silverman Phoenix

Susan P. Graber Portland

M. Margaret McKeown San Diego

Kim McLane Wardlaw Pasadena

William A. Fletcher San Francisco

Raymond C. Fisher Pasadena

Ronald M. Gould Seattle

Richard A. Paez Pasadena

Marsha S. Berzon San Francisco

Richard C. Tallman Seattle

Johnnie B. Rawlinson Las Vegas

Richard R. Clifton Honolulu

Jay S. Bybee Las Vegas

Consuelo M. Callahan Sacramento

Carlos T. Bea San Francisco

Milan D. Smith, Jr. El Segundo

Sandra S. Ikuta Pasadena

N. Randy Smith Pocatello

*Deceased October 30, 2009

nintH circuit court of appealS JudgeS
44 Annual Report 2009 

Pro se Filings and Terminations

The court received 5,931 pro se appeals in 2009, down 6 percent from 

2008. Pro se fi lings accounted for 48.5 percent of all new appeals. Prisoner 

petitions, 2,744, and agency appeals, 1,321, accounted for 68.5 percent of 

new pro se fi lings.

The court terminated 6,097 pro se appeals in 2009. Of that number, 

4,265, or 70 percent, were closed on procedural grounds, while 1,783 were 

terminated on the merits after either oral argument or submission on the 

briefs.

Contributions by Active, Senior and Visiting Judges

The court ended the year with 27 active circuit judges and 20 senior 

circuit judges (one senior circuit judge died over the course of the year). 

In 2009, active circuit judges participated in 65.2 of the cases terminated 

on the merits, up .80 percent from the prior year. Senior circuit judges 

participated in 29.4 percent, while visiting judges helped decide 5.3 

percent.

In addition to sitting on panels, senior circuit judges served on screening 

and motions panels and various administrative court committees.

Year

Peti ti ons 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

2009 1,021 43 18 25

2008 1,254 32 16 16

2007 1,097 42 19 23

2006 932 44 25 19

2005 853 38 21 17

2004 852 47 22 25

2003 972 40 13 27

2002 1,039 35 17 17

2001 797 42 19 23

2000 1,006 48 22 23

1999 1,061 40 21 19

1998 1,456 45 16 29

1997 1,398 39 19 23

1996 1,038 25 12 13

NiNth CirCuit Court of AppeAls EN BANC bAllots 5 1996-2009
The Work of the Courts 45

WorKload riSeS in federal trial courtS

of tHe circuit

Federal trial courts of the Ninth Circuit saw signifi cant increases in both 

criminal and civil case fi lings in 2009. 

District courts in the circuit reported a 

combined 62,221 fi lings, up 12.4 percent 

from the previous year. The Ninth Circuit 

had 17.5 percent of all district court fi lings 

nationally, which rose a more modest 5.4 

percent for the year.

Criminal Filings, Terminations and 

Pending Cases

Criminal fi lings in district courts of the 

circuit numbered 17,932 in 2009, up 16.9 

percent from the prior year. Criminal 

fi lings represented 28.8 percent of the 

circuit’s total district court fi lings.

Immigration offenses remained the largest 

category of criminal fi lings, numbering 

7,776, up 12.1 percent and constituting 

38.7 percent of the total criminal fi lings 

in the circuit. Operation Streamline, 

the Department of Homeland Security 

program requiring criminal prosecution of 

illegal immigrants, continues to contribute 

to the growing immigration caseload. 

Criminal fi lings for improper reentry by 

alien were up 41.5 percent to 6,259 fi lings.

Drug offenses increased signifi cantly 

with 4,014 fi lings, up 37 percent from the 

prior year and representing 22.4 percent 

of the total new cases in 2009. Among 

drug offenses crimes involving marijuana 

jumped 87.1 percent to 2,153 cases, while 

all other drug offenses numbered 1,861 

cases, up 4.7 percent;

Increases were reported in nine of 19 

categories of criminal fi lings (see Table 

7). Large percentage increases were seen 

in fraud, up 52.3 percent to 2,322 fi lings; 

and regulatory offenses, up 28.7 percent 

with 238 fi lings. Other categories showing 

increases were justice system offenses, up 

2008

Total

2009

Total

Change 

2008-2009

Civil Filings 40,032 44,289 10.6%

Criminal Filings 15,345 17,932 16.9%

Total	Filings 55,377 62,221 12.4%

Civil Terminati ons 40,580 43,178 6.4%

Criminal Terminati ons 15,497 18,576 19.9%

Total	Terminati	ons 56,077 61,754 10.1%

 *Pending Civil Cases 39,745 40,856 2.8%

 *Pending Criminal Cases 14,664 14,020 -4.4%

*Total	Pending	Cases 54,409 54,876 0.9%

Civil Case Terminati on Index 

(in months) 11.8 11.4 -3.4%

*Criminal Case Terminati on Index 

(in months) 11.4 9.1 -20.2%

*Overall Case Terminati on Index 11.6 10.7 -7.8%

Median Months (from fi ling to 

dispositi on) Civil Cases 7.9 7.2 -8.9%

Median Months (from fi ling to 

dispositi on) Criminal Defendants 6.0 5.3 -11.7%

Median Months Nati onal Total 

(from fi ling to dispositi on) Civil 

Cases 8.1 8.4 3.7%

Median Months Nati onal Total 

(from fi ling to dispositi on) Criminal 

Defendants 6.7 6.4 -4.5%

Notes: Pending totals exclude each case in which the defendant has been a 

fugiti ve since before Oct. 1, 2008. However, no case with multi ple defendants has 

been excluded unless all defendants in the case have been fugiti ves since before 

Oct. 1, 2008. This table includes all felony and Class A misdemeanor cases, but 

includes only those pett y off ense cases that have been assigned to district judges. 

Median ti me intervals computed only for 10 or more cases and only for 10 or more 

defendants. This table includes defendants in all felony and Class A misdemeanor 

cases, but includes only those pett y off ense defendants whose cases have been 

assigned to district judges. Median ti me interval computed from the date case 

was fi led to the date the defendant was either found not guilty or was sentenced.

*Revised

** Percent change not computed when fewer than 10 cases reported for the 

previous period.

6 u.s. distriCt Courts - totAl CrimiNAl ANd Civil CAses filed,

termiNAted, ANd peNdiNg, 2009
46 Annual Report 2009 

7

AK AZ

C. 

Calif.

E. 

Calif.

N. 

Calif.

S. 

Calif. HI ID MT NV OR

E. 

Wash.

W. 

Wash. GU NMI

2008

Total

2009

Total

Change

2008- 09

Violent	

Off	enses

Homicide 0 29 0 0 0 4 0 2 5 0 2 2 0 0 0 50 44 -12.0%

Robbery 4 15 27 8 22 12 15 1 4 24 53 1 14 1 0 178 201 12.9%

Assault 1 95 24 11 8 23 11 6 20 4 9 1 12 0 0 199 225 13.1%

Other 0 13 5 1 1 5 1 1 7 5 0 7 4 0 1 62 51 -17.7%

Property

Off	enses

Burglary, 

Larceny & 

Theft 5 56 46 35 29 16 18 3 12 19 17 2 128 15 0 450 401 -10.9%

Embezzlement 1 9 10 5 4 12 1 1 8 6 5 1 10 0 1 98 74 -24.5%

Fraud 22 1,143 298 99 168 252 27 26 27 80 60 29 74 12 5 1,525 2,322 52.3%

Forgery & 

Counterfeiti ng 0 5 39 6 8 3 2 5 4 6 2 8 2 0 2 110 92 -16.4%

Other 0 0 0 2 4 2 0 2 1 1 2 0 18 0 0 37 32 -13.5%

Drug	Off	enses

Marijuana 3 1,114 10 62 19 838 4 0 5 1 34 12 49 0 2 1,151 2,153 87.1%

All Other 

Drugs 53 228 201 132 159 577 62 45 68 68 71 49 132 8 8 1,778 1,861 4.7%

Firearms	and

Explosives	

Off	enses 22 129 81 48 108 57 8 38 57 80 84 52 73 3 3 922 843 -8.6%

Sex	Off	enses 10 85 74 58 19 41 9 16 78 27 38 14 42 2 0 539 513 -4.8%

Justi	ce	System	

Off	enses 0 57 16 7 29 38 5 3 3 5 3 4 11 2 0 152 183 20.4%

Immigrati	on

Off	enses

Improper Alien 

Reentry 7 2,661 494 422 340 1,762 1 86 24 200 43 157 58 4 0 4,424 6,259 41.5%

Other 1 220 18 1 4 967 0 1 0 6 220 0 77 2 0 2,511 1,517 -39.6%

General	

Off	enses 2 14 29 25 15 10 33 1 13 18 12 2 64 0 0 229 238 3.9%

Regulatory	

Off	enses 26 53 56 40 42 36 4 8 10 10 24 9 20 2 1 265 341 28.7%

Traffi		c	

Off	enses 2 2 8 11 55 2 193 0 3 0 0 1 200 13 0 571 490 -14.2%

All	Off	enses	

Total 159 5,928 1,436 973 1,034 4,657 394 245 349 560 679 351 988 64 23 15,251 17,840 17.0%

NiNth CirCuit distriCt Courts - types of CrimiNAl CAses CommeNCed, by mAJor offeNse ANd distriCt

(eXCludiNg trANsfers), 2009

Note: This table includes all felony and Class A misdemeanor cases but includes only those pett y off ense cases that have been assigned to 

district judges.
The Work of the Courts 47

20.4 percent with 183 filings; assault, 225 cases, up 13.1 

percent; robbery, 201 cases, up 12.9 percent; and general 

offenses, 238 cases, up 3.9 percent.

Eight out of 15 district courts in the circuit reported 

increases in criminal filings in 2009. The District of 

Arizona had the largest numerical increase with 5,935 

cases reported, up 83.7 percent from 3,231 cases the prior 

year. Following were the Southern District of California 

with 4,664 cases, up 2.4 percent; the Northern District of 

California with 1,045 cases, up 32.8 percent; the Eastern 

District of California with 977 cases, up 3.9 percent; 

the Western District of Washington with 995 cases, up 

4.7 percent; the District of Oregon with 692 cases, up 3 

percent; the District of Nevada with 566 cases, up 39.4 

percent; and the District of Northern Mariana Islands with 

23 cases, up 15 percent. 

Criminal case filings decreased in the District of Hawaii, 

396 cases, down 28.6 percent; the Central District of 

California, 1,458 cases, down 23 percent; the District of 

Guam, 65 cases, down 19.8 percent; the District of Idaho, 

246 cases, down 19.1 percent; the District of Montana, 

349 cases, down 11 percent; the Eastern District of 

Washington, 355 cases, down 9.2 percent; and the District 

of Alaska, 166 cases, down 1.8 percent. 

The district courts of the Ninth Circuit terminated 18,576 

cases in 2009, up 19.9 percent the prior year. The number 

of pending criminal cases reported at the end of the year 

was 14,020, down 4.4 percent from 2008.

Civil Filings, Terminations and Pending Cases

New civil filings in the Ninth Circuit district courts 

numbered 44,289 in 2009, an increase of 10.6 from the 

prior year. The circuit accounted for 15.9 percent of the 

278,884 civil filings in the district courts nationally in 2009. 

Civil filings increased nationally by 5.2 percent over the 

prior year.

Private civil cases numbered 36,518 and accounted for 

82.5 percent of all new civil filings in district courts of 

the circuit. The U.S. government acted as a plaintiff 

or defendant in the remaining 17.5 percent of the new 

filings. Prisoner petitions totaled 10,193 or 27.9 percent 

of all new private civil cases, down slightly from 2008. 

Other major categories of new private civil filings were 

civil rights, 5,050 cases or 13.8 percent; contracts, 4,503 

cases or 12.3 percent; labor suits, 2,480 cases or 6.8 

percent; real property, 2,473 cases or 6.8 percent; and 

copyright, patent and trademark cases, 2,360 cases or 6.5 

percent. 

Among civil filings in which the government was a party, 

the most numerous were Social Security which accounted 

for 37 percent; prisoner petitions, 7.1 percent; and 

contracts, 7 percent. 

Among the 15 districts in the circuit, 13 reported 

increased civil filings in 2009. The Central District of 

California had the largest numerical increase with 13,703 

cases, up 9.2 percent from the prior year. Following were 

the Northern District of California, 6,296 cases, up 6.6 

percent; the Eastern District of California with 5,789 

cases, up 16.4 percent; the District of Arizona, 3,677 

cases, up 11.5 percent; the District of Nevada, 3,362 

cases, up 26.5 percent; the Southern District of California, 

3,294 cases, up 18.7 percent; the Western District of 

Washington, 2,818 cases, up .7 percent; the District of 

Oregon, 2,240 cases, up 2.1 percent; the District of 

Idaho, 717 cases, up 27.4 percent; the Eastern District 

of Washington, 695 cases, up 4 percent; the District of 

Hawaii, 628 cases, up 4 percent; the District of Montana, 

627 cases, up 5.6 percent; and the District of Guam, 31 

cases, up 47.6 percent.

The districts of Alaska and Northern Mariana Islands 

reported decreases in new civil filings in 2009. 

Civil case terminations in the Ninth Circuit numbered 

43,178, up 6.4 percent from 40,580 in 2008. The number 

of pending civil cases increased to 40,856 or 2.8 percent 

from 39,745 the prior year.

Case Processing Times 

Case processing times in the district courts of the Ninth 

Circuit improved in 2009. The Case Termination Index, 

which computes how long it would take to clear the 

pending caseload if the current termination rate remained 

constant, was 10.7 months in 2009, down from 11.6 in 

2008.
48 Annual Report 2009 

The median time from fi ling to disposition for civil cases in 

the Ninth Circuit was 7.2 months, slightly shorter than the 

7.9 months reported in 2008. The national median time for 

civil cases slightly increased to 8.4 months in 2009 compared 

with 8.1 months in 2008.

For criminal cases, the median time from fi ling to 

disposition in the Ninth Circuit was 5.3 months, compared 

to 6 months the year before. The national median time was 

6.4 months, down from 6.7 months in 2008.

8

Unweighted	Filings	Per	Judgeship Weighted	Filings	Per	Judgeship

District

Authorized

Judgeships Civil Criminal

Supervised 

Release 

Hearings

2009

Total Civil Criminal

Supervised

Release 

Hearings

2009

Total

2008

Total

Change

2008-2009

Alaska 3 117 64 1.33 193 137 56 0.21 193 205 -5.9%

Arizona 13 272 529 123.77 641 296 328 17.42 641 474 35.2%

C. Calif. 28 472 82 44.04 619 543 70 6.19 619 586 5.6%

E. Calif. 6 936 216 49.33 1,089 924 157 6.93 1,089 1,004 8.5%

N. Calif. 14 432 89 48.79 623 549 67 6.88 623 579 7.6%

S. Calif. 13 226 407 110.62 540 267 258 15.57 540 477 13.2%

Hawaii 4 154 113 49.50 256 188 61 7.15 256 288 -11.1%

Idaho 2 344 166 45.00 557 405 145 6.70 557 493 13.0%

Montana 3 202 141 40.00 357 214 137 6.00 357 373 -4.3%

Nevada 7 457 96 42.29 573 488 79 6.39 573 493 16.2%

Oregon 6 359 135 46.50 495 381 107 6.56 495 497 -0.4%

E. Wash. 4 156 119 123.00 272 155 99 17.38 272 277 -1.8%

W. Wash. 7 374 181 36.00 559 432 122 5.20 559 569 -1.8%

Circuit	

Total 110 4,501 2,338 760.17 6,774 4,979 1,686 108.58 6,774 6,315 7.3%

Circuit	

Mean

*** 346 180 58.47 521 383 130 8.35 521 486 7.3%

Circuit	

Median

*** 344 135 46.5 557 381 107 6.70 557 493 13.0%

Nati	onal	

Mean

*** 321 138 33.17 493 354 109 4.84 468 468 0.0%

Note: Case weights are based on the 2003-2004 district court case weighti ng 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 

Multi district Liti gati on. This table includes defendants in all felony and Class A misdemeanor cases, but includes only those 

pett y off ense 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 probati on hearings 

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

trials and other court acti viti es conducted by resident and visiti ng judges. Due to rounding, subtotals for weighted and 

unweighted civil, criminal, and revocati on fi lings may not equal totals for weighted and unweighted fi lings.

NiNth CirCuit distriCt Courts

Weighted ANd uNWeighted filiNgs per AuthoriZed Judgeship, 2009
The Work of the Courts 49

Bankruptcy fi lings in the Northern District of California also 

surged with 33,025 fi lings received, up 55.8 percent from the 

prior year. Chapter 7 fi lings totaled 22,231 or 67.3 percent of 

the total fi lings. Chapter 13 fi lings numbered 10,407, up 53.2 

percent from 2008.

The District of Hawaii reported a total of 3,123 bankruptcy 

fi lings for 2009, an increase of 49.6 percent from the previous 

year with 2,087 cases. Chapter 7 fi lings rose 53.8 percent, while 

Chapter 13 fi lings also increased 37.6 percent with 600 total cases.

The Southern District of California reported 20,728 fi lings, 

up 47.9 percent, the highest annual fi lings since 1997. Chapter 7 

9

Caseload Measure 2008 2009

Change

2008-2009

Filings

 Business Chapter 7 6,945 10,301 48.3%

 Business Chapter 11 1,819 2,692 48.0%

 Business Chapter 12 41 97 136.6%

 Business Chapter 13 774 993 28.3%

 Non-Business Chapter 7 157,037 253,042 61.1%

 Non-Business Chapter 11 315 650 106.3%

 Non-Business Chapter 13 49,570 71,203 43.6%

 	*Circuit	Total 216,517 339,005 56.6%

Terminati	ons 162,761 261,600 60.7%

**Pending	Cases 197,484 274,896 39.2%

(1) Secti on 101 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code defi nes consumer (nonbusiness) debt as that incurred by an individual primarily for a personal, 

family, or household purpose. If the debtor is a corporati on or 

partnership, or if debt related to operati on of a business predominates, 

the nature of the debt is business.

These fi gures include the following cases not refl ected elsewhere:

Calendar	Year	2008

Central Calif. (Chapter 15 = 3); Eastern Calif. (Chapter 9 = 1); Nevada 

(Chapter 15 = 2); Western Wash. (Chapter 9 = 1 and Chapter 15 = 9)

Calendar	Year	2009

Central Calif. (Chapter 15 = 3); Eastern Calif. (Chapter 9 = 1); Southern 

Calif. (Chapter 15 = 3); Hawaii (Chapter 15 = 1); Western Wash. 

(Chapter 15 = 19)

**2008 pending cases revised

busiNess ANd NoN-busiNess bANKruptCy CAses

CommeNCed, by ChApter of the u.s. bANKruptCy B Code, 2009

ankruptcy courts in the Ninth Circuit 

experienced a 56.6 percent rise in fi lings in 

2009 with a total of 339,005 new cases reported. 

Bankruptcy courts in 14 of the 15 judicial districts 

of the circuit saw fi lings jump with the biggest 

increases reported in Arizona, Central California 

and Nevada. The continuing rise in unemployment 

throughout western states is thought to have 

been a key factor in driving the upturn of fi lings 

throughout the circuit.

The District of Arizona had the largest increase 

in fi lings, percentage-wise. Filings in 2009 totaled 

34,637 cases, up 77.3 percent from 2008. Chapter 

7 fi lings increased, up 82.8 percent with 28,391 

cases reported, while Chapter 13 fi lings rose 56.9 

percent with 5,627 cases reported. The state’s 

unemployment rate more than doubled in two 

years, rising from 4.5 percent in January 2008 to 9.2 

percent in December 2009.

In the Central District of California, fi lings 

reached 108,647, up 65 percent from 65,858 cases 

the previous year. The district led the nation in 

Chapter 7 fi lings with 83,656, more than the total 

bankruptcy fi lings reported in the entire First, 

Second, Third and Tenth circuits. Its Chapter 13 

fi lings jumped 52.8 percent with 23,853 new cases 

reported. The unemployment rate in California 

stood at a record 12.3 percent in December 2009, 

surpassing the 11.7 rate recorded in January 1983 

during an earlier recession.

Bankruptcy fi lings in the Eastern District of 

California numbered 47,418, up 47.5 percent from 

the prior year with 31,154 cases. Its Chapter 7 fi lings 

totaled 39,169 or 82.6 percent of the total, while 

Chapter 13 fi lings totaled 7,997 or 17 percent.

In Nevada, where unemployment peaked at 13 

percent in December 2009, the bankruptcy court 

reported 29,808 cases, up 59.3 percent from 2008. 

The District of Nevada reported 21,519 Chapter 

7 fi lings, an increase of 65 percent from the prior 

year. Chapter 13 fi lings rose 42.9 percent with 

7,844 new cases reported. 

a record-BreaKing Year for BanKruptcY

courtS in tHe nintH circuit
50 Annual Report 2009 

fi lings totaled 17,051, up 44.5 percent, while Chapter 

13 fi lings also increased 66.2 percent with 3,556 total 

fi lings. 

Bankruptcy fi lings in the Western District of 

Washington showed a 49 percent increase with 24,217 

cases. The district’s Chapter 7 fi lings totaled 18,493 

cases, up 62 percent from 2008. Chapter 13 fi lings 

rose 16.7 percent with 5,493 cases reported in 2009.

The District of Idaho followed the trend, reporting 

7,704 fi lings, an increase of 45.4 percent compared 

to the prior year with 5,300 cases. Chapter 7 fi lings 

totaled 6,789 cases while Chapter 13 fi lings totaled 854 

cases. 

Bankruptcy fi lings in the District of Oregon totaled 

18,380, up 43.6 percent from the prior year with 

12,802 cases. Chapter 7 fi lings made up 78 percent 

of the total fi lings with 14,331 cases, while Chapter 

13 fi lings made up 22 percent with 3,981 total fi lings. 

While the increase in Oregon was more modest than 

some places, the worst may be yet to come with the 

state’s unemployment reaching 9 percent in December 

2009, the highest in more than 23 years. 

Also experiencing increased fi lings were the District 

of Guam with 221 fi lings, up 46.4 percent; the District 

of Montana with 2,771 fi lings, up 40.8 percent; the 

Eastern District of Washington, which had 7,320 

cases, up 31.1 percent; and the District of Alaska, 

which reported 998 fi lings, up 12 percent. 

The only district reporting a decrease is the District 

of Northern Mariana Islands with 8 total fi lings, down 

56.6 percent last year with only 12 reported cases.

District

2008

Total

 2009 

Total

Change

2008-2009

Alaska 891 998 12.0%

Arizona 19,532 34,637 77.3%

*C. Calif. 65,858 108,647 65.0%

E. Calif. 32,154 47,418 47.5%

*N. Calif. 21,201 33,025 55.8%

S. Calif. 14,017 20,728 47.9%

Hawaii 2,087 3,123 49.6%

Idaho 5,300 7,704 45.4%

Montana 1,968 2,771 40.8%

Nevada 18,716 29,808 59.3%

Oregon 12,802 18,380 43.6%

E. Wash. 5,583 7,320 31.1%

W. Wash. 16,252 24,217 49.0%

Guam 151 221 46.4%

N. Mariana Is. 12 8 -33.3%

Circuit	Total 216,524 339,005 56.6%

10 NiNth CirCuit bANKruptCy Courts

totAl filiNgs, 2009

*Total fi lings for 2008 revised.
The Work of the Courts 51

District

Bankruptcy 

Appellate Panel *District Court Total

Alaska 4 3 7

Arizona 33 33 71

C. Calif. 134 90 224

E. Calif. 47 21 68

N. Calif. 30 46 76

S. Calif. 18 12 30

Hawaii 3 7 10

Idaho 14 3 17

Montana 6 10 16

Nevada 17 41 58

Oregon 9 5 14

E. Wash. 1 8 9

W. Wash. 16 40 56

Totals 332 (50.6%) 324 (49.4%) 656

*The numbers for bankruptcy appeals to the district courts 

are taken directly from a stati sti cal caseload table prepared by 

the Administrati ve Offi ce 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 docketi ng system. The district 

court numbers include all appeals in which a ti mely electi on 

was made to have the appeal heard in the district court (both 

appellant and appellee electi ons). The BAP numbers exclude all 

such appeals.

11 NeW bANKruptCy AppeAl filiNgs

2009

appealS to BanKruptcY appellate

panel climB

The Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) operates under the authority of the Judicial Council 

of the Ninth Circuit. It is authorized seven bankruptcy 

judges, who serve seven-year terms and may be 

reappointed to an additional three-year term. Since 2003, 

one seat on the BAP has been left vacant intentionally 

due to reduced workload based on new fi lings. In their 

appellate capacity, BAP judges are precluded from hearing 

matters arising from their own districts. 

All district courts within the Ninth Circuit have issued 

general orders providing for the automatic referral of 

bankruptcy appeals to the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel 

(BAP) for disposition. However, if any party fi les a 

timely election to have the appeal heard by a district court, 

the appeal is transferred according to the consent rule. 

Historically, the BAP heard between 49 percent and 60 

percent of the appeals fi led each year. The BAP reached a 

milestone in 2007 when the number of appeals decided on 

the merits exceeded 5,000 cases. 

Filings and Dispositions

In the 2009 calendar year, 656 new bankruptcy appeals were 

fi led. The BAP received 51 percent of those fi lings, while 

the district courts received 49 percent. Bankruptcy appeal 

fi lings increased 17 percent from the prior year due to the 

signifi cant upturn in bankruptcy fi lings in 2009. Table 11 

shows bankruptcy appeal fi lings by district for 2009.

The Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy 

Appellate Panel consists of, seated 

from left, Bankruptcy Judges Jim 

D. Pappas of the District of Idaho, 

Dennis Montali of the Northern 

District of California (chair of 

the BAP), Randall L. Dunn of the 

District of Oregon; and, standing 

from left, Bankruptcy Judges 

Meredith A. Jury of the Central 

District of California, Bruce A. 

Markell of the District of Nevada, 

and Eileen W. Hollowell of the 

District of Arizona.
52 Annual Report 2009 

The BAP disposed of 415 appeals in 2009. Of those, 95 

appeals were terminated on the merits. Oral argument 

was held in 83 appeals and 12 appeals were submitted 

on briefs. Of the 95 merits decisions, 26 were published 

opinions. The reversal rate was 15.8 percent. Median 

time from submission to decision for an appeal decided 

on the merits was 8.1 months, slightly up from 7.9 

months in 2008. 

Of the remaining 320 closed cases, 13 were terminated 

by consolidation and 86 were transferred to the district 

courts after appellee elections. The remaining 221 

closed appeals were terminated on procedural grounds, 

such as for lack of prosecution, lack of jurisdiction, or 

voluntary dismissal. The BAP ended the period with 

129 appeals pending.

Appeals to the Ninth Circuit

Appeals from a decision of either the BAP or a district 

court may be fi led with the Ninth Circuit Court of 

Appeals for second-level appellate review. In 2009, 

144 second-level appeals were fi led; 53 were appeals 

of BAP decisions; and 91 were from decisions by the 

district courts. Thus, of the 415 appeals that were 

disposed of by the BAP, roughly 87 percent were fully 

resolved, with only about 13 percent seeking secondlevel review. 

New Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Clerk

Susan M. Spraul was 

appointed to serve as 

clerk of the Ninth Circuit 

Bankruptcy Appellate 

Panel on Sept. 11, 2009. 

Prior to joining the BAP, 

Ms. Spraul served as alaw 

clerk to Chief Bankruptcy 

Judge Barry S. Schermer 

of the U.S. Bankruptcy 

Court for the Eastern 

District of Missouri 

and as a member of the 

Eighth Circuit BAP. Ms. Spraul also served as a law clerk 

to then-Chief Bankruptcy Judge Marcia S. Krieger of the 

U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Colorado and as 

a member of the Tenth Circuit BAP. Ms. Spraul practiced 

bankruptcy law in St. Louis, Mo., for approximately ten 

years with an emphasis on Chapter 11 debtor work. She 

graduated from the University of North Carolina at 

Chapel Hill School of Law.
The Work of the Courts 53

Magistrate judges made signifi cant contributions 

to the work of federal district courts in 2009. 

In the Ninth Circuit, 100 full-time and 12 part-time 

magistrate judges assisted district judges in a wide range 

of judicial matters, including presiding over preliminary 

proceedings and jurisdictional matters, some criminal 

and civil cases, and reviewing prisoner petitions.

Magistrate judges disposed of a combined 209,464 judicial 

matters during the year, up 14.2 percent from 2008. 

Increases were reported in 18 categories of dispositions, 

led by Class A misdemeanor for trial jurisdiction cases, 

which more than doubled to 2,619, up 140.5 percent. 

Criminal pretrial conferences numbered 8,795, an increase 

of 74.5 percent from 2008. Preliminary examinations 

were up 37 percent from the prior year, while other 

miscellaneous matters, which includes civil and criminal 

other jury matters and international prisoner transfer, were 

up 32.1 percent from the prior year. 

Increases also were seen in criminal guilty plea 

proceedings totaled 9,251, up 28.8 percent, while petty 

offenses for trial jurisdiction cases, and criminal motions 

636(b)(1)A), increased by 27.3 percent in 2009.

productiVe magiStrate JudgeS

Help carrY tHe caSeload

Decreases were seen in 14 categories including evidentiary 

proceedings in prisoner petitions, down 62 percent; other 

criminal matters which includes writs, mental competency 

hearings, and motion hearings, down 61.3 percent; and 

special master references in civil matters, down 39.6 percent. 

Other categories with increased numbers include 

arraignments, up 19.6 percent, civil evidentiary 

proceedings, up 17.9 percent, and jury trial in civil 

consent cases, up 13.5 percent. Magistrate judges issued 

890 more arrest warrants and summonses, up 12.6 

percent from the year before. They also issued 759 more 

search warrants, an increase of 8.5 percent from 2008. 

State habeas petitions were down 6 percent from 

the year before but accounted for 54.4 percent of all 

prisoner petitions.

New Magistrate Judges and Governance

Six new full-time magistrate judges were sworn into 

offi ce over the course of the year. They were David T. 

Bristow and John E. McDermott (CAC), John Richard 

Creatura (WAW), William V. Gallo (CAS), Jennifer L. 

Thurston (CAE), and Nandor J. Vadas (CAN). CHief 

The Magistrate Judges Executive Board met in May and consists of, seated from left, Judges Candy W. Dale (ID), Karen L. Strombom (WAW), 

chair, and Janice M. Stewart (OR), vice chair. Standing in the middle from left to right are Judges Kevin S.C. Chang (HI); John D. Roberts 

(AK), who sat in for Judge Deborah M. Smith (AK); and Stephen J. Hillman (CAC); District Court Clerk Victoria Minor (CAE), who attended 

the meeting as a guest; Judge James L. Larson (CAN); and Chief Bankruptcy Judge Robert J. Faris (HI), who attended the meeting as a guest. 

Standing in the back row from left to right are Dr. Robert Rucker (OCE staff); Judges Gregory G. Hollows (CAE), James P. Hutton (WAE), 

Carolyn S. Ostby (MT), Anthony J. Battaglia (CAS), and David K. Duncan (AZ); and Thomas C. Hnatowski, chief, Magistrate Judges Division, 

Administrative Offi ce of the U.S. Courts, attended the meeting as a guest. Not pictured are Judges Valerie P. Cooke (NV), Dale A. Drozd (CAE), 

Maria-Elena James (CAN), Jeremiah C. Lynch (MT), Joaquin V.E. Manibusan (GU), Robert A. McQuaid, Jr. (NV), and Nita L. Stormes (CAS).
54 Annual Report 2009 

Magistrate Judge Karen L. Strombom (WAW) is 

chair of the Magistrate Judges Executive Board 

and serves as an offi cial observer at meetings of 

the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit. Her 

term as chair of the board expires in July 2010. 

Magistrate Judge Janice M. Stewart (OR) serves 

as vice-chair, and her term as vice-chair expires 

in July 2010.

The Magistrate Judges Executive Board 

participated in the orientation of new magistrate 

judges and held a roundtable discussion after their 

May meeting in San Francisco. Board members 

made presentations on matters involving search 

warrants, recusal, chambers management, a crisis 

intervention program, and the history of the 

Ninth Circuit’s Magistrate Judges Executive Board. 

The new members of the board in 2009 include 

Magistrate Judges Valerie P. Cooke (NV), Dale A. 

Drozd (CAE), and Jeremiah C. Lynch (MT).

Educational Programs

At the 2009 Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference 

in Monterey, California, the Magistrate Judges 

Education program featured a panel discussion 

on ethical issues relating to ex parte judicial 

communications. Panelists included Magistrate 

Judge Celeste F. Bremer of the U.S. District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa and Magistrate 

Judge Karen K. Klein of the U.S. District Court 

for the District of North Dakota. 

1

 Before 2000, category included contested moti ons only. 

Beginning in 2000, uncontested moti ons were added.

2

 Before 2000, category did not include status conferences. 

Beginning in 2000, status conferences were added.

3

 Category includes writs, mental competency hearings, and 

moti on hearings.

4

 Category includes fee applicati ons, summary jury trials, 

and moti on hearings. Beginning in 2006, early neutral 

evaluati ons were added.

5

 Category includes material witness hearings and att orney 

appointment hearings.

6

 Before 2000, this category included seizure/inspecti on 

warrants and orders of entry; judgement debtor exams; 

extraditi on hearings; contempt proceedings; Criminal Justi ce 

Act fee applicati ons; naturalizati on proceedings; grand/other 

jury returns; civil and criminal IRS enforcement proceedings; 

calendar calls; and voir dire. Beginning in 2000, civil and 

criminal other jury matt ers and internati onal prisoner 

transfer proceedings were added.

Acti vity

2008

Total

2009

Total

Change

2008-2009

Total	Matt	ers 183,470 209,464 14.2%

Preliminary	Proceedings 79,112 89,293 12.9%

 Search Warrants 8,952 9,711 8.5%

 Arrest Warrants/Summonses 7,048 7,938 12.6%

 Initi al Appearances 22,093 23,738 7.4%

 Preliminary Examinati ons 4,734 6,486 37.0%

 Arraignments 15,245 18,238 19.6%

 Detenti on Hearings 12,278 13,790 12.3%

 Bail Reviews/Nebbia Hearings 1,942 1,903 -2.0%

 Other5 6,820 7,489 9.8%

Trial	Jurisdicti	on	Cases 27,713 36,503 31.7%

 Class A Misdemeanors 1,089 2,619 140.5%

 Pett y Off enses 26,624 33,884 27.3%

Civil	Consent	Cases 2,794 3,016 7.9%

 Without Trial 2,737 2,961 8.2%

 Jury Trial 37 42 13.5%

 Nonjury Trial 20 13 -35.0%

Additi	onal	Duti	es

 Criminal 27,563 33,141 20.2%

 Moti ons 636(b)(1)(A)1 9,384 11,950 27.3%

 Moti ons 636(b)(1)(B) 364 409 12.4%

 Evidenti ary Proceedings 216 191 -11.6%

 Pretrial Conferences2 5,039 8,795 74.5%

 Probati on Revocati on and

 Supervised Release Hearings 729 745 2.2%

 Guilty Plea Proceedings 7,183 9,251 28.8%

 Other3 4,648 1,800 -61.3%

 Civil 29,475 27,923 -5.3%

 Sett lement Conferences 3,165 3,165 0.0%

 Other Pretrial Conferences2

3,948 3,829 -3.0%

 Moti ons 636(b)(1)(A)1 16,462 15,453 -6.1%

 Moti ons 636(b)(1)(B) 1,168 958 -18.0%

 Evidenti ary Proceedings 28 33 17.9%

 Social Security 673 498 -26.0%

 Special Master References 111 67 -39.6%

 Other4 3,920 3,920 0.0%

 Prisoner	Peti	ti	ons 6,274 5,667 -9.7%

 State Habeas 3,278 3,082 -6.0%

 Federal Habeas 376 354 -5.9%

 Civil Rights 2,570 2,212 -13.9%

 Evidenti ary Proceedings 50 19 -62.0%

Miscellaneous	Matt	ers6 10,539 13,921 32.1%

mAtters disposed of by NiNth CirCuit mAgistrAte Judges 12 period:12 moNths eNdiNg september 30, 2009
The Work of the Courts 55

Border courtS factor into caSeload

groWtH for federal defenderS

Federal public defenders and community defenders in the Ninth Circuit accounted for 24.8 percent of all 

new defender cases opened in the United States in fi scal 

year 2009. Defenders in seven of 14 judicial districts 

of the Ninth Circuit reported more new cases with the 

districts of Northern California, Idaho and Southern 

California reporting the highest percentage increases.

While the number of new 

defender cases nationally declined 

by 6.8 percent, Ninth Circuit 

defenders reported an increase of 

2.9 percent, opening 30,552 new 

cases in FY 2009. Ninth Circuit 

defenders closed 29,316 cases, a 

slight increase of .3 percent from 

the prior fi scal year.

New case openings were most numerous in the circuit’s 

two border courts. Defenders in the Southern District 

of California opened 6,853 new cases in FY 2009, 

up 17.3 percent from 5,840 in FY 2008, while the 

District of Arizona reported 9,307 cases opened, up 4.4 

percent from 8,912 new cases the prior fi scal year. Of 

Arizona’s new cases, 8,122 or 87.3 percent of the total 

were criminal in nature, many of them involving illegal 

immigration. 

Other districts with the large increases were the 

Northern District of California, 1,274 new cases, up 

21.3 percent; the District of Idaho, 319 new cases, up 

19.9 percent; the District of Guam, 127 new cases, up 

6.7 percent; and the District of Nevada, 1,254 new cases, 

up 6.6 percent.

Caseloads of federal and community defenders in the 

circuit have varied with increases reported in fi ve of the 

last seven fi scal years. The pending caseload of Ninth 

Circuit federal public and community defenders in fi scal 

year 2009 increased by 13.3 percent from the prior fi scal 

year with 10,580 cases reported. 

Congress created the Offi ce of the Federal Public 

Defender to fulfi ll the constitutional requirement that 

indigents charged with federal crimes be provided with 

no-cost, professional legal representation. Congress 

funds federal public defender and community defender 

offi ces through the Defender Services Division of the 

Administrative Offi ce of the U.S. Courts.

Community defender organizations are non-profi t 

legal service organizations staffed by non-government 

employees, while federal public defender offi ces are 

federal agencies staffed by employees of the judiciary. 

Both types of organizations are staffed with experienced 

federal criminal law practitioners who provide a 

consistently high level of representation. In addition to 

criminal defense and appeals, federal public defenders 

are assigned to court-directed prisoner and witness 

representations, bail/pre-sentencing, 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 2009, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals announced 

the reappointments of three federal public defenders: 

Franny A. Forsman in the District of Nevada, Thomas 

Hillier, II, in the Western District of Washington, and 

Daniel Broderick in the Eastern District of California. 

All the reappointments are effective in 2010.

Cases 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Change 

2008-2009

Opened 23,157 25,779 28,676 29,700 30,552 2.9%

Closed 22,979 25,795 28,253 29,233 29,316 0.3%

Pending 8,460 8,471 8,880 9,340 10,580 13.3%

13 federAl defeNder orgANiZAtioNs - CAses opeNed, Closed ANd peNdiNg

period: 12 moNths eNdiNg september 30, 2009 
56 Annual Report 2009 

District

Opened

Sept. 30, 2008

Opened

Sept. 30, 2009

Change

2008-2009

Closed

Sept. 30, 2009

Pending

Sept. 30, 2009

Alaska 364 296 -18.7% 329 103

Arizona 8,912 9,307 4.4% 9,169 1,226

C. Calif. 3,724 3,546 -4.8% 3,542 1,541

E. Calif. 2,230 2,037 -8.7% 2,037 1,009

N. Calif. 1,050 1,274 21.3% 1,198 518

*S. Calif. 5,840 6,853 17.3% 5,946 2,506

Guam 119 127 6.7% 123 75

Hawaii 583 550 -5.7% 553 473

*Idaho 266 319 19.9% 330 153

*Montana 694 610 -12.1% 634 269

Nevada 1,176 1,254 6.6% 1,122 818

Oregon 1,737 1,465 -15.7% 1,523 950

*E. Wash. 835 876 4.9% 862 290

W. Wash. 2,170 2,038 -6.1% 1,948 649

Circuit	Total 29,700 30,552 2.9% 29,316 10,580

Nati onal Total 132,117 123,195 -6.8% 123,055 45,204

Circuit Total as % 

of Nati onal Total 22.5% 24.8% 2.3% 23.8% 23.4%

*Community Defender Organizati ons: In additi on to handling criminal defenses and appeals, public defenders are

assigned to court-directed prisoner and witness representati ons, bail/pre-sentencing, and probati on and parole

revocati on hearings. Eastern Washington and Idaho are combined into one organizati on. Northern Mariana Islands

is not served by a defender organizati on.

federAl defeNder orgANiZAtioNs - summAry of represeNtAtioNs by distriCt 14 period: 12 moNths eNdiNg september 30, 2009
The Work of the Courts 57

federal proBation SYStem

in tHe nintH circuit

United States probation offi cers have a signifi cant role in the federal criminal justice system. They 

prepare pre-sentence investigation reports on convicted 

offenders and supervise offenders who have been 

placed on probation, supervised release, parole and 

conditional release. 

As part of the pre-sentence process, probation offi cers 

conduct an independent investigation of the offense 

conduct, identify applicable guidelines and policy 

statements, calculate the defendant’s offense level 

and criminal history category, report the resulting 

sentencing range, and identify factors relevant to the 

appropriate sentence. In the area of supervision, 

probation offi cers establish supervision plans and make 

use of numerous programs to facilitate an offender’s 

successful supervision. 

In the Ninth Circuit, some 832 probation offi cers are 

performing their duties in a variety of settings, from 

courthouses in large metropolitan areas to one-person 

offi ces in rural areas. They exemplify the highest 

ideals and standards in community corrections and are 

recognized nationally for delivering the highest quality 

services.

Offenders Under Supervision

The Ninth Circuit experienced a slight increase in the 

number of persons under post-conviction supervision. 

Persons under supervision totaled 20,571 in fi scal year 

2009, up 1.6 percent from 20,241 in FY 2008. The 

circuit accounted for 16.6 percent of the national total 

of 124,183 persons under supervision.

Among those under supervision, 4,025 were on 

probation from the courts, while 16,546 were on 

supervised release from institutions. Another 219 

persons were on parole and 15 in the custody of the 

Bureau of Prisons.

The Central District of California with 5,354 cases and 

the District of Arizona with 3,177 cases had the most 

persons under supervision. The District of Northern 

Mariana Islands reported the greatest increase in 

supervision percentage-wise, up 18.2 percent with 39 

cases. The Southern District of California followed 

with 2,275 cases, up 10 percent from 2,068 cases from 

the previous fi scal year.

Five judicial districts in the Ninth Circuit reported 

decreases in the number of persons under supervision. 

The District of Nevada reported 1,128 cases, down 5.2 

percent, followed by the District of Hawaii with 800 

cases, down 2.9 percent. The District of Idaho with 414 

cases was down 2.6 percent, while the District of Guam 

with 184 cases decreased by 2.1 percent. Although the 

Central District had the highest number of persons 

under supervision, its total cases declined by 2.5 percent.

Drug offenders comprised the largest group of persons 

under supervision both in the Ninth Circuit and 

nationwide. In fi scal year 2009, drug offenders under 

supervision totaled 8,271, up 4.4 percent from 7,925 

in the prior fi scal year. Drug cases accounted for 40.2 

percent of persons under supervision in the circuit. 

The next largest category of offenders was property 

violations with 4,720 persons under supervision or 

22.9 percent of the total. This category includes data 

previously reported as burglary, larceny, embezzlement, 

fraud, auto theft, forgery and counterfeiting, and postal 

laws.

Cases Revoked

In FY 2009, Ninth Circuit cases that were revoked and 

closed after post-conviction supervision numbered 

2,870 an increase of 2.6 percent from FY 2008. Of 

the revocations, 269 were from courts and 2,588 from 

institutions. Nationally, 13,470 cases were revoked and 

closed, a slight increase of 1 percent from FY 2008. 

The Ninth Circuit had 21.3 percent of all cases revoked 

nationwide.
58 Annual Report 2009 

From	Courts 	Referred	by	Insti	tuti	ons

District Probati on1

 Supervised

Release Parole2 BOP Custody3

2008

 Total Cases

2009

 Total Cases

Change

2008-2009

Alaska 98 217 3 5 311 323 3.9%

Arizona 634 2,514 28 1 3,146 3,177 1.0%

C. Calif. 1,077 4,223 54 0 5,493 5,354 -2.5%

E. Calif. 312 1,291 18 0 1,591 1,621 1.9%

N. Calif. 444 1,128 26 0 1,463 1,598 9.2%

S. Calif. 227 2,027 21 0 2,068 2,275 10.0%

Guam 63 113 2 6 188 184 -2.1%

Hawaii 88 707 5 0 824 800 -2.9%

Idaho 112 296 6 0 425 414 -2.6%

Montana 133 519 3 1 606 656 8.3%

Nevada 261 852 13 2 1,190 1,128 -5.2%

NMI 5 34 0 0 33 39 18.2%

Oregon 223 844 22 0 1,048 1,089 3.9%

E. Wash. 52 413 6 0 466 471 1.1%

W. Wash. 296 1,134 12 0 1,389 1,442 3.8%

Circuit	Total 4,025 16,312 219 15 20,241 20,571 1.6%

1

 Includes judge and magistrate judge probati on

2

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

3

 BOP (Bureau of Prisons)

16 NiNth CirCuit federAl probAtioN system, persoNs uNder post-CoNviCtioN supervisioN by distriCt

period: 12 moNths eNdiNg september 30, 2009

Early Terminations

Since 2002, the Committee on Criminal Law of the 

Judicial Conference of the United States has encouraged 

offi cers to identify offenders who qualify for early 

termination. In general, when the conditions of 

supervision have been met and the offender does not 

pose a foreseeable risk to public safety or any individual 

third party, the probation offi cer may request the 

sentencing judge to consider early termination. 

The number of cases terminated early by judges in 

the Ninth Circuit totaled 1,153 cases in fi scal year 

2009. The District of Arizona led with 290 cases 

or 25.2 percent of the total early terminations. 

The Central District of California had 197 early 

terminations or 17.1 percent, followed by the 

Western District of Washington with 133 cases or 

11.5 percent. 

Persons Under Supervision 2008 2009 Change 2008-2009

From Courts 4,117 4,025 -2.2%

From Insti tuti ons 16,124 16,546 2.6%

Total 20,241 20,571 1.6%

15 NiNth CirCuit federAl probAtioN system

persoNs uNder post-CoNviCtioN supervisioN

period: 12 moNths eNdiNg september 30, 2009
The Work of the Courts 59

nintH circuit leadS nation in pretrial

SerViceS caSeload

Pretrial services offi cers working in the Ninth Circuit 

have key roles in the judicial system. Offi cers 

prepare bail reports that help judges decide whether 

to detain or release a defendant prior to trial, and they 

monitor and supervise those defendants who have been 

released pending trial. In addition, pretrial services 

offi cers recommend eligibility for and supervision of 

diversion programs in each district.

The primary mission of pretrial services offi cers is to 

assist in the fair administration of justice, to protect 

the community, and to bring about a long-term positive 

change in individuals who are under supervision. 

To achieve these goals, offi cers work diligently to 

ensure that defendants appear for court as required 

and are not re-arrested while awaiting trial. Offi cers 

are professionally trained, utilize contracted services 

for treatment of substance abuse and mental health 

problems, and make use of advanced technology. 

Pretrial services offi ces in the Ninth 

Circuit again ranked fi rst nationally in 

the number of new cases activated. 

Case activations in 2009 totaled 31,492, 

an increase of 17.1 percent from 2008. 

New case activations nationwide totaled 

105,824, an increase of 5.4 percent from 

the previous year. The Ninth Circuit 

accounted for 29.8 percent of the 

national total, up from 26.8 percent 

in 2008.

Pretrial services offi ces in the District of Arizona 

reported the biggest increase in new cases activated 

in 2009. Working in a border court with a heavy 

immigration caseload, offi cers opened 14,768 new 

cases, up 69.4 percent from 8,719 cases in 2008. Also 

reporting increases were the Northern District of 

California with 1,306 new cases, up 26.7 percent; the 

District of Nevada, with 896 case activations, up 21.7 

percent; and the District of Northern Mariana Islands, 

with 37 case activations, up 27.6 percent.

Eleven districts reported fewer new cases. The District 

of Guam had 74 total cases activated in 2009, down 35.1 

percent; the District of Hawaii, 244 new cases, down 33.3 

percent; the District of Alaska, 192 new cases, down 21.6; 

the Eastern District of California, 1,021 new cases, down 

21.4 percent; the Central District of California, 2,570 

new cases, down 16.3 percent; the District of Idaho, 334 

new cases, down 14.1 percent; the District of Montana, 

436 new cases down 13.3 percent; the Southern District 

of California, 6,889 new cases, down 8.8 percent; the 

Western District of Washington, 1,342 new cases, down 

5.6 percent; the Eastern District of Washington, 529 new 

cases, down 3.5 percent; and the District of Oregon, 854 

new cases, down 1.8 percent.

Pretrial Bail Interviews, Supervised Defendants

The number of interviews conducted by pretrial services 

offi cers of defendants in the Ninth Circuit declined in 

2009. Interviews totaled 9,721 down 9.1 percent from 

10,695 reports in 2008. Pre-bail written reports increased 

to 30,462 from 25,896, and post-bail reports also 

increased to 658 from 630 the previous year. 

Pretrial services offi cers made recommendations to 

the court in 97.1 percent of cases with interviews, 

compared to the national average of 91.9 percent. 

Detention was recommended in 76 percent of all cases 

in 2009, an increase of 13.9 percent from 2008. In 

comparison, offi ces of the U.S. attorneys in the circuit 

made recommendations in 97.3 percent of cases, and 

detention was recommended in 71.6 percent of the 

cases, an increase of 9.4 percent from 2008.

During 2009, a total of 5,350 defendants in the Ninth 

Circuit were released from custody to pretrial services 

supervision, down 7.3 percent the previous year. Of 

these, 4,217 were released on standard pretrial services 

supervision, a decrease of 6.5 percent from 2008; 1,007 

17

Caseload Measure 2008 2009 Change 2008-2009

*Reports 25,896 30,462 17.6%

Interviews 10,695 9,721 -9.1%

Cases Acti vated 26,898 31,492 17.1%

*Includes prebail reports with and without recommendati ons, and includes types of 

reports categorized in previous periods as “other reports.”

pretriAl serviCes

CAses ACtivAted iN NiNth CirCuit Courts, 2009
60 Annual Report 2009 

18

Defendant	Contact Writt	en	Reports

District Interviewed

*Not

 Interviewed **Prebail Postbail

No 

Reports 

Made

Total Cases

Acti vated 

2008

Total Cases

Acti vated 

2009

Change

2008-2009

Alaska 63 129 184 1 7 245 192 -21.6%

Arizona 1,698 13,070 14,694 31 43 8,719 14,768 69.4%

C. Calif. 1,535 1,035 2,539 28 3 3,070 2,570 -16.3%

E. Calif. 355 666 974 15 32 1,299 1,021 -21.4%

N. Calif. 444 862 949 354 3 1,031 1,306 26.7%

S. Calif. 3,486 3,403 6,768 85 36 7,557 6,889 -8.8%

Hawaii 185 59 242 2 0 366 244 -33.3%

Idaho 225 109 320 0 14 389 334 -14.1%

Montana 252 184 411 23 2 503 436 -13.3%

Nevada 488 408 895 0 1 736 896 21.7%

Oregon 289 565 851 2 1 870 854 -1.8%

E. Wash. 174 355 252 59 218 548 529 -3.5%

W. Wash. 444 898 1,274 58 10 1,422 1,342 -5.6%

Guam 50 24 72 0 2 114 74 -35.1%

N. Mariana Is. 33 4 37 0 0 29 37 27.6%

Circuit	Total 9,721 21,771 30,462 658 372 26,898 31,492 17.1%

Nati onal Total 63,519 42,305 96,779 5,735 3,310 100,431 105,824 5.4%

Circuit % of Nati onal 15.3% 51.5% 31.5% 11.5% 11.2% 26.8% 29.8% 3.0%

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

*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.

**Includes prebail reports with and without recommendati ons, and includes types of reports categorized in previous periods as “other reports.”

pretriAl WorKloAd ChArt

2009

were supervised on a courtesy basis from another district or 

circuit, down 7.1 percent; and 126 were on pretrial diversion 

caseloads, a decrease of 30 percent.

Nonappearance and Re-Arrest Rates Remain Low

The rate of bail revocations due to nonappearance and/

or re-arrest of supervised defendants remained signifi cantly 

low in 2009. The rate of nonappearance in the circuit stayed 

at 0.6 percent. The 15 district courts of the Ninth Circuit 

revoked the bail of 126 defendants who absconded from 

supervision.

Violations

Of 13,235 cases in release status in 2009, 1,375 had 

violations reported to the court. They include 91 

violations for felony re-arrest, 117 for misdemeanor 

re-arrest, 42 for other re-arrest violations, and 82 for 

failure to appear. Technical violations, which include 

positive urine tests for illegal substances, violation 

of electronic monitoring conditions, possession 

of contraband, and failure to report to offi cer, 

accounted for the remainder of the 1,273 reported 

violations.
The Work of the Courts 61

19

Peti	t	Juror	Uti	lizati	on	Rate

Percent	Not	Selected	or	Challenged*

District

 Grand Juries 

Empaneled, 

2009

Peti t Juries 

Selected, 

2009 2008 2009

Change

2008-2009

Alaska 2 14 33.5 54.1 20.6

Arizona 10 88 32.1 39.9 7.8

C. Calif. 29 179 58.3 61.8 3.5

E. Calif. 9 85 41.1 49.5 8.4

N. Calif. 6 57 47.6 41.1 -6.5

S. Calif. 7 106 43.8 43.6 -0.2

Hawaii 5 16 34.2 47.5 13.3

Idaho 6 17 42.7 29.3 -13.4

Montana 3 44 27.9 34.0 6.1

Nevada 4 37 56.5 48.8 -7.7

Oregon 12 53 43.5 33.2 -10.3

E. Wash. 4 23 50.6 40.6 -10.0

W. Wash. 4 48 31.4 26.9 -4.5

Guam 2 4 49.5 50.1 0.6

N. Mariana Is. 2 4 52.3 39.1 -13.2

Circuit	Total 105 775 *** ***

Circuit Average 13 97 43.0 42.6 -4.0

Nati onal Average 8 56 37.9 40.1 2.2

Note: This table includes data on jury selecti on days only. Data on juror service aft er the 

selecti on day are not included.

*Includes jurors who completed pre-screening questi onnaires or were in the courtroom during 

the conducti ng of voir dire but were not selected or challenged. Also includes jurors, not 

selected or challenged, who were not called to the courtroom or otherwise did not parti cipate 

in the actual voir dire.

Juror utiliZAtioN

2009

Juror utiliZation
62 Annual Report 2009 

court interpreterS

Languages AK AZ

C. 

Calif.

E. 

Calif.

N. 

Calif.

S. 

Calif. HI ID MT NV OR

E. 

Wash.

W. 

Wash. GU NMI Total

Arabic 0 1 27 2 9 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 56

Armenian 0 0 145 18 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 164

Cantonese 0 17 65 138 168 21 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 414

Farsi 0 0 83 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 6 0 113

Japanese 0 0 1 0 3 2 200 0 0 0 1 0 0 9

Korean 0 0 110 15 32 52 16 0 0 0 2 0 25 26 0 278

Mandarin 1 36 185 52 52 86 0 0 0 11 2 0 11 3 0 439

Navajo (Certi fi ed) 0 152 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 152

Navajo 

(Non-Certi fi ed) 0 49 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 49

Russian 0 0 17 17 10 3 0 0 1 3 1 0 7 0 0 59

Sign (American) 0 0 4 6 2 13 0 0 0 2 0 0 4 0 0 31

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

Spanish Staff 36 49,525 1,615 1,226 795 21,985 0 0 0 762 0 0 0 0 0 75,944

Spanish (Certi fi ed) 2 6,966 4,456 1,493 2,049 1,087 14 19 5 41 1,334 817 670 0 0 18,953

Spanish 

(Non-Certi fi ed) 0 40 0 9 1 0 84 459 114 333 60 121 22 1 0 1,244

Tagalog 14 0 29 0 6 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 12 8 0 77

Vietnamese 0 4 166 26 64 22 0 0 0 0 10 43 162 0 0 497

All Others 3 134 125 258 39 65 54 0 3 17 0 5 137 11 0 851

Subtotal 56 56,924 7,028 3,260 3,247 23,354 175 478 123 1,170 1,409 986 1,065 55 0 99,330

Document 

Translati ons 0 8,821 234 63 0 63 0 0 0 26 11 318 1 0 0 9,542

Individual 

Orientati on 0 20 63 59 0 17 31 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 197

Orientati on 

Workshop 0 5 0 1 0 0 000 5 0 0 0 0 0 11

Telephone 

Interpreti ng 56 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 66

Trial Days (Multi ple) 0 176 86 44 17 140 0 0 0 15 30 2 38 0 0 548

Trial Days (One) 0 16 32 16 6 35 24 286 24 0 1 11 22 11 0 584

Grand	Total 112 65,962 7,444 3,443 3,270 23,613 230 864 152 1,223 1,451 1,317 1,131 66 0 110,278

iNterpreter usAge by distriCt Courts 20 period: 12 moNths eNdiNg september 30, 2009
diStrict caSeloadS

MT

ID

OR

NV

AZ

AK

HI

GU

NMI

CAE

CAC

WAE

WAW

CAN

CAS
64 Annual Report 2009 

Caseload	Measure

								

2008 2009

Change

2008-2009

Per	Judgeship	

Unweighted	2009

District	Court

					Filings 14,444 15,161 5.0% 541

					Terminati	ons 14,088 15,022 6.6% 537

				Pending1 12,573 12,712 1.1% 454

Bankruptcy	Court

					Filings2 65,858 108,647 65.0% 4,527

					Terminati	ons 40,414 85,719 112.1% 3,572

				Pending1 51,505 74,443 44.5% 3,102

Caseload	Measure

								

2008 2009

Change

2008-2009

Per	Judgeship	

Unweighted	2009

District	Court

					Filings 6,529 9,612 47.2% 739

					Terminati	ons 7,124 8,794 23.4% 676

					Pending 4,893 5,711 16.7% 439

Bankruptcy	Court

					Filings 19,532 34,637 77.3% 4,948

					Terminati	ons 15,011 22,180 47.8% 3,169

					Pending1 22,300 34,757 55.9% 4,965

AZ distriCt of AriZoNA

CeNtrAl distriCt of CAliforNiA

Caseload	Measure

								

2008 2009

Change

2008-2009

Per	Judgeship	

Unweighted	2009

District	Court

					Filings 540 531 -1.7% 177

					Terminati	ons 563 549 -2.5% 183

				Pending1 567 549 -3.2% 183

Bankruptcy	Court

					Filings 891 998 12.0% 499

					Terminati	ons 816 935 14.6% 468

				Pending1 1,129 1,192 5.6% 596

Authorized	Judgeships

					District3 28

					Bankruptcy4 24

					Magistrate

																			Full	ti	me 23

																			Part-ti	me 1

Authorized	Judgeships

					District2 13

					Bankruptcy 7

					Magistrate

																			Full	ti	me 13

																			Part-ti	me 1

Authorized	Judgeships

					District 3

					Bankruptcy 2

					Magistrate

																			Full	ti	me 2

																			Part-ti	me 4

diStrict caSeloadS

Authorized places of holding court:

Anchorage, Fairbanks, Juneau, 

Ketchikan, Nome

1 2008 total pending cases revised.

distriCt of AlAsKA

Authorized places of holding court:

Bullhead City3 , Flagstaff , Kingman3 

Phoenix, Prescott , Tucson, Yuma 

1 2008 total pending cases revised. 

2 Includes one authorized temporary judgeship.

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

Authorized places of holding court: 

Los Angeles, Riverside, San Fernando 

Valley5

, Santa Ana, Santa Barbara5

3

1 2008 total pending cases revised.

2 2008 total bankruptcy fi lings revised.

3 Includes one authorized temporary judgeship.

4

 Includes three authorized temporary judgeships.

5

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

AK

CAC
The Work of the Courts 65

Caseload	Measure

								

2008 2009

Change

2008-2009

Per	Judgeship	

Unweighted	2009

District	Court

					Filings 6,694 7,341 9.7% 524

					Terminations 6,910 7,865 13.8% 562

				Pending1 8,580 8,056 -6.1% 575

Bankruptcy	Court

					Filings2 21,201 33,025 55.8% 3,669

					Terminations 17,060 24,871 45.8% 2,763

				Pending1 22,510 30,666 36.2% 3,407

Caseload	Measure

								

2008 2009

Change

2008-2009

Per	Judgeship	

Unweighted	2009

District	Court

					Filings 5,914 6,766 14.4% 1,128

					Terminations 5,591 6,335 13.3% 1,056

				Pending1 8,268 8,699 5.2% 1,450

Bankruptcy	Court

					Filings 32,154 47,418 47.5% 6,774

					Terminations 27,141 39,510 45.6% 5,644

				Pending1 21,407 29,311 36.9% 4,187

CAN

CAE

Authorized	Judgeships

					District 6

					Bankruptcy2 7

					Magistrate

																			Full	time 12

																			Part-time 0

Authorized places of holding court: 

Bakersfield, Fresno, Redding, 

Sacramento, South Lake Tahoe, 

Yosemite

1 2008 total pending cases revised.

2 Includes one authorized temporary judgeship.

eAsterN distriCt of CAliforNiA

Authorized	Judgeships

					District 14

					Bankruptcy 9

					Magistrate

																			Full	time 11

																			Part-time 0

Authorized places of holding court: 

Eureka, Oakland, Salinas, San 

Francisco, San Jose, Santa Rosa

1 2008 total pending cases revised.

2 2008 total bankruptcy filings revised.

NortherN distriCt of CAliforNiA

Authorized	Judgeships

					District 13

					Bankruptcy 4

					Magistrate

																			Full	time 11

																			Part-time 0

Caseload	Measure

								

2008 2009

Change

2008-2009

Per	Judgeship	

Unweighted	2009

District	Court

					Filings 7,330 7,958 8.6% 612

					Terminations 7,475 8,545 14.3% 657

				Pending1 5,419 4,832 -10.8% 372

Bankruptcy	Court

					Filings 14,017 20,728 47.9% 5,182

					Terminations 11,913 17,787 49.3% 4,447

				Pending1 8,466 11,406 34.7% 2,852

Authorized places of holding court: 

El Centro2, San Diego

1 2008 total pending cases revised.

2 El Centro applies only to the district court

CAS southerN distriCt of CAliforNiA
66 Annual Report 2009 

distriCt of idAho

distriCt of hAWAii

distriCt of guAm

Authorized	Judgeships

					District 1

					Bankruptcy 0

					Magistrate

																			Full	ti	me 1

																			Part-ti	me 0

Caseload	Measure

								

2008 2009

Change

2008-2009

Per	Judgeship	

Unweighted	2009

District	Court

					Filings 102 96 -5.9% 96

					Terminati	ons 117 106 -9.4% 106

					Pending1 95 105 10.5% 105

Bankruptcy	Court

					Filings 151 221 46.4% 385

					Terminati	ons 127 174 37.0% 271

					Pending1 141 188 33.3% 327

District Caseloads

Authorized places of holding court:

Hagatna

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

1

 2008 total pending cases revised.

Authorized	Judgeships

					District2 4

					Bankruptcy 1

					Magistrate

																			Full	ti	me 3

																			Part-ti	me 1

Caseload	Measure

								

2008 2009

Change

2008-2009

Per	Judgeship	

Unweighted	2009

District	Court

					Filings 1,159 1,024 -11.6% 256

					Terminati	ons 1,253 1,169 -6.7% 292

					Pending1 1,097 952 -13.2% 238

Bankruptcy	Court

					Filings 2,087 3,123 49.6% 3,123

					Terminati	ons 1,760 2,619 48.8% 2,619

					Pending 1,622 2,126 31.1% 2,126

Authorized places of holding court:

Honolulu

1

 2008 total district court pending cases revised.

2 Includes one authorized temporary judgeship.

Authorized	Judgeships

					District 2

					Bankruptcy 2

					Magistrate

																			Full	ti	me 2

																			Part-ti	me 0

Caseload	Measure

								

2008 2009

Change

2008-2009

Per	Judgeship	

Unweighted	2009

District	Court

					Filings 867 963 11.1% 482

					Terminati	ons 817 858 5.0% 429

					Pending1 879 984 11.9% 492

Bankruptcy	Court

					Filings2 5,301 7,704 45.3% 3,852

					Terminati	ons 4,546 6,646 46.2% 3,323

					Pending 5,573 6,631 19.0% 3,316

Authorized places of holding court: 

Boise, Coeur d’Alene, Moscow, Pocatello, Twin Falls3

1

 2008 total district court pending cases revised.

2 2008 total bankruptcy fi lings revised.

3

 Twin Falls applies only to the bankruptcy court. Only one of the two bankruptcy judges holds court in Twin Falls once a month.

GU

HI

ID
The Work of the Courts 67

NV distriCt of NevAdA

distriCt of moNtANA

Authorized	Judgeships

					District 3

					Bankruptcy 1

					Magistrate

																			Full	time 3

																			Part-time 1

Caseload	Measure

								

2008 2009

Change

2008-2009

Per	Judgeship	

Unweighted	2009

District	Court

					Filings 986 976 -1.0% 325

					Terminations 1,168 1,046 -10.4% 349

					Pending1 999 929 -7.0% 310

Bankruptcy	Court

					Filings 1,968 2,771 40.8% 2,771

					Terminations 2,487 2,236 -10.1% 2,236

					Pending1 2,594 3,129 20.6% 3,129

Authorized places of holding court:

Billings, Butte, Great Falls, Helena, 

Missoula

1

 2008 total pending cases revised.

Authorized	Judgeships

					District 7

					Bankruptcy3 4

					Magistrate

																			Full	time 6

																			Part-time 0

Authorized places of holding court:

Carson City, Elko, Ely, Las Vegas, 

Lovelock, Reno

1

 2008 total pending cases revised.

2 2008 total bankruptcy filings revised.

3

 Includes one authorized temporary judgeship.

Authorized	Judgeships

					District 1

					Bankruptcy 0

					Magistrate

																			Full	time 0

																			Part-time 0

Caseload	Measure

								

2008 2009

Change

2008-2009

Per	Judgeship	

Unweighted	2008

District	Court

					Filings 74 70 -5.4% 70

					Terminations 52 52 0.0% 52

					Pending1 81 99 22.2% 99

Bankruptcy	Court

					Filings 12 8 -33.3% 32

					Terminations 8 7 -12.5% 12

					Pending 25 26 4.0% 49

Authorized places of holding court: 

Saipan

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

1

 2008 total pending cases revised.

MT

Caseload	Measure

								

2008 2009

Change

2008-2009

Per	Judgeship	

Unweighted	2008

District	Court

					Filings 3,064 3,928 28.2% 561

					Terminations 2,783 3,458 24.3% 494

					Pending1 3,483 3,953 13.5% 565

Bankruptcy	Court

					Filings2 18,717 29,808 59.3% 7,452

					Terminations 10,499 16,760 59.6% 4,190

					Pending1 23,450 36,497 55.6% 9,124

NMI distriCt of the NortherN mAriANA islANds
68 Annual Report 2009 

WAW WesterN distriCt of WAshiNgtoN

distriCt of oregoN

District Caseloads

Authorized	Judgeships

					District 6

					Bankruptcy 5

					Magistrate

																			Full	ti	me 6

																			Part-ti	me 1

Caseload	Measure

								

2008 2009

Change

2008-2009

Per	Judgeship	

Unweighted	2009

District	Court

					Filings 2,867 2,932 2.3% 489

					Terminati	ons 3,050 2,899 -5.0% 483

					Pending1 3,062 3,095 1.1% 516

Bankruptcy	Court

					Filings 12,802 18,380 43.6% 3,676

					Terminati	ons 11,704 15,533 32.7% 3,107

					Pending1 14,853 17,696 19.1% 3,539

Authorized places of holding court:

Bend2, Coos Bay2, Coquille, Eugene, 

Klamath Falls, Medford, Pendleton, 

Portland, Redmond2, Roseburg2, Salem2

1

 2008 total pending cases revised.

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

Caseload	Measure

								

2008 2009

Change

2008-2009

Per	Judgeship	

Unweighted	2009

District	Court

					Filings 1,059 1,050 -0.8% 263

					Terminati	ons 1,086 1,033 -4.9% 258

					Pending1 874 891 1.9% 223

Bankruptcy	Court

					Filings 5,583 7,320 31.1% 3,660

					Terminati	ons 5,536 6,840 23.6% 3,420

					Pending1 5,364 5,844 8.9% 2,922

Authorized	Judgeships

					District 4

					Bankruptcy 2

					Magistrate

																			Full	ti	me 2

																			Part-ti	me 0

Authorized places of holding court:

Richland2, Spokane, Walla Walla2, 

Yakima

1

 2008 total pending cases revised.

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

Authorized	Judgeships

					District 7

					Bankruptcy 5

					Magistrate

																			Full	ti	me 5

																			Part-ti	me 2

Authorized places of holding court: 

Bellingham, Seatt le, Tacoma, 

Vancouver

1

 2008 total pending cases revised.

2 2008 total bankruptcy fi lings revised.

OR

WAE eAsterN distriCt of WAshiNgtoN

Caseload	Measure

								

2008 2009

Change

2008-2009

Per	Judgeship	

Unweighted	2009

District	Court

					Filings 3,748 3,813 1.7% 545

					Terminati	ons 4,000 4,023 0.6% 575

					Pending1 3,519 3,309 -6.0% 473

Bankruptcy	Court

					Filings2 16,250 24,217 49.0% 4,843

					Terminati	ons 13,739 19,783 44.0% 3,957

					Pending1 16,545 20,984 26.8% 4,197
The Office of the Circuit Executive would like to acknowledge the 

following for their contributions to the 2009 Ninth Circuit Annual Report:

Chief Judge Alex Kozinski

Cathy A. Catterson, Circuit and Court of Appeals Executive

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

Susan M. Spraul, Clerk, Bankruptcy Appellate Panel

Susan V. Gelmis, Supervisory Staff Attorney, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Paul T. Keller, Supervisory Staff Attorney, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Denise B. Leonard, Assistant Information Systems Manager,

 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Photographs and design details in this report were adapted from new 

and archived images of the newly rededicated Nakamura Courthouse 

in Seattle, Washington. More details of the rededication can be found 

starting on page 34 of this publication. 
Office of the Circuit Executive

Cathy A. Catterson, Circuit & Court of Appeals ExecutiveP.O. Box 193939, San Francisco, CA 94119-3939Ph: (415) 355-8800, Fax: (415) 355-8901http://www.ce9.uscourts.gov