2 0 0 4

A n n u a l R e p o r t

Ninth Circuit

U n i t e d S tat e s C ourts
The Office of the Circuit Executive would like to acknowledge the 

following for their contributions to the 2004 Annual Report:

Chief Judge Mary M. Schroeder

Clerk of Court Cathy Catterson

Chief Pretrial Services Officer George Walker

Chief Probation Officer William Corn 

Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Clerk Harold Marenus

Cover: Detail from wrought iron grillwork enclosing original elevator shafts at the Ninth Circuit Court of 

Appeals in San Francisco. Inside Cover: the Great Hall at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Annual Report 2004 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Ninth Circuit Overview 

Foreword, Chief Judge Mary M. Schroeder

An Overview of the Ninth Circuit

The Judicial Council and Administration of the Ninth Circuit

Judicial Council Organizational Chart

Judicial Policy Advisory Groups

Judicial Transitions

New Judges

New Senior Judges

Deceased Judges

Committees of the Ninth Circuit

Circuit Seeks to Improve Juror Experience, Jury Management

Public Information and Community Outreach Committee

Task Force Seeks Solutions to Pro Se Caseload Issues

Space and Security

Courts Act to Hold Down Costs for Space and Facilities

Seattle Welcomes New Federal Courthouse

Work Progresses on Other Projects

Courthouse Projects Under Construction, in Design

Plans Move Ahead for Los Angeles, San Diego Courthouses

Ninth Circuit Highlights

Landmark Courthouse Named for Respected Judge

Appellate Practice Workshop on Immigration Matters

Ninth Circuit Conference Highlights Human Rights

Awards Recognize Noted Attorneys, Court Staff

Circuit’s Largest District Celebrates Diversity

The Work of the Courts in 2004

Appellate Filings 

District Court Filings 

Bankruptcy Court Filings

Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Report

Matters Before Magistrate Judges

Federal Public Defenders See Caseloads Rise

Circuit Probation Caseloads

Case Activations by Pretrial Services

District Caseloads

3

6

7

8

10

12

15

16

18

20

23

26

27

28

29

32

34

36

38

41

43

46

49

52

55

56

58

60

62

64
Ninth Circuit United States Courts

THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Front row: Senior District Judge Jack D. Shanstrom, Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski, Chief Circuit Judge Mary M. Schroeder, 

Chief District Judge David A. Ezra, Senior Circuit Judge Arthur L. Alárcon. Back row: Circuit Judge Andrew J. Kleinfeld, 

Chief District Judge David F. Levi, Magistrate Judge Virginia A. Mathis, Circuit Judge William A. Fletcher, Chief Bankruptcy 

Judge Patricia C. Williams, Chief District Judge John C. Coughenour, Chief District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel.

The Mission of the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit

is to support the effective and expeditious administration 

of justice and the safeguarding of fairness in the 

administration of the courts within the circuit. To do so, 

it will promote the fair and prompt resolution of disputes, 

ensure the effective discharge of court business, prevent 

any form of invidious discrimination, and enhance public 

understanding of, and confidence in, the judiciary.

MISSION STATEMENT

United States Courts for the Ninth Circuit
Annual Report 2004

F O R E W O R D 

 Chief Judge Mary M. Schroeder

The 2004 Annual Report of the United States Courts for the Ninth 

Circuit highlights the work of the federal courts in nine western 

states and two Pacific Island jurisdictions. This report recaps some 

of the year’s major developments, tracks transitions on the federal bench, 

focuses on new initiatives undertaken by the courts, and provides statistics 

on caseloads and other matters. We hope you find it useful and welcome 

your comments.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals experienced an even more 

significant increase in caseload than we have seen in the past three 

years. New case filings numbered 14,876, up 17.2 percent over 

2003 and almost 48 percent over 2001. The increase was 

predominantly attributable to the continuing tide of immigration 

appeals. The immigration caseload in the Ninth Circuit has swelled 

from 913 cases in 2001 to 5,964 cases in 2004, an increase of 553 

percent. These cases constituted 40 percent of the circuit’s 

appellate caseload in 2004.

Nationally, the Ninth Circuit ranked first in these cases with 

52.5 percent of the total immigration appeals filed in 2004. 

The Second Circuit has experienced even greater percentage 

increase in immigration appeals and we have conferred with 

that circuit frequently over the course of the year. 

We are developing new procedures to handle immigration 

appeals efficiently while endeavoring to ensure fairness in the 

process. These have helped the court to terminate 8 percent 

more cases in 2004 than in 2003. Even so, our pending caseload 

at the end of the year had grown by almost 21 percent. The 

numbers make clear the need for more judges, our scarcest 

resource. We have had no new appellate judges since 1984 and 

several of our districts are in serious need of additional judgeships.

The district courts of the Ninth Circuit continue to be among 

the busiest in the nation, accounting for nearly 17 percent of total 

case filings nationally in 2004. Their case filings slipped by 1.2 
Ninth Circuit United States Courts

percent from 2003, the first downturn in three 

years. Criminal filings were down 3.8 percent 

while civil filings held relatively steady. Not 

surprisingly, immigration offenses comprised the 

largest category of criminal cases in the district 

courts, accounting for 40 percent of the total 

criminal caseload. Particularly large numbers 

were entered in Arizona and the Southern District 

of California. The next largest category was drugrelated offenses with 21.2 percent of the circuit’s 

criminal cases.

Bankruptcy courts nationally reported 3.8 percent 

fewer new cases, the first downturn in bankruptcy 

filings since 2000. Bankruptcy courts in the Ninth 

Circuit reported a 9.7 percent decline, while the 

Central District of California, the largest and 

busiest bankruptcy court in the nation, was down 

19.9 percent. The Ninth Circuit comprises 15.8 

percent of the total bankruptcy filings nationwide.

Despite the overall growth we experienced, 2004 

was another year in which the federal judiciary 

operated with less than adequate funding. As a 

result, courts across the country, including some 

in the Ninth Circuit, were forced to reduce staff 

and services. The threat of even further cuts 

loomed large late in the year as Congress 

struggled to arrive at a budget for fiscal year 2005. 

Congress even considered enacting a continuing 

budget resolution that would have frozen funding 

for most of the federal government at FY 2004 

levels. This so-called “hard freeze,” which would 

have spelled disaster for the judiciary, was, 

fortunately, not pursued.

While the budget ultimately approved by 

Congress provided the judiciary with enough 

funding to avoid further cuts in staffing and 

services, it was insufficient to keep pace with 

the courts’ growing caseload, especially in high 

growth areas like the Southwest Border, which 

materially contributes to the load of the Ninth 

Circuit’s busiest district courts.

Ensuring that the Third Branch of government 

has sufficient resources to fulfill its constitutional 

mission will require much effort and innovative 

thinking. The Ninth Circuit has established 

committees to address important aspects of the 

problem. Many of our attorneys are assisting us 

in informing our congressional representatives 

about our need to serve our litigants with adequate 

staff, funding, and judges. Our Space and 

Security Committee also is studying one of our 

most pressing budget problems, which is the

escalating cost of rent paid to the General 

Services Administration for court facilities. The 

Ninth Circuit also has contributed able 

representatives to the national committees

established by the Judicial Conference of the 

United States to focus on these problems. 

2004 also saw renewed efforts to split the Ninth 

Circuit into two or even three smaller circuits. 

Judges of the Ninth Circuit and Western District 

of Washington testified with me before a House 

subcommittee in April about one such bill, 

pointing out the high costs of building new 

facilities and replicating administrative structures, 

and the apparent lack of benefits to be gained by 

such a monumental reorganization. While that 

bill never left committee, another was hurriedly 

approved by the House in October as an 

attachment to a bill authorizing new judgeships. 

It was immediately blocked in the Senate by 

California Senator Dianne Feinstein, who decried 

the use of measure intended to alleviate a critical 

need to further a partisan, political goal.

We do not expect the debate over division of the 

Ninth Circuit to disappear. We are doing our 

best to communicate with the legal community, 

the public and Congress about why this effort is 

2 0 0 4 H I G H L I G H T S f o r e wo r d
Annual Report 2004

2 0 0 4 H I G H L I G H T S

misguided. And we have invited the decision 

makers to visit the circuit to see for themselves 

how well it functions.

Also of Note

The Ninth Circuit’s classic beaux arts courthouse 

in San Francisco has been named for Senior 

Circuit Judge James R. Browning, former chief 

judge of the Ninth Circuit and an architect of the 

modern federal court system in the West.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals officially 

welcomed one new circuit judge, Carlos Bea of 

San Francisco. The district courts seated five 

new judges, while one new bankruptcy judge was 

appointed. We ended the year with four vacant 

judgeships on the court of appeals and two 

vacant district judgeships.

Two circuit judges and four district judges took 

senior status over the course of the year. We now 

have 23 senior circuit judges and 57 senior district 

judges continuing to provide vital service to the public.

The court family mourned the passing of four 

judges, including Senior Circuit Judge Herbert 

Choy of Honolulu, the first judge from Hawaii, 

and first Asian American to serve on the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals, and District Judge 

Judith Keep of San Diego, a dear friend of all, 

who served on numerous judicial committees at 

both the national and circuit level.

Our Pacific Island jurisdictions, the Commonwealth 

of the Northern Mariana Islands and the U.S. 

Territory of Guam, each marked a judicial 

milestone in 2004, when the U.S. Supreme Court 

assumed jurisdiction for appeals of decisions 

rendered by their highest courts. The change 

was effective May 1 for the Supreme Court of 

the Northern Mariana Islands and Oct. 30 for 

the Supreme Court of Guam. The Ninth Circuit 

Court of Appeals had previously heard these 

appeals.

All in all, 2004 was an eventful and challenging 

year for our courts. I encourage you to review 

the report for further information about these and 

other matters.

f o r e wo r d
Ninth Circuit United States Courts

N i n t h C i r c u i t O v e r v i e w

Ninth Circuit Overview

The United States Courts for the Ninth Circuit consists of 

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals along with district and 

bankruptcy courts in the 15 federal judicial districts that 

comprise the circuit, and associated administrative units 

that provide various court services.

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.

The Ninth Circuit includes 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.

Judges serving on the circuit 

and district courts are known as 

Article III judges, a reference to 

the article in the United States 

Constitution establishing the 

federal judiciary. Article III 

judges are nominated by the 

President, confirmed by Congress 

and serve for life.

The Ninth Circuit Court of 

Appeals has been authorized 28 

judgeships and ended 2004 with 

four vacant positions. For most 

of the year, district courts were 

authorized 113 judgeships, four 

of which were vacant at year’s 

end. One temporary judgeship 

expired on Nov. 1. 

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 a reduced caseload.

In 2004, two circuit judges took 

senior status, bringing the total 

number of senior circuit judges 

to 23. Senior circuit judges sit 

on appellate panels, serve on 

circuit and national judicial 

committees and handle a 

variety of administrative 

matters. In the district courts, 

58 senior judges heard cases, 

presided over procedural

matters, served on committees 

and conducted other business 

of their courts.

In addition to Article III judges, 

the Ninth Circuit has a number 

of Article I judges, who serve as 

magistrate judges in the district 

courts or as bankruptcy judges in 

the bankruptcy courts.

Bankruptcy judges are appointed 

by the court of appeals for a 

term of 14 years, while magistrate 

judges are appointed by the

individual district courts and 

hold their positions for eight 

years. In 2004, bankruptcy 

courts in the Ninth Circuit were 

authorized 68 judgeships. The 

district courts were authorized 

94 full-time and 11 part-time 

magistrate judges; several courts 

also utilized recalled magistrate 

judges. 

Overall, the Ninth Circuit courts 

experienced increased caseloads 

in 2004. Unless otherwise noted, 

statistics in this report cover the 

2004 calendar year. 
Annual Report 2004

N i n t h C i r c u i t O v e r v i e w

The Judicial Council has statutory 

authority to "make all necessary 

and appropriate orders for the 

effective and expeditious administration of justice within its 

circuit," [28 U.S.C. 332(d)(1)]. The 

13 members are looked upon as 

a "judicial board of directors." 

Chaired by the chief judge of the 

circuit, the council provides policy 

guidance and leadership to all of 

the courts of the circuit. It meets 

quarterly to review issues and 

resolve problems, conducting 

additional business by conference call or mail ballot when 

necessary.

The Judicial Council also has 

been delegated responsibilities 

by the Judicial Conference of the 

United States, the national 

governing body for the federal 

courts. Among these 

responsibilities is authorization 

of senior judge staffing levels 

and pay. The Judicial Council 

accomplishes most of its work 

through committees. 

The Office of the Circuit 

Executive provides staff support 

to the council 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 

Judicial Council. The circuit

 executive and his staff assist in 

The Judicial Council and Administration of the Ninth Circuit

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.

Participating in Judicial 

Council discussion are, from 

left, Chief District Judge David 

F. Levi, Senior District Judge 

Jack D. Shanstrom, Chief 

District Judge Marilyn L. Huff 

and Chief Bankruptcy Judge 

Patricia C. Williams.
Ninth Circuit United States Courts

N i n t h C i r c u i t O v e r v i e w

Office of the Circuit Executive

Judicial Officer 

Organizations

Conference of 

Chief District 

Judges

Conference of 

Chief Bankruptcy 

Judges

Magistrate Judges

Executive Board

Advisory & 

Standing 

Committees

Alternative Dispute 

Resolution

Article III Judges 

Education

Advisory Board

Bankruptcy 

Judges Education 

Committee

Capital Case

Court-Council 

Committee on 

Bankruptcy Judge 

Appointments

Fairness

Task Forces

Self-Represented 

Litigants

Ninth Circuit 

Judicial 

Conference 

Executive 

Committee

Budget & Finance

Program

Resolutions

Activities

Lawyer Rep 

Coordinating 

Committee

Liaison 

Committees

District Clerks

Bankruptcy Clerks

Chief Probation 

Officers

Chief Pretrial 

Services Officers

The Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit

Executive Committee

Chief Judge

Mary M. Schroeder

Federal Public 

Defenders 

Information 

Technology

Judicial Wellness

Jury Instructions 

Jury Trial 

Improvement

Library

Magistrate 

Judges Education 

Committee

Pacific Islands

Public Information 

& Community 

Outreach

Space & Security
Annual Report 2004

N i n t h C i r c u i t O v e r v i e w

identifying circuit-wide needs, conducting 

studies, proactively developing and 

implementing policies, 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.

Day-to-day management of the courts rests 

with the court of appeals and each of the

district and bankruptcy courts. Under the 

direction of the individual courts' chief judge 

and clerk of court, 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.

In the court of appeals, the clerk of court 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 units. The Office 

of the Appellate Commissioner, also located 

in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Clerk's 

Office, reviews Criminal Justice Act 

vouchers for cases that come before the 

court of appeals. 

In May, Circuit Executive Greg Walters was recognized by the 

Ninth Circuit Judicial Council for 20 years of "inspired and

dedicated service" to the federal judiciary. Chief Judge Mary M. 

Schroeder presented Mr. Walters with an engraved crystal 

plaque commemorating the milestone. Mr. Walters is among the 

longest serving circuit executives in the judiciary.
10 Ninth Circuit United States Courts

N i n t h C i r c u i t O v e r v i e w

Judicial Policy Advisory Groups

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 each of the circuit’s 15 

district courts. The chair of the conference is a 

voting member of the council. The conference, 

which is comprised of the chief district judge of 

each district, meets twice a year. Chief District 

Judge John C. Coughenour of the Western District 

of Washington served as chair of the conference 

from May 2003 to August 2004. He was succeeded 

by Chief District Judge Marilyn L. Huff, who served 

from September 2004 through January 2005.

Conference of Chief Bankruptcy Judges

The Conference of Chief Bankruptcy Judges advises 

the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit on the 

administration of the bankruptcy courts within the 

circuit. The chair of the conference is a non-voting 

member of the council. The conference, which 

consists of chief bankruptcy judges from each 

district and the presiding judge of the Ninth Circuit 

Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP), meets twice a 

year. Chief Bankruptcy Judge Patricia Williams of 

the Eastern District of Washington, chaired the 

conference from October 2003 to June 2004, when 

Chief Bankruptcy Judge Albert E. Radcliffe of the 

District of Oregon became chair. Judge Radcliffe 

will chair the conference through September 2005.

Magistrate Judges Executive Board

The Magistrate Judges Executive Board provides 

a channel of communication between the Judicial 

Council of the Ninth Circuit and the more than 100 

full-time, part-time and recalled magistrate judges 

serving in the district courts. The 10-member board 

meets twice a year and meets with all magistrate 

judges at the annual circuit conference. The chair 

of the board serves on the council as an observer.

Magistrate Judge Virginia Mathis of the District of 

Arizona completed a two-year term as chair of the 

board in September 2004. She was succeeded as 

chair by Chief Magistrate Judge J. Kelley Arnold of 

the Western District of Washington, who will serve 

through September 2006.

Associated Court Units

Ninth Circuit courts also rely on important court-related 

agencies to ensure the fair administration of justice. The 

district courts maintain oversight of U.S. Probation 

and Pretrial Services offices, which are responsible for 

supervision of criminal defendants and background 

investigations and reports. The circuit’s federal public 

defenders and community defenders represent 

indigent defendants unable to afford private counsel. 

They have offices in each of the Ninth Circuit districts 

with the exception of Northern Mariana Islands, which 

relies on a Criminal Justice Act panel of attorneys.
Annual Report 2004 11

New Judges

New Senior Judges

Deceased Judges

JUDICIAL TRANSITIONS
12 Ninth Circuit United States Courts

J u d i c i a l T r a n s i t i on s

Judge George P. Schiavelli was 

appointed a district judge for the 

Central District of California on July 

8, 2004. Prior to his appointment, 

Judge Schiavelli was of counsel to 

the appellate group at Reed Smith 

LLP, 2000 to 2004. He served as a 

California Superior Court judge, Los 

Angeles County, 1994 to 2000. He had been in private 

practice at Horvitz & Levy as a partner, 1986 to 1994; 

at Ervin, Cohen & Jessup as a partner in the litigation 

department, 1980 to 1986, and as an associate, 1976 to 

1980; and at O'Melveny & Myers as an associate in the 

litigation department, 1974 to 1976. Judge Schiavelli 

received his A.B. from Stanford University in 1970 and 

his juris doctorate from the University of California 

at Los Angeles School of Law in 1974. He maintains 

chambers in Los Angeles.

Judge Neil V. Wake was appointed 

a district judge for the District of 

Arizona on March 15, 2004. Prior 

to his appointment, Judge Wake 

had been in private practice, 

specializing in commercial, 

administrative and constitutional 

litigation, appellate practice and 

Indian law, 1974 to 2004. He served as a judge pro 

tempore on the Arizona Court of Appeals, 1985, 1992, 

and 1996 to 1998. Judge Wake received his B.A. from 

Arizona State University in 1971 and his juris 

doctorate from Harvard Law School in 1974. He 

maintains chambers in Phoenix.

District Judges

Judge Roger T. Benitez was appointed 

a district judge for the Southern 

District of California on June 21, 2004. 

Prior to his appointment, Judge 

Benitez served as a United States 

magistrate judge for the Southern 

District of California, 2001 to 2004, 

and as a California Superior Court 

judge, Imperial County, 1997 to 2001. Judge Benitez was 

an instructor at Imperial Valley College, 1998 to 1999. 

He engaged in private practice as a partner and 

shareholder at Heim, Benitez & Driskill, 1978 to 1997. 

Judge Benitez received his B.A. from San Diego State 

University in 1974 and his juris doctorate from Western 

State University (now Thomas Jefferson School of Law) 

in 1978. He maintains chambers in San Diego.

Judge Ricardo S. Martinez was 

appointed a district judge for the 

Western District of Washington on 

June 16, 2004. Prior to his appointment, Judge Martinez served as a 

United States magistrate judge for 

the Western District of Washington, 

1998 to 2004, and as a Washington 

Superior Court judge, King County, 1990 to 1998. He 

was a deputy prosecutor at the Office of King County 

Prosecutor, 1980 to 1990. Judge Martinez received his B.S. 

from the University of Washington in 1975 and his juris 

doctorate from the University of Washington School of 

Law in 1980. He maintains chambers in Seattle.

Judge James L. Robart was appointed 

a district judge for the Western 

District of Washington on June 21, 

2004. Prior to his appointment, 

Judge Robart had been in private 

practice with the law firm of Lane 

Powell Spears Lubersky LLP, as a 

managing partner, 1998 to 2004, a 

partner, 1980 to 1998, and an associate, 1973 to 1980. 

Judge Robart received his B.A. from Whitman College in 

1969 and his juris doctorate from Georgetown University 

Law Center in 1973. He maintains chambers in Seattle.

New Judges in 2004
Annual Report 2004 13

J u d i c i a l T r a n s i t i on s

Judge Michael W. Leavitt was 

appointed a magistrate judge 

for the Eastern District of 

Washington on Feb. 2, 2004. Prior 

to being appointed to the federal 

bench, Judge Leavitt served as a 

Washington Superior Court judge, 

Yakima County, 1989 to 2004. 

He was a partner and shareholder at the former 

Gavin Robinson Law Firm in Yakima, 1973 to 1988. 

Judge Leavitt received his B.A. from Brigham Young 

University in 1968 and his juris doctorate from the 

University of Utah School of Law in 1971. He 

maintains chambers in Yakima.

Judge Peter C. Lewis was appointed 

a magistrate judge for the Southern 

District of California on June 28, 

2004. Prior to his appointment, 

Judge Lewis served as an assistant 

United States attorney in San Diego 

and Imperial Valley, 1989 to 2004. He 

served as a deputy district attorney 

for Imperial County, 1982 to 1989, and was associated 

with the law firm of Shigeru Ebihara in Tokyo, 1979 to 

1981. Judge Lewis received his B.A. from the United 

States International University in 1973 and his juris 

doctorate from the California Western School of Law in 

1978. He maintains chambers in El Centro.

Judge Barbara L. Major was appointed 

a magistrate judge for the Southern 

District of California on January 5, 

2004. Prior to her appointment, 

Judge Major served as an 

assistant United States attorney for 

the Southern District of California, 

1991 to 2003. She was an associate 

at Bronson, Bronson & McKinnon, San Francisco, 1988 

to 1990. Judge Major received her B.A. from Stanford 

University in 1983 and her juris doctorate from the 

University of California at Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of 

Law in 1987. Following law school, she was a law clerk 

to United States District Judge J. Lawrence Irving of the 

Southern District of California in 1987. Judge Major 

maintains chambers in San Diego.

Bankruptcy Judge

Judge Bruce A. Markell was 

appointed a bankruptcy judge for 

the District of Nevada on July 9, 

2004. Prior to his appointment, 

Judge Markell was professor of 

law at the University of Nevada 

at Las Vegas, William S. Boyd 

School of Law, 1999 to 2004, and a 

professor of law at Indiana University School of Law, 

Bloomington, Indiana, 1990 to 1999. He engaged in 

private practice as an associate and a partner at Sidley 

& Austin in Los Angeles, 1985 to 1990; an associate at 

Sachs & Phelps in Los Angeles, 1983 to 1985; and an 

associate at Morrison & Foerster in Los Angeles, 1981 

to 1983. Judge Markell received his B.A. from Pitzer 

College in Claremont, Calif., in 1977, and his juris 

doctorate from the University of California at Davis, 

King Hall School of Law, in 1980. He maintains 

chambers in Las Vegas.

Magistrate Judges

Judge Craig M. Kellison was 

appointed a magistrate judge for 

the Eastern District of California on 

Sept. 2, 2004. Prior to his 

appointment, Judge Kellison 

served as a part-time United States 

magistrate judge for the Eastern 

District of California, 1988 to 2004. 

He was a partner, then a sole proprietor at the Law 

Offices of Craig Kellison (formerly Kellison and Cady, P.C.), 

1978 to 2004. He served as a pro tem administrative law judge, California Office of Administrative 

Hearings, 2000 to 2004, and as a hearing officer for 

the United States Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, 1995 to 2004. Judge Kellison received 

his B.S. from the University of Nevada at Reno in 

1972 and his juris doctorate from Gonzaga University 

School of Law at Spokane in 1976. He maintains 

chambers in Redding.
14 Ninth Circuit United States Courts

J u d i c i a l T r a n s i t i on s

Judge Edward C. Voss was appointed a magistrate judge 

for the District of Arizona on May 14, 2004. Prior to his 

appointment, Judge Voss was a shareholder and partner 

at Gallagher & Kennedy, 2003 to 2004. He served as a 

judge, Arizona Court of Appeals, 1989 to 2003. He also 

served on the Arizona Superior Court, Maricopa County, 

as a judge, 1983 to 1989, and commissioner, 1982 to 1983. 

He was a public defender, Maricopa County, 1978 to 1982, 

and engaged in private practice as an attorney at Murphy, 

Posner & Franks, 1969 to 1977. Judge Voss received his 

B.B.A. from the University of Texas in 1966, his juris doctorate from the University of Arizona College of Law in 

1969, and his LL.M. from the University of Virginia School 

of Law in 1992. He maintains chambers in Phoenix.

Judge William M. Wunderlich was 

appointed a magistrate judge for the 

Eastern District of California on April 

30, 2004. Prior to his appointment to 

the federal bench, Judge Wunderlich 

was as an associate justice of the 

California Sixth District Court of 

Appeal, 1993 to 2004. He served 

as a judge of the California Superior Court, Monterey 

County, 1985 to 1993, and was the court's presiding judge, 

1991 to 1992. He also served as deputy district attorney, 

Monterey County District Attorney's Office, 1973 to 1985. 

Judge Wunderlich received his B.A. from the University 

of Nebraska-Lincoln and his juris doctorate from the 

University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law, in 1972. 

He maintains chambers in Yosemite National Park.

Judge Joaquin V.E. Manibusan was 

appointed a magistrate judge for 

the District of Guam on Feb. 9, 2004. 

Prior to his appointment to the 

federal bench, Judge Manibusan 

served as a Superior Court judge for 

the Territory of Guam, 1995 to 2004. 

He was in private practice as a sole 

practitioner, 1977 to 1995. He served as an assistant 

attorney general for the Government of Guam, 1975 

to 1977. Judge Manibusan received his A.B. from the 

University of California at Berkeley in 1971 and his juris 

doctorate from the University of California at Berkeley, 

Boalt Hall School of Law, in 1974. He maintains chambers 

in Hagatna.

Judge William McCurine, Jr. was 

appointed a magistrate judge for 

the Southern District of California 

on Jan. 5, 2004. Prior to his 

appointment, Judge McCurine was 

a civil trial lawyer and a partner 

at Solomon Ward Seidenwurm & 

Smith, 2000 to 2003. Previously, 

he was a partner at Gray Cary Ware & Freidenrich 

(formerly Gray Cary Ames & Frye). Judge McCurine 

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

his juris doctorate from Harvard Law School in 1975. 

He maintains chambers in San Diego.

New Judges continued
Annual Report 2004 15

J u d i c i a l T r a n s i t i on s

Circuit Judges

Circuit Judge A. Wallace Tashima, 

who maintains chambers in 

Pasadena, assumed senior status on 

June 30, 2004. Judge Tashima was 

appointed to the court of appeals 

on Jan. 4, 1996. He previously 

served as a district judge for the 

Central District of California, 1980 

to 1996, and was a partner at Morrison & Foerster, Los 

Angeles, 1977 to 1980. Judge Tashima was the vice 

president of Amstar Corp., San Francisco, 1968 to 1977, 

and was the California deputy attorney general, Los 

Angeles, 1961 to 1967.

Circuit Judge Stephen S. Trott, 

who maintains chambers in Boise, 

assumed senior status on Dec. 31, 

2004. Judge Trott was appointed to 

the court of appeals on March 25, 

1988. He formerly served in the 

United States Department of Justice 

as an associate attorney general, 

1986 to 1988, and as an assistant attorney general in the 

criminal division, 1983 to 1986. Judge Trott served 

as a United States attorney for the Central District of 

California, 1981 to 1983, and worked in the Office of the 

District Attorney for Los Angeles County, 1965 to 1982. 

District Judges

District Judge Lourdes A. Baird of the 

Central District of California assumed 

senior status on May 12, 2004. Judge 

Baird was appointed a district judge 

on Aug. 12, 1992. Judge Baird 

 previously served as a United States 

attorney for the Central District of 

California, 1990 to 1992. She served 

as judge of the California Superior Court, Los Angeles 

County, 1988 to 1990; Los Angeles Municipal Court, 1987 

to 1988; and the East Los Angeles Municipal Court, 1986 

to 1987. Judge Baird engaged in private practice in Los 

Angeles, 1983 to 1986. She was the assistant United 

States attorney for the Central District of California, 1977 

to 1983.

District Judge William B. Shubb of the 

Eastern District of California assumed 

senior status on Nov. 1, 2004. Judge 

Shubb was appointed a district judge 

on Oct. 1, 1990 and served as chief 

district judge from 1996 to 2003. 

Prior to becoming a federal judge, he 

had been a California Superior Court 

settlement conference judge, pro tem, Sacramento County, 

1988 to 1990. He was in private practice at Diepenbrock, 

Wulff, Plant & Hannegan as a partner, 1981 to 1990, and as 

an attorney, 1974 to 1980. He served as the United States 

attorney for the Eastern District of California, 1980 to 1981. 

Judge Shubb had been an assistant United States attorney, 

1965 to 1971, then chief assistant United States attorney, 

1971 to 1974, both in the Eastern District of California. 

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

Berkeley in 1960 and his juris doctorate from the University 

of California at Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law, in 1963.

District Judge Gary L. Taylor of the 

Central District of California assumed 

senior status on Dec. 8, 2004. Judge 

Taylor was appointed a district 

judge on Oct. 1, 1990. Prior to his 

appointment, Judge Taylor engaged 

in private practice as a trial attorney 

for 20 years at Wenke, Taylor, Evans 

and Ikola. He served as a California Superior Court judge, 

Orange County, 1986 to 1990. Judge Taylor received his B.A. 

from the University of California at Los Angeles in 1960 and 

his juris doctorate from the University of California at Los 

Angeles School of Law in 1963. 

District Judge Thomas S. Zilly of 

the Western District of Washington 

assumed senior status on Jan. 1, 2004. 

Judge Zilly was appointed a district 

judge on April 20, 1988. He previously 

was in private practice in Seattle, 1962 

to 1988. He served as judge pro tem, 

Seattle Municipal Court, 1972 to 1980. 

Judge Zilly was a United States Naval Reserve Lieutenant 

(J.G.), 1956 to 1962, and he was in active duty, 1956 to 1959. 

He received his B.A. from the University of Michigan in 1956 

and his juris doctorate from Cornell Law School in 1962.

New Senior Judges
16 Ninth Circuit United States Courts

J u d i c i a l T r a n s i t i on s

Judge Harry L. Hupp (1929-2004) 

was appointed a district judge for 

the Central District of California on 

March 21, 1984, and took senior 

status on April 1, 1997. Prior to 

his appointment to the federal 

bench, Judge Hupp served as a 

California Superior Court judge, Los 

Angeles County, 1972 to 1984. He previously engaged 

in private practice in Los Angeles, 1955 to 1972. Judge 

Hupp received his A.B. from Stanford University in 

1953 and his LL.B. from Stanford Law School in 1955. 

He served in the United States Army during the Korean 

War, 1950 to 1952. Judge Hupp died on Jan. 27, 2004. 

He is survived by his wife, Patricia, four children, and 

two grandchildren.

Judge Judith N. Keep (1944-2004) 

was appointed a district judge for 

the Southern District of California 

on June 30, 1980. Prior to her 

appointment, Judge Keep served 

as a municipal court judge in San 

Diego, 1976 to1980. She served as 

an assistant United States attorney 

for the Southern District of California in 1976. Judge 

Keep engaged in private practice from 1973 to 1976. 

She was a staff attorney for Defenders, Inc., 1971 

to 1973. Judge Keep received her B.A. from Scripps 

College in 1966 and her juris doctorate from the 

University of San Diego School of Law in 1970. Judge 

Keep died on Sept. 14, 2004. She is survived by her 

husband, Russell "Rusty" L. Block.

Judge Herbert Young Cho Choy 

(1916-2004) was appointed to the 

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on 

April 23, 1971, and took senior 

status on October 3, 1984. Prior 

to his appointment to the bench, 

Judge Choy was a partner at Fong, 

Miho, Choy, and Robinson, 1958 to 

1971. He was an attorney general for the Territory of 

Hawaii, 1957 to 1958. Judge Choy was a partner at 

Fong, Miho, and Choy, 1947 to 1957, and an associate 

at Fong and Miho, 1946 to 1947. Judge Choy received 

his B.A. from the University of Hawaii in 1938 and 

his juris doctorate from Harvard Law School in 1941. 

Following law school, he was a law clerk for the City 

and County of Honolulu. Judge Choy served in the 

Hawaii Territorial Guard, 1941 to 1942, and in the 

United States Army Judge Advocate General's Corps 

in World War II, 1942 to 1946. He died on March 10, 

2004. Judge Choy is survived by his wife, Helen Choy.

District Judge A. Andrew Hauk 

(1912-2004) was appointed a 

district judge for the Southern 

District of California on June 29, 

1966. Judge Hauk was reassigned 

on Sept. 18, 1966 to the Central 

District of California, where he 

served as chief judge from 1980 

to 1982. He assumed senior status on Sept. 29, 1982. 

Prior to his appointment to the federal bench, Judge 

Hauk served as a California Superior Court judge, Los 

Angeles County, 1964 to 1966. He was an 

associate at Adams, Duque & Hazeltine, Los Angeles, 

1952 to 1964, and was an assistant counsel for Union 

Oil Company in Los Angeles, 1964 to 1966. Judge 

Hauk was a lieutenant, then lieutenant commander 

in the United States Navy, Naval Intelligence, when 

he was released in 1946. He was an assistant United 

States attorney for the Southern District of California, 

1941 to 1942, and served as a special assistant, U.S. 

Attorney General's Office, Antitrust Division, 1939 to 

1941. Judge Hauk received his A.B. from Regis College 

in 1935, his LL.B. from Catholic University of America 

School of Law in 1938, and his J.S.D. from Yale Law 

School in 1942. He died on Nov. 9, 2004. Judge Hauk 

is survived by his daughter, Susan.

In Memoriam
Annual Report 2004 17

Ninth Circuit Committees

Circuit Seeks to Improve Juror Experience

Courts Reach Out to Media

Pro Se Caseload Studied

Pictured: Participants in a Ninth Circuit media 

workshop in Boise, Idaho
18 Ninth Circuit United States Courts

N i n t h C i r c u i t C o m m i t t e e s

Appointed in 2002 by the chief 

judge, the committee includes 

circuit, district and magistrate 

judges, criminal and civil attorneys 

(including a Federal Public 

Defender and a United States 

Attorney), and court administrators. 

District Judge Susan R. Bolton 

of Phoenix was selected as chair 

because of her past experience as 

a judge of the Maricopa County 

(Ariz.) Superior Court, which has 

been a leader in jury reform. 

The committee has been researching 

how federal and state courts are 

handling jury related issues and 

what jury reforms federal courts 

in the Ninth Circuit should be 

encouraged to consider adopting. 

The research included a survey in 

which district and magistrate 

judges in the Ninth Circuit were 

asked to share their experiences 

with juries, and a questionnaire 

sent to jury administrators in the 

circuit to gather data on jury 

management practices.

The committee’s preliminary report 

included a number of important 

recommendations. Most noteworthy 

among them was adherence to a 

one appearance/one trial policy, 

limiting how long prospective 

jurors could be “on call” for jury 

duty to a maximum of five 

working days. Prospective jurors 

would be required to make only one 

appearance in court for jury 

selection. Those selected would 

serve for one trial; those not 

selected would be released.

In its report to the council, the 

committee found no standard 

term for jury service in the Ninth 

Circuit’s district courts. The typical 

term is one month, though some 

courts have three-month terms 

and two have terms of up to one 

year, meaning that prospective 

jurors may be “on call” anywhere 

from one month to an entire year 

in order to fulfill their jury duty. 

“This can be a significant disruption 

to the potential jurors’ lives,” the 

committee reported.

The committee found that state 

courts that have implemented a 

one appearance/one trial policy 

have reported positive results, 

including increased citizen 

participation, fewer requests to 

be excused, reduced financial 

losses for prospective jurors, and 

reduced waiting times for jurors. 

The committee also recommended 

that courts implement an 

interactive voice response (IVR) 

system that permits jurors to 

more easily change their jury 

service dates. IVRs work over the 

telephone and Internet. Courts 

Circuit Seeks to Improve Juror Experience, Jury Management

At the urging of Chief Judge Mary M. Schroeder, the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit 

established a Jury Trial Improvement Committee to study juror service in federal courts 

of the western states. The committee was directed to develop innovative approaches to 

improve the juror experience and better manage the jury system. Its preliminary report 

was given to the Judicial Council in May 2004.
Annual Report 2004 19

N i n t h C i r c u i t C o m m i t t e e s

benefit by saving printing and 

postage costs and reducing the 

staff time previously devoted to 

reviewing thousands of deferral 

requests or responding to 

telephone calls.

After seeing IVRs in operation at 

the Los Angeles County Superior 

Court and the Clark County (Nev.) 

District Court, committee members 

concluded that the systems improve 

access to the courts, reduce 

demands on court staff and 

provide a sufficient number of 

potential jurors for trials.

A third recommendation was to 

expand the database from which 

jurors are selected. Rather than 

relying solely on voter registration, 

the database could be expanded 

to include state department of 

motor vehicle lists. Courts also 

should consider utilizing the 

national change of address system. 

The committee found that for a 

minimal cost, the system can be 

used to significantly update and 

therefore improve the quality 

of information that is needed to 

contact the potential jurors.

The committee also addressed 

when citizens can be excused 

from jury service, recommending 

that broad excuse categories be 

eliminated in favor of clear

standards for what constitutes 

hardship and justifies granting 

an excuse.

In 2005, the committee will be 

studying ways to improve jury 

management inside the 

courthouse. Once jurors are 

called in for service, there are a 

variety of practices that courts 

can adopt to improve the juror 

experience. The committee aims 

to examine the juror experience 

with these innovations in mind 

and develop a set of recommendations for its second report to 

the courts, expected in 2005.

Front row from left: Dr. Bob Rucker, assistant circuit executive, and Amy Cardace, staff assistant, of the Office of the Circuit 

Executive; District Judge Susan R. Bolton, chair; Justice Judith McConnell of the California Courts of Appeal; and U.S. 

Attorney Debra Yang. Back row from left: Circuit Judge Richard Tallman; Federal Public Defender Frances A. Forsman; 

Retired State Court Judge Michael Brown; Chief Deputy Clerk Cynthia Jensen; attorney John R. Hannah; and District Judge 

Anthony W. Ishii. Not pictured: District Judge William H. Alsup, Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte; Jury Administrator 

Joan Cook; District Judge Virginia A. Phillips; attorney Brian T. Rekofke; Circuit Executive Dr. Gregory B. Walters.
20 Ninth Circuit United States Courts

N i n t h C i r c u i t C o m m i t t e e s

Established in 2000 by the Judicial 

Council of the Ninth Circuit, the 

PICO Committee focuses on projects 

and programs that improve public 

understanding of and confidence 

in the nation’s judicial system. Its 

members include circuit, district, 

bankruptcy and magistrate 

judges, along with attorneys, 

clerks of court and media relations 

professionals. District Judge 

Alicemarie H. Stotler of the Central 

District of California, who had 

chaired the committee since 

its inception, stepped down in 

September, when several new 

members also were appointed. 

The new chair of the committee 

is Chief District Judge Robert S. 

Lasnik of the Western District of 

Washington.

The committee has set out two 

goals: facilitating better relations 

between the courts and news 

media, and promoting existing 

community outreach programs 

that help educate the public 

about the courts. The emphasis 

on media relations stems from 

recognition that most citizens are 

unfamiliar with the federal courts. 

They rely on the media for 

information about the courts, 

and base their opinions of the 

courts on what they have read in 

the newspaper or seen on television. 

Thus, the committee believes it 

makes sense for courts to assist 

the media, where feasible and 

appropriate, to ensure accurate 

and fair reporting. 

The PICO Committee has been 

organizing media workshops in 

which judges and court staff can 

interact and share views with 

reporters and editors. In 2004, the 

committee co-sponsored workshops 

in Los Angeles and Boise, Idaho, 

and contributed to planning for a 

program held in San Francisco. All 

three events were highly successful 

with a good turnout by both

judges and journalists.

Public Information and Community Outreach Committee 

Bill Manny, metro editor of the 

Idaho Statesman newspaper, 

was among the journalists 

who participated in the media 

workshop held in Boise. 

The Ninth Circuit is at the forefront of efforts to 

educate the public about the courts and the important 

role they play in a democratic society. Helping organize 

and coordinate these numerous and varied efforts is the 

circuit’s Public Information and Community Outreach 

(PICO) Committee.
Annual Report 2004 21

N i n t h C i r c u i t C o m m i t t e e s

The Sept. 30 media workshop in 

Los Angeles, one of the world’s 

most competitive media markets 

and home to the nation’s busiest 

federal court, was co-sponsored 

by the United States District Court 

for the Central District of California. 

Entitled “Courts and the Media: 

Access, Influence and Ethics,” the 

program opened with a panel 

presentation focusing on the 

shared responsibility judges and 

journalists bear to ensure that the 

public understands what goes 

on in the courtroom. A second 

panel comprised of attorneys and 

a media consultant talked for and 

against limiting media access to 

court documents and proceedings, 

and about whether reporters 

may soon be forced to reveal 

confidential sources. 

The program also included luncheon 

remarks by Supreme Court

correspondent Manny Medrano of 

ABC News. Other media panelists 

were Dave Boardman, managing 

editor of the Seattle Times and 

a frequent participant in PICO 

events; special correspondent 

Linda Deutsch of The Associated 

Press; legal writer Henry Weinstein 

of the Los Angeles Times; and 

Katrina Dewey, editor of the Los 

Angeles edition of the legal 

publication The Daily Journal.

The May 13 workshop in Boise was 

a joint effort involving PICO, the 

U.S. District and Bankruptcy Courts

for the District of Idaho, and the 

State Courts of Idaho. The program 

brought together federal and state 

judges, lawyers, law professors, 

freedom of the press advocates 

and working journalists from 

Idaho newspapers and television 

stations. In all, some 60 workshop 

participants spent nearly six hours 

together, listening to presentations 

and sharing views on a variety of

topics of mutual interest and concern.

The program featured a look at the 

U.S. Patriot Act as seen through 

the eyes of a prosecutor, Tom 

Moss, U.S. Attorney for the District 

of Idaho; a defense attorney, Tom 

Monaghan, deputy public defender 

for the district; and reporter, Betsy 

Russell, Boise bureau chief for the 

Spokane Spokesman-Review. 

District Judge Michael R. Hogan of 

Eugene, Ore., a PICO Committee 

member, moderated. There was 

also an open forum, moderated 

by Judge Lasnik and Idaho State 

Judge Randy Smith, in which 

reporters were welcome to bring 

up topics not covered previously.

The program ended with a luncheon 

presentation focusing on journalists’ 

use of confidential government

sources in reporting on the Wen 

Ho Lee nuclear secrets scandal.

 The presenters were Los 

Angeles attorney Brian Sun, a 

PICO Committee member, and 

Lucy Dalglish, a former media 

attorney now executive director 

of the Reporters Committee 

for Freedom of the Press in 

U.S. District Judge Alicemarie H. Stotler, at podium, left, introduces panelists for the media workshop held in Los Angeles. 

The program featured Manny Medrano, a former assistant U.S. Attorney in Los Angeles, who is the U.S. Supreme Court correspondent for ABC News. 
22 Ninth Circuit United States Courts

N i n t h C i r c u i t C o m m i t t e e s

Washington, D.C. Mr. Sun 

represents Dr. Lee in a federal 

Privacy Act suit and is seeking 

to compel several reporters to 

reveal the sources of government 

leaks in the case. Ms. Dalglish’s 

organization seeks to protect 

reporter privilege and has spoken 

out strongly against the effort to 

force reporters to reveal sources 

in the Lee case.

The April 28 media program in 

San Francisco was sponsored 

by the U.S. District Court for the 

Northern District of California. 

Titled “Covering the Federal 

Courts: A Legal Seminar and 

Roundtable Discussion for 

Journalists,” the half-day program 

began with a workshop geared 

toward reporters new to the 

federal court beat, followed by a 

roundtable discussion of issues 

affecting the interaction between 

the judges and journalists. 

Courts Reach Out to Students

The committee promotes and 

publicizes educational outreach 

programs sponsored by district 

and bankruptcy courts in the 

circuit. These include Law Day 

and Open Doors to Federal Courts, 

a national program organized 

by the Administrative Office of 

the United States Courts that 

involved a number of Ninth 

Circuit courts in 2004.

For the Central District of California, 

Law Day is actually Law Week. 

Hundreds of high school students 

The Idaho program brought together the state’s top judicial officers: Chief 

District Judge B. Lynn Winmill of the U.S. District Court for Idaho; Chief Judge 

Mary M. Schroeder of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and Chief 

Justice Linda Copple Trout of the Idaho Supreme Court.

Public Information and Community Outreach continued

visited the district court’s Spring Street courthouse in downtown Los 

Angeles during the May 4-7 observance. Besides introducing young 

people to the federal courts, this year’s program also included reference 

to Brown v. Board of Education in this the 50th anniversary year of 

the landmark decision that led to desegregation of the nation’s public 

schools.

The Open Doors event held Feb. 6 by the Eastern District of California 

drew nearly 700 high school seniors and juniors to federal courthouses 

in Sacramento, Fresno and Bakersfield. The program was organized 

around the theme “Working for Justice: Careers in the Courts.” Judges 

presided over mock trials concerning a student accused of receiving 

a stolen vehicle. Students assumed the roles of jurors in deciding the 

case and some portrayed the defendant. Afterward, attorneys from 

the offices of the U.S. Attorney and Federal Public Defender were on 

hand to talk about their careers and answer questions from students. 

Representatives of the district’s probation and pretrial services offices 

and the U.S. Marshals Service also spoke.
Annual Report 2004 23

N i n t h C i r c u i t C o m m i t t e e s

Self-represented litigants are 

generally less familiar with the 

law and legal procedures. Thus, 

pro se cases pose special challenges 

for judges and often demand 

more services from court staff. 

Pro se cases now constitute roughly 

one-third of all civil filings in the 

Ninth Circuit with the problem 

most acute in the district courts, 

where trials are conducted.

In 2002, the Task Force on SelfRepresented Litigants was

established to advise the Judicial 

Council of the Ninth Circuit, 

governing body for the federal 

courts in the West, on what courts 

might do or do better to deal 

with the situation. The task force 

represented a cross section of 

judges, lawyers, academics and 

court staff from throughout the 

circuit. Members were named by 

Chief Judge Mary M. Schroeder, 

who selected District Judge 

James K. Singleton of Anchorage 

to serve as chair.

In November 2004, the task 

force released an interim report 

and recommendations on how 

to improve administration of 

cases either filed or defended 

by unrepresented litigants. The 

report was announced publicly 

and published online. Public 

comment was received from 

individuals and groups.

Task force members were organized 

into subcommittees that focused 

on different areas of concern and 

issued recommendations in each. 

The subcommittee on case 

management, for example, 

looked into staffing and other 

case management proposals 

to reduce the amount of time a 

judge spent on pro se cases. The 

subcommittee sought to determine 

how courts staff screen pro se

cases, and made recommendations 

and suggestions on these 

processes. While the effort 

focused on district courts, data was 

collected from the Court of Appeals 

and bankruptcy courts as well.

Working through the Office of 

the Circuit Executive, the case 

management subcommittee also 

surveyed some 78 pro se law 

clerks to gauge where most of 

their work time was spent. The 

survey found that, on average, 

pro se law clerks spent 91.2 percent 

of their time on prisoner cases. 

Another subcommittee investigated 

the use of pro bono counsel 

to represent self-represented 

litigants in the district courts. 

The subcommittee reviewed 

current practices in the district 

courts and made recommendations 

regarding the minimum that 

should be done to ensure the 

availability of pro bono counsel 

where appropriate, and certain 

additional approaches worthy of 

consideration. The subcommittee 

also commented on what might 

be done, at both the district 

and circuit levels, to ensure the 

effectiveness of existing pro bono

appointment programs throughout 

the circuit.

Other subcommittees were 

assigned to:

• Investigate what efforts have 

been made to cooperate with 

prisons and prosecutors, leading 

to a survey of all prisons within 

the Ninth Circuit, and ad hoc 

contact with defendant agencies.

• Study and evaluate what selfhelp materials are now available

to pro se litigants in general; 

whether such materials are 

accessible and being utilized; 

whether the use of such materials 

is helpful to the litigant or the 

court; and whether more or different 

materials would be beneficial.

• Provide additional educational 

resources for habeas corpus

due to the complex substantive 

and procedural issues, the pace 

at which the law in this area 

changes, and the incarcerated 

status of habeas litigants, which 

poses unique challenges. The 

subcommittee was cognizant of a 

concern expressed by a majority 

of the task force members that 

any information coming from a 

court, or appearing to come from 

a court, should not cross the line 

between presenting information 

and giving legal advice.

Task Force Seeks Solutions to Courts’ Pro Se Caseload

Through its Task Force on Self-Represented Litigants, 

the Ninth Circuit is helping federal courts find ways 

to contend with the growing number of pro se cases 

in which at least one of the parties is self-represented.
24 Ninth Circuit United States Courts

N i n t h C i r c u i t C o m m i t t e e s

• Organize future collection of data from 

each of the districts within the Ninth Circuit in 

order to better understand the issues posed 

by pro se litigation. The subcommittee noted 

that beyond basic statistical reports from the 

Federal Judicial Center, there has been very little 

research on pro se issues in the Ninth Circuit.

The subcommittee conducted interviews and 

surveys to assess (1) procedures for review of 

claims related to in forma pauperis applications, 

(2) district standards for appointment of 

counsel, and (3) pro se law clerk functions.

The task force received 23 responses from 

external organizations, government officials, 

pro se litigants and community members. 

Among them were individuals who had 

appeared in propria persona in the courts or 

who wrote on behalf of interest groups of pro 

se litigants. The comments pointed to a need 

for courts to improve the quality of and access 

to legal counsel and pro se services. Suggestions 

included self-help centers similar to those in 

the state courts; collaboration with community 

partners; making court materials more 

understandable to average citizens and 

translating them into foreign languages; and 

possible use of form pleadings for certain cases. 

All public comments were considered by the 

task force and some specific revisions were 

made to the report based on the recommendations 

that were received. The task force is considering 

holding public hearings next year to review 

the report further and respond to comments. 

The report and recommendations may be 

considered by the Judicial Council of the Ninth 

Circuit in 2005.

Court of Appeals Among First 

to Recognize Pro Se Trend

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has a well 

established and successful pro se program that may 

serve as a model for trial courts of the circuit as they 

consider ways to better screen and process cases involving 

self-represented litigants.

One of the first circuit courts to recognize the pro se

trend, the Ninth Circuit organized a pro se unit working 

within the Office of Staff Attorneys in 1992. In 2004, 

the unit included an attorney, a case administrator and 

three paralegals who:

• Conduct initial review and early disposition of 

deficient, vexatious or meritless pro se appeals, and 

the case management of other pro se appeals. 

• Coordinate and manage the court’s pro bono program 

in the review of meritorious or complex pro se appeals 

and the location and appointment of counsel to provide 

further briefing and argument. 

• Provide general assistance to pro se litigants and to 

court staff dealing with unusual or particularly difficult 

litigants or cases. 

Pro se appeals have traditionally constituted approximately 

one-third of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals docket. At 

least half of all pro se cases are disposed of prior to the 

completion of briefing, either through jurisdictional 

dismissals or dismissal for failure to prosecute. Most of 

the remaining appeals are presented on the merits to oral 

screening panels for disposition. Of those that go forward 

to be calendared before an argument panel for disposition, 

most have pro bono counsel appointed to represent the 

litigant, and to file supplemental briefs on their behalf and 

to appear at oral argument.

With these mechanisms firmly in place for the last 

dozen years, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has 

been able to very effectively manage its growing pro se

caseload while continuing to provide due process,

assistance and justice for these litigants.

Task Force Seeks Solutions continued
Annual Report 2004 25

Ninth Circuit Committee Tackles 

Space and Security Issues

Courthouse Construction 

Projects in 2004

Pictured: U.S. District Court Seattle

space and Facilities
26 Ninth Circuit United States Courts

S p a c e a n d F a c i l i t i e s

The cost containment measures 

were implemented by the 

Judicial Conference of the United 

States, national governing body 

for the federal courts. They 

included a moratorium on major 

prospectus level projects for a 

period of 24 months; imposing 

caps on space growth; and 

reassessing standards found in 

the U.S. Courts Design Guide, 

which guides court space planning.

The measures reflect growing 

concern over space costs, largely the 

rent paid to the General Services 

Administration (GSA), which 

serves as landlord and caretaker 

of judiciary facilities. Rent to GSA 

has risen at an annual rate of 6.4 

percent since 1999 and constituted 

21.2 percent of judiciary spending 

in 2004. Without cost containment 

measures, rental costs were

estimated to increase to almost 

$1.2 billion by FY 2009.

This moratorium affects 42 new 

prospectus level courthouse 

construction projects nationwide. 

In addition, a one-year moratorium 

for non-prospectus projects was 

implemented in March 2005.

Four major projects nationwide 

were designated as judicial space 

emergencies and were exempt 

from the moratorium including

two in the Ninth Circuit: new 

courthouse projects in Los 

Angeles and San Diego. The 

Ninth Circuit Judicial Council 

Space and Security Committee 

also recommended that critically 

needed courthouse projects in 

Saipan, Bakersfield, Calif., Coeur 

d’Alene, Idaho, and Great Falls, 

Mont., also move forward as 

lease-construct projects.

Ninth Circuit projects affected 

by the moratorium include new 

courthouses in San Jose, Calif., 

and Yuma, Ariz., along with 

numerous expansion projects in 

existing courthouses in Arizona, 

Nevada, Eastern Washington, 

Idaho and Hawaii. 

Courts Act to Hold Down Costs for Space

The Judiciary took steps to contain costs for space and facilities in 2004, enacting 

moratoriums on a broad range of projects. While not unaffected by the building ban, 

the Ninth Circuit’s two biggest undertakings, new courthouses in Los Angeles and 

San Diego, were deemed critical projects that should go forward. 
Annual Report 2004 27

S p a c e a n d F a c i l i t i e s

Seattle is home to the Ninth 

Circuit’s newest district courthouse. The U.S. District Court for 

the Western District of Washington 

moved into the 23-story, 615,000-

square-foot structure over the 

summer, then celebrated its official 

opening in September. The building has 18 courtrooms and 22 

judicial chambers plus offices for 

staff of the district and bankruptcy 

clerks. Other tenants include U.S. 

Probation and Pretrial Services 

offices, U.S. Marshals Service and 

U.S. trustee.

The design of the courthouse 

features a striking entrance with 

a portico of seven steel columns 

supporting a glass façade. Once 

inside, visitors are met by a reflecting pool that serves both aesthetic 

and functional purposes by helping control access through a security checkpoint. A diverse array 

of artwork is spread throughout 

the building, including metal wall 

panels celebrating the Northwest’s 

natural environment, and murals 

depicting citizens at work and as 

jurors.

The new courthouse occupies two 

acres of land in downtown Seattle, 

and cost $215 million for design 

and construction.

Judges, court staff and

representatives of the General 

Services Administration conduct 

a ribbon-cutting ceremony 

opening the new federal 

courthouse in Seattle.

Seattle Welcomes New Federal Courthouse
28 Ninth Circuit United States Courts

S p a c e a n d F a c i l i t i e s

The opening of the new district court in Seattle 

has left the old William K. Nakamura Federal 

Courthouse temporarily vacant. The Nakamura 

courthouse is scheduled for major renovation 

and modernization and will be used by judges 

of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, who currently have chambers in leased commercial 

space nearby. This project was required to 

reduce scope in order to be exempt from the 

moratorium. Congress has appropriated $50 

million for construction of the Nakamura project, which is now in design.

In April, groundbreaking for the circuit’s 

newest courthouse project took place in Eugene, 

Ore. The Wayne Lyman Morse United States 

Courthouse will be used by the U.S. District and 

Bankruptcy Courts for the District of Oregon.

The five-story, 276,000-square-foot structure features courtrooms and chambers for two district, 

two magistrate and two bankruptcy judges, plus 

office space for the clerk’s office, probation, pretrial services, U.S. Marshals Service, and the U.S. 

attorney. 

The building will meet the court’s anticipated 

space needs over the next 10 years and enable 

the court to consolidate operations, now 

scattered at several different locations. The $70 

million project will transform a former industrial 

site into a federal landmark in a little more than 

two years.

In Fresno, construction of a 430,000-square-foot 

courthouse for the Eastern District of California 

also was well under way. Workers had the 

project’s structural steel, concrete building work, 

and electrical backbone in place by the end of 

2004. The district and bankruptcy courts, U.S. 

Marshals Service, U.S. trustees and U.S. attorney 

are expected to move into their new offices in 

August 2005.

A seismic retrofit and historic renovations of the 

Pioneer Courthouse in Portland also was begun. 

Work Progresses on Other Projects

Workers move scaffolding in the lobby of the new Fresno courthouse.

The project includes installation of seismic base isolators that 

allow the building to move safely during a major earthquake. 

The courthouse, which borders the Pioneer Square area of 

the city, is used by judges of the court of appeals.

Construction of a magistrate courtroom and chambers 

building in El Centro was finished in early December. The 

Southern District of California project included space for 

probation, pretrial services, and the clerk’s office. The 42,000-

square-foot building, which was built by a private developer 

and leased through the GSA, was expected to be fully 

occupied and open in early 2005.
Courthouses Under Construction

Annual Report 2004 29

S p a c e a n d F a c i l i t i e s

Fresno

U.S. Courthouse

Gross Square Footage: 430,000

Projected Completion Date: 2005

Architects: Moore Ruble Yudell
30 Ninth Circuit United States Courts

S p a c e a n d F a c i l i t i e s

Courthouses Under Construction

Eugene

U.S. District Court and Federal Building

Gross Square Footage: 272,274

Projected Completion Date: 2006

Architects: Morphosis

Portland

 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Pioneer Courthouse

Historic Restoration and Seismic Retrofit

Gross Square Footage: 51,200

Project Completion Date: 2005

El Centro

Magistrate Judge Courthouse

Square Footage: 42,000

Projected Completion Date: 2005 
Annual Report 2004 31

S p a c e a n d F a c i l i t i e s

Courthouses in Design Stage

Los Angeles

U.S. Courthouse

Gross Square Footage: 1,016,300

Completion Date: 2011

Architects: Perkins & Will Architecture

San Diego

U.S. Courthouse

Gross Square Footage: 619,644

Completion Date: 2010

Architects: Richard Meier & Partners
32 Ninth Circuit United States Courts

S p a c e a n d F a c i l i t i e s

Funding constraints have brought 

about a redesign of a new Los 

Angeles courthouse for the U.S. 

District Court for the Central 

District of California. The largest 

district court in the circuit, the 

Central District’s downtown 

operations are currently housed in 

the existing courthouse on Spring 

Street and the nearby Edward 

R. Roybal Federal Building and 

Courthouse. 

Design and construction of a 

courthouse large enough to 

accommodate all operations was 

estimated to cost $400 

million, greater than the $364

million Congress has appropriated 

for the project. Work is now under 

way on an alternative design for a 

smaller courthouse, supplemented 

by expansion of court space in 

the Roybal building. Award of a 

design-build contract for the new 

courthouse is expected in fall 

2005.

The U.S. District Court for the 

Southern District of California 

has been working closely with 

the design firm of Richard Meier 

and Partners on the final concept 

design for a new courthouse 

in downtown San Diego. Once 

approved by the local court and 

regional GSA office, the design will 

be presented to the GSA 

commissioner in Washington, 

D.C. for final approval. The new 

620,000-square-foot courthouse 

will provide courtrooms and

chambers for district judges and 

other office space. 

Plans Move Forward for Los Angeles, San Diego Courthouses

Architect Mike Sarbak of Richard Meier and Partners attended the Southern 

District of California’s district conference to explain plans for the new San

Diego courthouse.
Annual Report 2004 3333

Historic Courthouse Named

Judicial Conference Focuses on

Human Rights

Celebrating Diversity

Pictured: Ninth Circuit Court of

Appeals, San Francisco

2004 Circuit Highlights
34 Ninth Circuit United States Courts

2 0 0 4 H I G H L I G H T S

Judge Browning was elevated to 

chief judge of the Ninth Circuit in 

1976 and served in that position 

for 12 years. During his tenure as 

chief, Judge Browning reorganized 

and modernized the administration 

of the circuit. Many judges who 

worked with Judge Browning during 

his time as chief judge recall fondly 

the emphasis he placed on judicial 

collegiality. He also was remembered 

for working to ensure that citizens 

had access to the justice system.

“Judge Browning’s contributions to 

the law and to judicial governance 

have been immense,” Chief Judge 

Mary M. Schroeder of Phoenix said. 

“As chief, he was a visionary and 

innovator who made inclusiveness 

and communication key principles 

in the functioning of the circuit.”

Born in Great Falls, Mont., Judge 

Browning received his juris

doctorate degree from Montana 

State University Law School in 

In late 2004, Congress authorized 

naming the historic Ninth Circuit 

Court of Appeals building in San 

Francisco after Senior Circuit Judge 

James R. Browning, one of the 

nation’s longest serving federal 

judges and an architect of the 

modern federal court system in 

the West.

The long-awaited honor resulted 

from inclusion of legislation in 

a federal omnibus spending bill 

passed into law by President Bush 

on Dec. 10, 2004. The legislation, 

sponsored by Rep. Nancy Pelosi of 

San Francisco, officially designated 

the magnificent beaux arts style 

building as the James R. Browning 

United States Courthouse.

In introducing the bill, Rep. Pelosi 

said she was pleased that Judge 

Browning would be able to witness 

“this much-deserved tribute to 

his lifetime of public service.”

Judge Browning, who celebrated 

his 86th birthday in October, has 

his chambers in the San Francisco 

courthouse. 

Nominated by President John F. 

Kennedy, Judge Browning received 

his commission to the Ninth Circuit 

Court of Appeals on Sept. 18, 1961. 

Over the next 43 years, Judge 

Browning participated in almost 

1,000 published appellate decisions and authored many other 

unsigned per curiam opinions. 

Colleagues have described him as 

“the consummate appellate judge” 

who made seminal contributions 

to national antitrust jurisprudence.

Landmark Courthouse Named for Respected Judge

Court staff greeted Judge Browning 

with a paper banner on the day the 

courthouse was named in his honor.

1941. He graduated at the top 

of his class and served as editorin-chief of the law review. With 

the onset of World War II, Judge 

Browning entered the U.S. Army, 

rising to the rank of first lieutenant 

and winning a Bronze Star Medal 

for heroism.

After the war, Judge Browning left 

military service and took a job with 

the U.S. Department of Justice. He 

rose steadily in the ranks, serving 

in several positions in the anti-trust 

division, eventually becoming the 

executive assistant to the Attorney 

General of the United States, 1952 

to 1953. In 1953, he organized 

and served as first chief of the 

Executive Office of United States 

Attorneys.

Judge Browning left the DOJ in 1953 

to enter into private practice as a 

partner in a law firm in Washington, 

D.C. He returned to government 

service in 1958 as the clerk of the 

United States Supreme Court. As 

clerk, he held the Bible used to 

swear President Kennedy into office 

in 1961. He was the last clerk of the 

court to perform this ceremonial 

task, which now is performed by the 

spouses of incoming presidents.

In 1991, Judge Browning received 

the Edward J. Devitt Award for 

Distinguished Service to Justice, 

recognizing his many contributions to the judicial system. He also 

was honored by his Ninth Circuit 

colleagues and prominent members 

of the bar and academia at a special 

ceremony in 2001 marking his 40th 

year on the bench. 
Annual Report 2004 35
36 Ninth Circuit United States Courts

2 0 0 4 H I G H L I G H T S

In 2003, the court posted an 

online “Immigration Outline” that 

serves as a primer on immigration law. In 2004, the court went 

a step further, co-sponsoring a 

program that offered lawyers new 

to appellate practice a chance to 

learn what they should expect in 

a federal appeals court and what 

will be expected of them.

The Ninth Circuit Court of 

Appeals' Appellate Practice 

Workshop was held Oct. 27-28 

at the Court of Appeals in San 

Francisco. Co-sponsored by the 

Northern California Chapter of 

the Federal Bar Association, the 

workshop attracted some 60 

attorneys, many of them solo 

practitioners or lawyers in small 

firms. The faculty included nine 

circuit judges, a number of highly 

experienced appellate attorneys, 

the clerk of court and its chief 

staff attorney.

"This was a very worthwhile 

investment of time for everyone 

involved," Ninth Circuit Chief 

Judge Mary M. Schroeder said in 

opening the program.

With thousands of new immigration appeals being filed each 

year, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has seen a need to 

provide resources to attorneys who might need help in

preparing to represent parties in these cases. 

Appellate Practice Workshop Focuses on Immigration Matters

"Helping lawyers achieve greater 

clarity and conciseness in briefs 

and arguments not only benefits 

their clients, it greatly assists the 

court in keeping up with a growing

caseload,” she observed.

The workshop focused on a case 

drawn from an actual appellate 

proceeding involving an appeal 

by an illegal alien whose asylum 

claim was rejected by the Board 

of Immigration Appeals (BIA). 

Participants were provided a short 

list of authorities along with a 95-

page administrative record of the 

proceedings. Each attorney was 

required to prepare and submit a 

brief beforehand seeking to reverse 

or affirm the BIA decision (a model 

appellant brief was provided for 

those assigned to write an appellee 

brief).

The exercise focused on effective 

writing rather than research, with 

briefs limited to 10 pages and 

4,000 words. Judges or attorneys 

provided each participant with a 

personal critique of their brief.

Brief writing was discussed by two 

panels of judges and attorneys. 

One panel focused on persuasive 

writing, reply briefs, ethics in writing briefs, standards of review 

and statutory interpretation. 

Participants included Judges 

Susan P. Graber of Portland and 

Richard C. Tallman of Seattle. 

Another panel addressed recurring

or serious problems observed in 
Annual Report 2004 37

2 0 0 4 H I G H L I G H T S

the briefs submitted by program 

participants. It included Judges 

William A. Fletcher and Marsha S. 

Berzon, both of San Francisco.

Day two of the program focused 

on oral arguments, beginning 

with a panel discussion on 

preparation and presentation, 

handling questions and ethical 

issues. Panelists included Senior 

Judge Betty B. Fletcher of Seattle 

and Judge Michael Daly Hawkins 

of Phoenix, who offered helpful 

advice in many areas. For example,

Judge Hawkins urged lawyers 

to listen carefully to questions 

posed by the panel, noting that 

attorneys all too often answer 

the question they want to hear, 

not the one that came from the 

bench. Both judges urged attorneys

to not pass up the opportunity 

for oral argument. Noting the 

many cases that never reach that 

stage, attorneys should treat the 

opportunity as a privilege, Judge 

Fletcher said.

The program culminated with 

a model oral argument before 

Judges Berzon, Alex Kozinski of 

Pasadena and Stephen R. Reinhardt 

of Los Angeles. A moderator 

provided observers with an 

insider's perspective, including the 

panel's expectations and objectives 

prior to the argument. Afterward, 

participants listened as judges 

conducted their post-argument 

conference and reached a decision.

Participants also received brief 

presentations on the inner 

workings of the court from 

Clerk Cathy Catterson; her chief 

Senior Circuit Judge Betty Fletcher, second from left, and Circuit Judge Michael Daly Hawkins, 

third from left, were among the Ninth Circuit judges participating in the appellate practice workshop.

deputy clerk and senior staff 

attorney, Molly Dwyer; Appellate 

Commissioner Peter Shaw; 

Circuit Mediator David Lombardi; 

and Cole Benson, procedural 

motions supervisor. The session 

helped participants learn about 

what is entailed in administering 

the nation's busiest appellate 

court.

Judges and staff also participated 

in a “nuts and bolts” program on 

immigration practice in the Ninth 

Circuit sponsored by the Los 

Angeles County Bar Association 

earlier in the year. More of these 

programs are planned for 2005.
38 Ninth Circuit United States Courts

2 0 0 4 H I G H L I G H T S

Human rights was the focus of 

the 2004 Ninth Circuit Judicial 

Conference, held July 19-22, 2004, 

at the Monterey Convention Center 

in Monterey, Calif. The annual 

event is held pursuant to Section 

333 of Title 28 of the United States 

Code for “the purpose of considering

the business of the courts and 

advising means of improving the 

administration of justice within 

such circuit.” Most of the judges 

who preside and lawyers who 

practice in the federal courts of the 

western United States participate.

The theme of the conference was 

“Human Rights and Human Wrongs 

– Then and Now, At Home and 

Abroad.” The program included a 

50th anniversary commemoration 

of Brown v. Board of Education, 

the historic U.S. Supreme Court 

decision leading to desegregation 

of the nation’s public schools. Also 

offered were panel presentations 

on race and diversity in education 

today; international law; and the 

use of alternative methods to 

resolve major human rights cases. 

The conference opened with 

welcoming remarks by Ninth 

Circuit Chief Judge Mary M. 

Schroeder and closed with a 

dialogue with Associate Justice 

Sandra Day O’Connor. 

Chief Judge Schroeder delivered a 

wide ranging address on the state 

of the circuit, noting that its greatest 

strength is found in the quality and 

diversity of its human resources. 

She said the circuit is committed 

to two important values that are at 

the core of our legal system: 

education and communication.

“This conference is perhaps the 

most visible annual expression of 

our commitment to those values, 

but it is only one of many efforts 

we have undertaken and will 

continue to pursue,” she said.

“Brown v. Board of Education: 

History Told by Those Who Made 

It,” featured three of the young 

lawyers who helped Thurgood 

Marshall brief and argue the 1954 

case that outlawed school 

segregation. Recalling the high 

and low points of the historic case 

were the Hon. Louis H. Pollak, 

now a senior district judge for the 

Eastern District of Pennsylvania; 

the Hon. Jack B. Weinstein, a senior 

district judge for the Eastern 

District of New York; and Professor 

Jack Greenberg of the Columbia 

University Law School. Harvard 

law professor and civil rights 

historian Charles Ogletree, Jr., 

moderated the session, which 

also featured opening remarks by 

Professor Dennis J. Hutchinson, 

senior lecturer in law at the 

University of Chicago.

In “The Aftermath of Brown

– Contemporary Problems in 

Education Relating to Race and 

Diversity,” a panel of experts 

looked at public education 50 

years after and considered just 

how much progress has been 

made in overcoming racism. 

Panelists included Harvard law 

professor Lani Guinier, the first 

African-American woman to 

receive a tenured professorship 

at Harvard; Christopher Edley, 

Jr., newly-named dean of the 

University of California's Boalt Hall 

School of Law; Dr. Mahzarin R. 

Circuit Conference Highlights Human Rights

In her state-of-the-circuit speech, Chief 

Judge Mary M. Schroeder focused on 

education and communication.

Based on the theme of “Human Rights and Human 

Wrongs – Then and Now, At Home and Abroad,” the 

Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference included a 50th 

anniversary commemoration of Brown v. Board of 

Education, the historic U.S. Supreme Court decision 

leading to school desegregation.
Annual Report 2004 39

2 0 0 4 H I G H L I G H T S

Banaji, a professor of psychology 

at Harvard University who studies 

subconscious attitudes; Michele 

Barraza Lawrence, superintendent 

of the Berkeley (California) Unified 

School District; and Glenn C. Loury, 

a noted economist and advisor on 

social issues to business and political 

leaders around the country. 

 

Ninth Circuit Judge M. Margaret 

McKeown moderated a discussion 

among legal experts of how 

national courts are increasingly 

involved in global issues. The 

session, “Complementary or 

Contradictory? International 

Law in the U.S. Courts,” focused 

on the Alien Tort Statute of 1789. 

After having lain dormant for two 

centuries, the law has recently 

been rediscovered and used to 

bring multi-million-dollar lawsuits 

against multinational corporations 

and foreign nationals, alleging 

human rights and environmental 

violations. The panelists included 

Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III of 

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

Fourth Circuit and law professors 

Viet Dinh of the Georgetown 

University Law Center, Harold 

Contributing to the discussion of Brown were, from left, Harvard law professor Charles Ogletree, Jr.; Senior District Judge 

Louis Pollak; retired Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Albert D. Matthews; Columbia University law professor Jack 

Greenberg; Senior District Judge Jack B. Weinstein; and University of Chicago law professor Dennis J. Hutchinson.

The International Law discussion included Circuit Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, 

Circuit Judge M. Margaret McKeown, law professors Ernest A. Young of the 

University of Texas, Viet Dinh of Georgetown University Law Center, and Harold 

Hongju Koh, dean of Yale Law School; and Chief District Judge Robert S. Lasnik.
Justice O’Connor shared her views in a conversation with Judge Raymond C. 

Fisher of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, John McKay, U.S. Attorney for the 

Western District of Washington, and Ana Maria Merico-Stephens, an associate 

professor at the University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law.

Justice O’Connor focused on recent Supreme Court decisions, most notably the 

Blakely ruling on sentencing but also on cases from the Ninth Circuit. She made 

note of the apparent conflict between the judiciary and Congress, but 

encouraged judges to educate legislators about what goes on in the courts. 

Reflecting on the Brown decision, Justice O’Connor said she had spoken with 

Thurgood Marshall shortly before he stepped down from the Supreme Court

in 1991.

"To hear him tell me that he didn't think anything he had accomplished in that 

regard had made any difference, and that things were just as bad as ever – I was 

shocked because I thought he had made a monumental difference," she said.

The 2004 conference was organized by a Conference Executive Committee 

chaired by Judge Fisher. Chief District Judge David F. Levi of Sacramento and 

attorney Alan Schulman of San Diego co-chaired a subcommittee responsible for 

the conference program. 

40 Ninth Circuit United States Courts

2 0 0 4 H I G H L I G H T S

Hongju Koh, dean of the 

Yale Law School, and 

Ernest A. Young of the 

University of Texas School 

of Law.

A later panel looked at 

how the search for 

alternative remedies to 

serious human rights abuses 

has resulted in creative 

solutions such as the 

Truth and Reconciliation 

Commissions in South 

Africa. “Race and 

Reconciliation: The Potential 

for Innovative Remedies to 

Resolve Major National and 

International Human Rights 

Controversies” was 

moderated by lawyer Bill 

Lann Lee, former assistant 

attorney general for civil 

rights in the Clinton 

administration.

Panelists included attorney 

Saul Green, who served 

as special monitor for the 

sweeping reforms instituted 

by Cincinnati police; Gay J. 

McDougall, executive director of Global Rights and a 

United Nations expert on 

international treaties for the 

elimination of discrimination; and civil rights attorney Burt Neuborne, director 

of the Brennan Center for 

Justice at the New York 

University School of Law.

Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference continued

Participating in the “Conversation with the Justice” were, from left, Circuit Judge Raymond 

C. Fisher; Ana Maria Merico-Stephens, assistant professor of law at the University of 

Arizona; and U.S. Attorney John McKay of the Western District of Washington.
Annual Report 2004 41

2 0 0 4 H I G H L I G H T S

American Inns of Court Award

Sacramento attorney Ann Taylor-Schwing received the 

2004 American Inns of Court 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." The award was 

presented by Tenth Circuit Chief Judge Deanell Reece 

Tacha, president of the American Inns of Court.

Ms. Schwing, who is associated with the law firm of 

McDonough Holland, has been the Master of the 

Bench for the Anthony M. Kennedy Inn of Court since 

1988 and has served on its Executive Committee since 

1989. She also serves on the Ninth Circuit’s Task Force 

on Self-Represented Litigants, the Eastern District 

of California’s Judicial Advisory Committee and Civil 

Justice Reform Act Advisory Group, and is a member of 

the district’s Early Neutral Evaluation Panel.

The American Inns of Court, a national organization with 

340 inns and 75,000 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 sometimes, law 

professors and law students. The inns are intended to 

improve the skills, professionalism and ethics of the 

bench and bar.

Robert F. Peckham Award

The 2004 Robert F. Peckham Award for Excellence in 

Alternative Dispute Resolution went to Leandra Parker 

Kelleher, chief deputy clerk of the U.S. District Court for 

the District of Montana. The presentation was made 

by Senior Circuit Judge Dorothy W. Nelson, chair of the 

Ninth Circuit’s ADR Committee, which helps select a 

candidate for the award. 

Awards Recognize Noted Attorneys, Court Staff

Ann Taylor-Schwing, right, accepts the American Inns of 

Court Award from Circuit Judge Deanell Reece Tacha.

Leandra Parker Kelleher, right, received the Robert F. 

Peckham Award fromSenior Circuit Judge Dorothy W. Nelson.

Among the traditional highlights of the opening session of the Ninth Circuit Judicial 

Conference is the presentation of awards recognizing professional excellence and 

outstanding contributions to the law and the courts. In 2004, the awards went to 

two attorneys and a longtime court employee.
42 Ninth Circuit United States Courts

2 0 0 4 H I G H L I G H T S

The late Judge Peckham, a former chief district judge of the Northern District of California, helped pioneer use of 

legal means other than court trials to resolve disputes. The Peckham Award was established in 2001 by the Judicial 

Council of the Ninth Circuit, acting on a recommendation by the circuit’s ADR Committee.

Prior to joining the federal court in Montana in May 2002, Ms. Kelleher had worked in the District of Idaho for 18 

years. She held various positions, eventually being promoted to the district’s human resources manager. She also 

served as ADR administrator for both the district and bankruptcy courts. She was nominated for the award by 

Chief District Judge B. Lynn Winmill of the District of Idaho for her tireless efforts in the ADR field. 

Ms. Kelleher is credited with developing a pro bono mediation program for non-prisoner pro se litigants. She has 

presented educational programs to the Idaho State-Federal Court Judicial Relations Conference and the Ninth 

Circuit’s Conference of Chief District Judges. She has taught numerous mediation classes, and served as a charter 

member of the ADR Committee. 

John P. Frank Award

San Francisco attorney Michael Traynor received the 

2004 John P. Frank Award, recognizing an 

outstanding lawyer practicing in the federal courts of 

the western United States. Mr. Traynor, a partner in 

the San Francisco office of Cooley Godward LLP, was 

honored for a distinguished law career spanning more 

than 40 years, and for significant contributions to the 

advancement of legal and scientific research and education.

Mr. Traynor, who specializes in intellectual property 

and First Amendment litigation, has made appearances before the United States Supreme Court, the U.S. 

Courts of Appeals for the Fifth and Ninth circuits, and 

federal district courts in California. He also serves as 

a mediator for the U.S. District Court for the Northern 

District of California.

Mr. Traynor was the president of the American Law 

Institute; a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts 

and Sciences and the American Association for the 

Advancement of Science; a member of the boards 

of directors of the Environmental Law Institute and 

the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights; and teaches 

periodically at the Boalt Hall School of Law at the 

University of California at Berkeley. 

The John P. Frank Award recognizes a lawyer who has 

“demonstrated outstanding character and integrity; 

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

appellate lawyer; success in promoting collegiality 

among members of the bench and bar; and a lifetime 

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

Awards Recognize Attorneys, Court Staff continued

Michael Traynor, right, receives the John P. Frank Award 

from M. John Carson, chair of the Advisory Board.
Annual Report 2004 43

2 0 0 4 H I G H L I G H T S

The district, which encompasses 

seven of Southern California’s 

most populous counties, has 

courthouses in downtown Los 

Angeles, Santa Ana and Riverside. 

In 2004, the court reported some 

15,000 case filings, the most in 

the nation. The caseload is shared 

among more than 50 district, 

senior district and magistrate 

judges, who are supported by 

some 500 court staff.

To help court employees 

celebrate their heritages and learn 

about other cultures, the Central 

District sponsors “Celebrating 

Our Diversity Day.” The lunchtime 

event is held every other year in 

the spacious lobby of the Edward 

R. Roybal Federal Building in Los 

Angeles. Diversity Day brings 

together employees of the district 

and bankruptcy courts, probation,

 pretrial services, and the U.S. 

Marshals Service. Employees 

dress in ethnic clothing, dine on 

exotic foods and enjoy dazzling 

entertainment.

The diversity evident today 

among the Central District’s 

judges and workforce is a source 

of wonder and pride for Chief 

District Judge Consuelo Marshall, 

the first woman and first AfricanAmerican woman to serve as chief 

judge of the district. She notes 

that not only does the present 

bench include judges of AfricanAmerican, Asian, Hispanic and 

Ninth Circuit’s Largest Court Celebrates Diversity

Like the community it serves, the United States District Court for 

the Central District of California is big, busy and ethnically diverse.

Diversity Day entertainment 

included an African dance 

troupe, flamenco dancers and 

Japanese drummers.
44 Ninth Circuit United States Courts

2 0 0 4 H I G H L I G H T S

Armenian descent, but nearly a 

third of the current district and 

magistrate judges are women. 

“It wasn’t always this way,” said 

Judge Marshall, who came onto 

the court in 1980, when there 

was only one other woman judge 

on the court and court staff was 

almost exclusively white.

“We have a lot of diversity in this 

courthouse now, which is good 

because we have a very diverse 

district. To see that our 

employees come from so many 

different backgrounds and 

cultures is, I think, reassuring 

to the people we serve,” Judge 

Marshall said.

Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr., who 

preceded Judge Marshall as chief 

district judge, came up with the 

idea for Diversity Day, which was 

first held in 2002. Judge Hatter, 

the first African American to lead 

the district, proposed an event 

that would recognize and honor 

cultural diversity. 

Largest Court Celebrates Diversity continued

“It is a wonderful opportunity for 

people to share with each other, 

to learn about each other’s culture, food, music, dress,” Judge 

Marshall said.

More than 600 persons attended 

the 2004 Diversity Day event. 

Food and entertainment reflected 

the cultures of 45 countries, 

including Cyprus, Germany and 

Philippines. A number of court 

employees proved accomplished 

District Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr., at 

the Diversity Day program.

dancers, performing the Spanish 

flamenco, Mexican salsa, the 

Haitian-Dominican ballroom 

dance known as merengue and 

the Latin cha-cha.

Other entertainment included 

American 1950s rock-and-roll, 

Persian and Celtic music, African 

dancing and dramatic

readings, and Japanese taiko 

drumming. The event concluded 

with employees singing patriotic 

songs.

Proceeds from ticket sales funded 

decorations, equipment rentals, 

and other expenses. Many of the 

entertainers volunteered their 

performances, and employees 

prepared and donated the food. 
Annual Report 2004 45

Appellate, District Court and

Bankruptcy Caseloads

Reports from Probation, Pretrial Services

and Defender Services

The Work of the Courts
Filings, Terminations and Pending Cases by Type of Appeal, 2004­

46 Ninth Circuit United States Courts

T h e W o r k o f t h e C o u r t s

Among the nation’s 11 regional 

circuit courts, the Ninth Circuit Court 

of Appeals had the largest increase 

in case filings. The Fifth Circuit Court 

of Appeals was second numerically 

with 8,678 filings, up 1.5 percent, 

while the Tenth Circuit Court of 

Appeals had the highest percentage 

increase, up 9.4 percent to 2,746 

filings from 2,509 in 2003. 

Immigration appeals led the upturn 

in Ninth Circuit case filings. From 

913 cases in 2001, immigration 

appeals swelled to 5,964 cases in 

2004, an increase of 553 percent. 

Immigration cases now constitute 

40 percent of the Ninth Circuit 

appellate caseload.

The flood of immigration filings

began in 2002, when the 

Immigration and Naturalization 

Service (INS) began clearing a 

backlog of cases involving foreign 

nationals denied residency by 

immigration judges. Would-be 

immigrants can appeal such 

decisions, first to the Board of 

Immigration Appeals (BIA), then to 

a federal circuit court. To clear its 

backlog, the BIA instituted an 

expedited review system. Its 

decisions were often rendered with 

minimal explanation, virtually 

assuring subsequent appeal to the 

circuit court. The Ninth Circuit has 

been the most impacted, receiving 

52.5 percent of the immigration 

appeals filed nationally in 2004.

Administrative agency appeals, 

which include immigration cases, 

rose to 6,214 in 2004, up 46 percent 

from 2003. Agency appeals have 

risen 468 percent since 2001. They 

made up 41.8 percent of the Ninth 

Upward Trend in Appellate Filings Continues

For the fourth consecutive year, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 

experienced record high case filings. In 2004, the court reported 14,876 

new cases, an increase of 17.2 percent over 2003. The Ninth Circuit 

accounted for 23.4 percent of appellate filings nationally.

Table 1

Appellate Caseload Profile, 2003-2004

Caseload Measure 2003 2004

Change

2003-2004

Filings 12,694 14,876 17.2%

Terminations 11,641 12,462 7.1%

*Pending Cases 11,602 14,016 20.8%

*Total pending cases for fiscal year 2003 revised.

Table 1

APPELLATE CASELOAD PROFILE, 2003-2004

Type of Appeal Filings % of Circuit

Total Terminations

Pending

12/31/2004

Civil

 U.S. Prisoner Petitions 492 3.3% 497 361

 Private Prisoner Petitions 2,388 16.1% 2,200 1,452

 Other U.S. Civil 674 4.5% 501 720

 Other Private Civil 2,296 15.4% 1,815 2,542

Criminal 1,873 12.6% 1,658 1,984

Other

 Bankruptcy 213 1.4% 170 261

 Administrative Appeals 6,214 41.8% 4,956 6,509

 *Original Proceedings 726 4.9% 665 187

Circuit Total 14,876 12,462 14,016

National Appellate Total 63,634 56,984 52,394

Ninth Circuit as % of

National Total

23.4% 21.9% 26.8%

*Beginning October 1, 1998, data are reported for types of original proceedings

previously not presented in this table.

FILINGS, TERMINATIONS AND PENDING CASES BY TYPE OF APPEAL, 2004

Table 1.1
Circuit caseload in 2004 compared 

to 33.5 percent in 2003.

Private prisoner petitions was the 

next largest category of appeals to 

the Ninth Circuit at 16.1 percent with 

2,388 filings in 2004. Criminal and 

U.S. prisoner petitions were the only 

categories to show declines.

Private civil appeals, the third largest 

category of appeals with 15.4 percent of the caseload, rose 8 percent. 

Criminal appeals, which constitute 

12.6 percent of the total, were down 

3.6 percent to 1,873 filings. Drug 

offenses were the most common 

cause for criminal appeals, followed 

immigration offenses and weapons 

violations. Original proceedings, 

which were 4.9 percent of all filings, 

rose 14.5 percent to 634 filings. 

 

Pro se cases, in which at least one 

party is not represented by legal 

counsel, continues to increase in the 

Ninth Circuit. Pro se cases made up 

40.6 percent of all filings in 2004. 

The most common types of pro se 

case were administrative appeals, 

reflected the large INS caseload, 

and private prisoner petitions.

Appeals from District Courts 

The Central District of California once 

again generated the largest number 

of appeals with 2,302 cases, 15.5 

percent of total filings for the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals. Centered 

in Los Angeles, the Central District of 

California serves a population of 18 

million people and has the busiest 

district court in the nation. The 

number of appeals from the district 

was down 1 percent from 2003.

All other districts in the Ninth Circuit 

saw increases in appeals filed. The 

Northern District of California, which 

had the second largest number of 

appeals in the circuit, reported an 

increase of 5.1 percent to 827 cases. 

Arizona was third with 816 filings, up 

1.7 percent, followed by the Eastern 

District of California at 781 filings, up 

1.2 percent, and Nevada with 622 

filings, up 9.5 percent.

Terminations and

Pending Cases

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 

terminated 12,462 cases in 2004, up 

7.1 percent from 2003. Of the total, 

5,946 cases, or 48 percent, were

terminated on the merits. Oral 

arguments were heard in 1,718 

cases, while 4,228 cases were decided on the briefs. The court ended 

the year with 14,016 pending cases, 

up 20.8 percent from the prior year. 

All told, the Ninth Circuit had 26.8 percent of the pending cases nationally.

Annual Report 2004 47

T h e W o r k of t h e C o u r t s

Table 1.2

Source of Appeals and Original Proceedings, 2004

District Appeals % of Total

Alaska 98 0.7%

Arizona 86 5.5%

C. Calif. 2,302 5.5%

E. Calif. 78 5.3%

N. Calif. 827 5.6%

S. Calif. 482 3.2%

Hawaii 58 .%

Idaho 53 .0%

Montana 306 2.%

Nevada 622 4.2%

Oregon 426 2.9%

E. Wash. 246 .7%

W. Wash. 475 3.2%

Guam 2 0.%

Northern Mariana Islands 0 0.%

Bankruptcy 23 .4%

United States Tax Court 5 0.3%

National Labor 26 0.2%

 Relations Board

Administrative Agencies 6,37 4.3%

*Original Proceedings 726 4.9%

Circuit Total 4,876

*Beginning October , 998, data are reported for types of original

proceedings previously not presented in this table.

Table .2

SOURCE OF APPEALS AND ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS, 2004
48 Ninth Circuit United States Courts

T h e W o r k of t h e C o u r t s

Appellate Filings Increase continued

Median Time Intervals

The larger caseload caused slightly longer median time intervals for processing a case. In 2004, the median time 

from filing of a case in the lower court to final disposition by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals was 31.1 months, up from 

30.4 months in 2003. In the appellate court, the time from notice of appeal to final disposition, was 14.3 months, up from 

13.7 the prior year. The national median times from filing in the lower court to final disposition by a circuit court was 

25.9 months, unchanged from 2003. The appellate portion nationally was 10.4 months, up 0.3 months from 2003. The 

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had longer median times for preparing a case for hearing or submission. Its median times

of 1.4 months from hearing to final disposition and 0.3 months from submission to final disposition were significantly

shorter than the national medians. This is the period when the cases are under direct management of the judges.

Table 1.3

Median Time Intervals, Calendar Years 2003 and 2004

Table .3

By Stage of Appeal 2003 2004 2003 2004

From Notice of Appeal to Filing Last Brief 5.8 6.3 5.3 5.5

From Filing Last Brief to Hearing or Submission 5.0 5.7 3.5 3.9

From Hearing to Final Disposition .3 .4 2. 2.2

From Submission to Final Disposition 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.5

From Filing of Notice of Appeal to Final Disposition 3.7 4.3 0.4 0.7

From Filing in Lower Court to Final Disposition in

 Appellate Court 30.4 3. 25.9 25.9

Ninth Circuit National

Number of Months

MEDIAN TIME INTERVALS, CALENDAR YEARS 2003 AND 2004
Annual Report 2004 49

T h e W o r k of t h e C o u r t s

Criminal filings in the district 

courts of the Ninth Circuit dipped 

3.8 percent to 15,546 in 2004 and 

constituted 26.4 percent of the 

total caseload. Immigration offenses 

comprised the largest category of 

criminal cases, 40 percent, followed

by drug-related offenses, 21.2 percent, 

of the total criminal caseload.

The decline in criminal filings in 

district courts was mainly attributable to fewer drug offenses, which 

numbered 3,272 in 2004, down 5.4 

percent from 3,459 in 2003. Other 

categories showing declines were 

larceny, down 24.3 percent to 523 

from 691; fraud, down 4.4 percent 

to 1,592 from 1,666; and forgery, 

off 26.5 percent to 139 from 189. 

The figures exclude transfer cases.

Nationwide, criminal filings (excluding transfers) held steady at 70,279, 

a slight 0.5 percent increase from 

69,903 in 2003. In total, the Ninth 

Circuit’s criminal caseload amounted 

to 22 percent of the nation’s criminal 

filings. The circuit’s immigration 

caseload was 8.8 percent of national 

criminal filings, while cases related to 

drug laws accounted for 4.7 percent 

of the nation’s total criminal filings.

The District of Arizona reported the 

highest number of new criminal 

District Court Filings Down Slightly

Criminal and civil filings in the district courts of the Ninth 

Circuit totaled 58,802 in 2004, down 1.2 percent from 2003. 

The 15 courts in nine states and two Pacific Island jurisdictions

accounted for 16.9 percent of the total federal court caseload.

District Court Filings: Total Criminal and Civil Cases Filed, Terminated and Pending, 2003-2004

Table 1.4

Caseload Measure 2003* 2004

Change

2003-2004

Civil Filings 43,383 43,256 -0.3%

Criminal Filings 6,53 5,546 -3.8%

Total Filings 59,536 58,802 -.2%

Civil Terminations 40,34 42,92 4.6%

Criminal Terminations 5,39 4,60 -5.%

Total Terminations 55,732 56,793 .9%

 *Pending Civil Cases 4,603 42,667 .0%

 *Pending Criminal Cases 2,72 3,7 3.7%

 *Total Pending Cases 5,788 55,784 .6%

Civil Case Termination Index (in months) 2.37 2.3 -.9%

Criminal Case Termination Index (in months) 9.49 0.78 3.6%

Overall Case Termination Index .5 .78 5.7%

Median Months (filing to disposition) Civil Cases 8.5 8.4 -.2%

Median Months (filing to disposition) Criminal Defendants 5.5 5.5 0.0%

Median Months National Total filing to disposition) Civil Cases 9. 8.4 -7.7%

Median Months National Total disposition) Criminal Defendants 6.2 6.3 .6%

*Criminal cases, civil cases, and total pending cases for 2003 were revised.

Median time intervals computed only for 0 or more cases and for 0 or more defendants.

DISTRICT COURT FILINGS: TOTAL CRIMINAL AND CIVIL CASES FILED, TERMINATED AND PENDING, 2003-2004

Table .4
50 Ninth Circuit United States Courts

T h e W o r k of t h e C o u r t s

cases commenced with 4,470 filings,

followed by the Southern District 

of California with 3,328. These two 

districts, which include significant 

stretches of the U.S.-Mexico border, traditionally lead the circuit in 

immigration and drug offenses. In 

Arizona, immigration made up 51.3 

percent of all criminal cases 

commenced in 2004, while drug 

offenses accounted for 24.8 percent 

and fraud 6.5 percent. Southern 

District of California filings were , 

63.6 percent immigration cases, 22.2 

percent drug violations, and 10.7

percent fraud cases. Immigration 

The Central District of California had 

the third most new criminal filings. 

Of the 1,746 new cases, immigration 

accounted for 45.9 percent, followed 

by fraud at 15.9 percent, and weapons

violations at 9 percent. 

Only four of 15 districts in the circuit reported growth in criminal 

case filings. The Central District of 

California was up 20.4 percent;

Montana up 6.3 percent; the 

Northern District of California up 4.1 

percent; and Arizona up 1.9 percent. 

All other districts reported declines 

with Alaska, Hawaii, and the Eastern 

District of California down 20, 19 and 

16.6 percent, respectively.

Civil Filings

In 2004, civil case filings in the district courts were down 0.3 percent, 

to 43,256, continuing a downward 

trend that began in 2001. Private 

civil cases accounted for 77.1 

percent of the filings. The remainder

were cases in which the United 

States acted as plaintiff or defendant. 

Prisoner petitions made up 26.2

percent of private civil cases and 

26.6 percent of U.S. civil cases.

Social security filings were 36.2 

percent of the United States civil 

cases. Among private civil cases, 

prisoner petitions accounted for 

District Court Filings continued

Table 2.

General Offenses Alaska Ariz.

Cent.

Calif

East

Calif.

No.

Calif.

So.

Calif Hawaii Idaho Mont. Nev. Ore.

East

Wash.

West

Wash. Guam NMI Total

Homicide 0 36 3 2  3  2 8 4  2  0 0 64

Robbery 7 5 37 6 24 0 3 3 0 35 49 2 8 0 0 29

Assault 3 5 2 2 3 3 8 5 25 7 4  24 2 0 290

Burglary 0 5 0 0  0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5

Larceny 3 70 03 56 46 7 22 5 5 23 32 7 5 9 0 523

Embezzlement 2 7 4 9 0 2 3 2 8 0 5  5 2 0 20

Fraud 2 29 278 26 50 355 3 20 38 76 59 38 85 2 3 ,592

Weapons and

 Firearms 26 2 57 9 96 5 73 38 70 62 30 74 85 2 2 ,232

Forgery and

Counterfeiting 4 9 53  7 2 2 2 7 0 6 5 0  0 39

Drug Laws 47 ,07 37 35 8 740 40 44 3 88 25 74 257 39 8 3,272

Traffic  6  3 28 0 42 0 38 0 0 0 263  0 503

Escape  27  3 6 26 0 0  9 3 2 3 0 0 22

Other 9 29 60 9 4  8 7 73 66 24 23 27 2 7 698

Total General

Offenses 34 2,074 856 585 55 ,94 453 48 405 500 458 339 993 79 20 8,789

Special Offenses

Immigration Laws 2 2,29 80 70 53 2,8 3 63 30 3 8 29 75 8 9 6,56

Agricultural Acts 0 3 6 2 3 2 0 5 6 0 3 2 0 4 0 66

Postal Laws 0  4  2 0 0    0 0 6 0 0 27

Other 9 9 79 20 6 4 2 3 8 2 8 0 29 7 8 40

Total Special

Offenses 4 2,396 890 93 229 2,34 5 72 65 26 202 4 0 9 7 6,650

All Offenses Total 75 4,470 ,746 778 780 3,328 468 220 470 626 660 480 ,03 98 37 5,439

NINTH CIRCUIT DISTRICT COURTS - TYPES OF CRIMINAL CASES COMMENCED, 2004 (EXCLUDES TRANSFER CASES)

Table 2.

General Offenses Alaska Ariz.

Cent.

Calif

East

Calif.

No.

Calif.

So.

Calif Hawaii Idaho Mont. Nev. Ore.

East

Wash.

West

Wash. Guam NMI Total

Homicide 0 36 3 2  3  2 8 4  2  0 0 64

Robbery 7 5 37 6 24 0 3 3 0 35 49 2 8 0 0 29

Assault 3 5 2 2 3 3 8 5 25 7 4  24 2 0 290

Burglary 0 5 0 0  0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 5

Larceny 3 70 03 56 46 7 22 5 5 23 32 7 5 9 0 523

Embezzlement 2 7 4 9 0 2 3 2 8 0 5  5 2 0 20

Fraud 2 29 278 26 50 355 3 20 38 76 59 38 85 2 3 ,592

Weapons and

 Firearms 26 2 57 9 96 5 73 38 70 62 30 74 85 2 2 ,232

Forgery and

Counterfeiting 4 9 53  7 2 2 2 7 0 6 5 0  0 39

Drug Laws 47 ,07 37 35 8 740 40 44 3 88 25 74 257 39 8 3,272

Traffic  6  3 28 0 42 0 38 0 0 0 263  0 503

Escape  27  3 6 26 0 0  9 3 2 3 0 0 22

Other 9 29 60 9 4  8 7 73 66 24 23 27 2 7 698

Total General

Offenses 34 2,074 856 585 55 ,94 453 48 405 500 458 339 993 79 20 8,789

Special Offenses

Immigration Laws 2 2,29 80 70 53 2,8 3 63 30 3 8 29 75 8 9 6,56

Agricultural Acts 0 3 6 2 3 2 0 5 6 0 3 2 0 4 0 66

Postal Laws 0  4  2 0 0    0 0 6 0 0 27

Other 9 9 79 20 6 4 2 3 8 2 8 0 29 7 8 40

Total Special

Offenses 4 2,396 890 93 229 2,34 5 72 65 26 202 4 0 9 7 6,650

All Offenses Total 75 4,470 ,746 778 780 3,328 468 220 470 626 660 480 ,03 98 37 5,439

NINTH CIRCUIT DISTRICT COURTS - TYPES OF CRIMINAL CASES COMMENCED, 2004 (EXCLUDES TRANSFER CASES)
Annual Report 2004 51

T h e W o r k o f t h e C o u r t s

Note: Case weights are based on the 2003-2004 district court case weighting study conducted by the Federal Judicial 

Center. This table excludes civil cases 

Table 2.2

Weighted and Unweighted Filings Per Authorized Judgeship During the 12-Month Period Ending September 30, 2004

26.2 percent, civil rights at 19.8 

percent, and miscellaneous other 

cases for 12.2 percent. The Central 

District of California had the 

largest number of private and U.S. 

civil cases combined at 14,064. Its 

civil cases totaled 10,781. Personal 

injury cases, excluding those 

involving motor vehicles, was the 

district’s largest category of civil 

cases with 2,020 filings.

Seven districts reported a drop 

in civil case filings in 2004. The 

Western District of Washington 

was down 24.4 percent to 3,718 

filings. In the Northern District of 

California, civil filings were down 

6.8 percent to 5,663 filings.

Case Terminations

Although district courts terminated 

4.6 percent more civil cases in 2004 

than in 2003, the number of pending 

civil cases increased 1 percent. The 

pending criminal caseload in district 

courts rose 3.7 percent from 2003. 

Criminal case terminations slowed 

5.1 percent.

In 2004, case processing time was 

about the same as 2003. The Case 

Termination Index, which computes 

how long it would take to clear the 

pending caseload if the current

termination rate remained constant, 

slowed to 11.78 months in 2004 

from 11.15 months in 2003.

Median times from filing to disposition was 8.4 months, up from 8.0 

months. For criminal cases, the 

median time from filing to 

disposition of criminal defendants 

held steady at 5.5 months. Both civil 

and criminal media times improved 

upon the national median times 

reported in 2004.

Table 2.2

Note: Case weights are based on the 2003-2004 district court case weighting study conducted by the Federal Judicial

Center. This table excludes civil cases 

District

Authorized

Judgeships Civil Criminal Total Civil Criminal

2004

Weighted

 Total

2003

Weighted

 Total

Change

2003-2004

Alaska 3 123 81 221 137 67 206 263 -21.5%

Arizona 13 264 436 814 300 298 615 695 -11.5%

C. Calif. 28 493 90 615 577 69 651 508 28.1%

E. Calif. 7 642 159 852 642 137 787 734 7.2%

N. Calif. 14 405 75 508 519 58 581 544 6.8%

S. Calif. 13 202 296 632 275 187 481 611 -21.3%

Hawaii 4 190 167 395 256 130 392 427 -8.3%

Idaho 2 317 152 487 403 134 539 500 7.8%

Montana 3 235 186 461 249 169 424 513 -17.4%

Nevada 7 351 129 509 435 120 560 517 8.3%

Oregon 6 407 135 598 462 115 585 570 2.6%

E. Wash. 4 200 134 375 209 114 330 357 -7.6%

W. Wash. 7 400 220 655 463 143 611 651 -6.2%

Circuit Total 111 4,229 2,260 7,123 4,927 1,741 6,761 6,890 -1.9%

Circuit Mean *** 325 174 548 379 134 520 530 -1.9%

Circuit Median *** 317 152 509 403 130 560 517 8.3%

National Mean 675 379 137 545 414 111 529 521 1.5%

Unweighted Filings Per Judgeship Weighted Filings Per Judgeship

WEIGHTED AND UNWEIGHTED FILINGS PER AUTHORIZED JUDGESHIP DURING THE 12-MONTH PERIOD ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2004

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

reopening, remand, or transfer to the district by the order of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. Includes defendants in all felony and Class A 

misdemeanor cases, plus petty offense defendants whose cases have been assigned to district judges. Remands and reopenings for criminal defendants excluded. 

Data for the territorial courts excluded. Data for supervised release and probation hearings (evidentiary and non-evidentiary) previously not presented in this table. 

Data obtained from the monthly reports of trials and other court activities conducted by resident and visiting judges. Due to rounding, subtotals for weighted and 

unweighted civil, criminal and revocation filings may not equal totals for weighted and unweighted filings.
52 Ninth Circuit United States Courts

T h e W o r k of t h e C o u r t s

In the Ninth Circuit, bankruptcy 

courts reported 252,668 filings in 

2004, down 9.7 percent from the 

prior calendar year. Bankruptcy 

filings nationwide numbered 

1,597,462, down 3.8 percent.

During 2004, Congress considered 

but did not approve bills to provide additional judgeships for both 

district and bankruptcy courts. No 

new bankruptcy judgeships have 

been created by Congress since 

1992, despite a 65 percent increase 

in caseload since then. It is widely 

expected that a new bankruptcy 

reform bill that includes new 

judgeships will be introduced in 

the next session of Congress.

Bankruptcy Filings by Chapter

The largest number of filings came 

under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy 

Code, totaling 211,811 (business 

and non-business) and comprising 83.8 percent of all bankruptcy 

cases in the Ninth Circuit in 2004. 

Chapter 7 allows debtors to keep 

certain exempt property while 

the remaining property is sold to 

pay creditors. In most Chapter 7 

cases, most property is exempt. 

Businesses filing under Chapter 7 

are liquidated and terminated.

A total of 39,645 Chapter 13 cases 

(business and non-business) were 

filed in the Ninth Circuit, amounting 

to 15.7 percent of the total cases 

filed. Under Chapter 13 bankruptcy, 

creditors may be repaid in 

installments, in full or in part, 

over three to five years and debts 

may not exceed the statutory 

amount. Chapter 13 is available for 

individuals operating businesses 

as sole proprietorships, but not for 

partnerships or corporations.

The two smallest categories of 

bankruptcy cases combined 

amounted to less than 1 percent of 

the total cases filed. Chapter 11 

filings (business and non-business) 

numbered 1,212 cases, while 

Chapter 12 cases amounted to only 

14 cases.

Chapter 11 allows a business to 

continue to operate while its 

owners formulate a plan to repay 

its creditors. It also allows an 

individual to use future earnings 

to pay off creditors. Chapter 12 

only applies to business filings 

and provides family farmers a 

chance to reorganize their debts 

and keep their farms.

Bankruptcy Courts See Downturn in Filings 

Business and Non-Business Bankruptcy Cases Commenced, by Chapter of the

Bankruptcy Code, for the 12 Months Ending December 31, 2004

Bankruptcy courts nationally reported fewer filings in 2004. The 

decline was notable in the Ninth Circuit and in the Central District 

of California, the largest and busiest bankruptcy court in the 

nation. It was the first downturn in bankruptcy filings since 2000.

Table 3.0

Filings 2003 2004 Change

2003-2004

 Business Chapter 7 5,007 4,258 -5.0%

 Business Chapter  ,40 ,034 -26.2%

 Business Chapter 2 25 4 -88.8%

 Business Chapter 3 ,837 ,079 -4.3%

 Non-Business Chapter 7 224,497 207,553 -7.5%

 Non-Business Chapter  204 78 -2.7%

 Non-Business Chapter 3 46,608 38,566 -7.3%

 *Total 279,692 252,668 -9.7%

Terminations 284,499 279,54 -.9%

**Pending Cases 220,22 93,636 -2.0%

*Includes Chapter 9 and Section 304 cases

**Pending cases for 2003 has been revised.

BUSINESS AND NON-BUSINESS BANKRUPTCY CASES COMMENCED, BY CHAPTER OF THE

BANKRUPTCY CODE, FOR THE 12 MONTHS ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2004

Table 3.0
Annual Report 2004 53

T h e W o r k o f t h e C o u r t s

Non-Business Filings 

Predominate

Non-business bankruptcy filings of all 

types totaled 246,297 and comprised 

97.5 percent of all bankruptcy cases 

filed in the Ninth Circuit in 2004. Nonbusiness Chapter 7 filings were the 

largest single category with 207,553 

cases filed in 2004, down 7.5 percent 

from the prior year. Non-business 

Chapter 7 cases accounted for 82 

percent of all filings. 

The second largest category of filings 

in the Ninth Circuit was non-business 

Chapter 13 cases, with 38,566 filings, 

or 15.3 percent of the total. Nonbusiness Chapter 13 filings showed a 

17.3 percent decline in 2004. 

Non-business Chapter 11 bankruptcy 

filings, a small fraction of the total of 

non-business bankruptcies in the 

circuit, decreased 12.7 percent to 

178 filings in 2004 from 204 filings 

in 2003. 

Business Filings

Bankruptcy filings by businesses 

totaled 6,385 and accounted for 

2.5 percent of all bankruptcy 

cases in the Ninth Circuit in 2004. 

The majority of these business 

bankruptcies were filed under 

Chapter 7. Total business Chapter 

7 filings amounted to 4,258 cases, 

down 15 percent from 2003 

Chapter 13 business filings in 2004, 

totaling 1,079, showed a 41.3 percent decrease from the 2003’s total 

of 1,837. Business bankruptcies 

brought under Chapter 11 in 2004 

fell to 1,034 from 1,401 in 2003, a 

decrease of 26.2 percent.

Completing the business filings 

were 14 filings under Chapter 12, a 

decrease of 88.8 percent from the 

total of 125 filed in 2003.

Districts with the Most Filings

The Central District of California, 

the nation’s largest bankruptcy 

court, continued to lead the 

nationin bankruptcy filings. In 

2004, the Central District recorded 

60,633 filings, which accounted 

for 3.8 percent of the national 

total. Chapter 7 cases, both business 

and non-business, made up the 

majority of filings in the Central 

District. Even so, total filings in 

the Central District were down 

19.9 percent from 2003, and 

roughly half of the historic high 

of 120,987 cases in 1998.

The downturn in filings resulted 

in a reduction in staffing for the 

Central District, which let go 22 

deputy clerks in April. Another 

11 deputy clerks were separated 

via the court’s voluntary buy-out 

program. Since 2001, the Court 

has laid off 72 employees with 

another 18 separated through 

buy-outs.

The Central District sought to 

assist departing employees by 

providing 30 days advanced 

notice and setting up a career 

transition center complete with 

computers, Internet connection,

printers and fax machines. 

Affected staff met with counselors 

and re-employment specialists, 

who provided training in effective 

interviewing, targeted resume 

writing and job hunting 

techniques.

Chief Bankruptcy Judge Albert E. Radcliffe of the District of Oregon and Chief 

Judge Mary M. Schroeder of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit during a meeting of the Conference of Chief Bankruptcy Judges.
54 Ninth Circuit United States Courts

T h e W o r k o f t h e C o u r t s

School of Law at the University 

of Nevada at Las Vegas. He also 

taught previously at law schools 

at Harvard University, Indiana 

University, the University of 

California at Davis, and Emory 

University. Before teaching, 

Markell practiced law specializing 

in bankruptcy, insolvency, and 

general corporate matters.

 

To address the shortage of 

judges, Ninth Circuit bankruptcy 

courts continue to rely on 

recalled judges to relieve the 

active bankruptcy judges. During 

2004, nine recalled bankruptcy 

judges in seven districts assisted 

the 67 active bankruptcy judges.

The Northern District of California 

saw the elevation of Chief 

Bankruptcy Judge Randall J. 

Newsome at the beginning of 

2004. Judge Newsome, a veteran 

of the bankruptcy bench for more 

than two decades, succeeded 

Judge Edward D. Jellen as 

presiding judge. His appointment 

runs through the end of 2010. 

Elsewhere in the Ninth Circuit, the 

District of Arizona had the second 

largest number of filings. The

district reported 31,387 cases, 

down 1.3 percent from 2003. 

The Eastern District of California 

was third with 28,985 filings, down 

7 percent. Rounding out districts 

with the most filings was the 

Western District of Washington, 

which had 28,956 filings, down 

3.7 percent from 2003.

Although numerically small, the 

Northern Mariana Islands was 

the only district in the circuit 

to report an increase in 2004 

bankruptcy filings. Its filings 

rose to 23 from 19 in 2003, up 

21.1 percent.

Terminations, Pending Cases

The circuit experienced a slight 

decrease in bankruptcy case 

terminations in 2004. For the 

year, bankruptcy courts closed 

279,154 cases, down 1.9 percent 

from 2003. The total number of 

pending cases was 193,636, 12 

percent less than the prior year. 

Within the circuit, the District 

of Nevada reported the largest 

decline, 25.8 percent.

Appointments, Transitions

The court of appeals appointed 

one new bankruptcy judge 

in 2004. Bruce Markell was 

appointed a judge for the U.S. 

Bankruptcy Court for the District 

of Nevada. Prior to his appointment,

Judge Markell had been a 

professor at the William S. Boyd 

Bankruptcy Filings continued

Circuit Judge Michael Daly Hawkins of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals met 

during the year with chief bankruptcy judges to discuss the process used to 

evaluate and reappoint bankruptcy judges. The court of appeals holds statutory 

authority for such appointments.
Annual Report 2004 55

T h e W o r k of t h e C o u r t s

Bankruptcy Appellate Panel

The Ninth Circuit’s Bankruptcy Appellate 

Panel (BAP) serves as an alternative forum 

to the district courts for bankruptcy appeals. 

All district courts within the Ninth Circuit 

automatically refer bankruptcy appeals to the 

BAP for disposition. If a party elects to have 

the appeal heard by a district court, the 

appeal is administratively transferred. The 

BAP is authorized seven judges, although 

one position has been held vacant the past 

two years due to reduced work load.

New Filings and Dispositions

Of the 828 bankruptcy appeals filed in 2004, 

the BAP handled 54 percent, while 46 percent 

were heard by district courts. The BAP disposed 

of 445 appeals during the year. Of those, 154 

appeals were terminated on the merits and 

291 on procedural grounds. Oral arguments 

were held in 148 appeals, and six appeals were 

submitted on briefs. Of the 154 decisions, 37 

were published opinions. The reversal rate was 

19.5 percent, down from 22.7 percent the prior 

year. The median time for an appeal decided 

on the merits was 9.7 months, up slightly from 

2003. The BAP ended the period with 228 

appeals pending (up 4.6 percent from 2003).

Appeals to the Ninth Circuit

Decisions of the BAP and district courts may be 

appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 

In 2004, the circuit court received 80 appeals of 

BAPdecisions and 133 of district court decisions. 

Thus, of the 445 appeals terminated by the 

BAP, 82 percent were fully resolved with only 

18 percent seeking second-level review. 

New Judge, Clerk for BAP

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals appointed 

Judge Erithe Smith of the Central District of 

California to the BAP in January. Harold S. 

Marenus, formerly chief deputy, was named 

BAP clerk in June, succeeding the retiring 

longtime clerk, Nancy Dickerson.

Judges of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel. Seated from left: Judge 

Philip H. Brandt, Chief Judge Elizabeth L. Perris, Judge Christopher 

M. Klein. Standing from left: Judge Dennis Montali, Judge James M. 

Marlar, Judge Erithe Smith.

Table 3.1

* From BAP and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts

** From the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts

Table 3.

District

*Bankruptcy

Appellate

Panel **District Court Total

Alaska 6 2 8

Arizona 42 42 84

C. Cal. 90 49 339

E. Cal. 42 29 7

N. Cal. 50 47 97

S. Cal. 20 6 36

Hawaii 5 6 2

Idaho  9 20

Montana 7 7 4

Nevada 54 35 89

Oregon 6 4 20

E. Wash. 4 6 0

W. Wash. 26 34 60

Total 473 (54%) 396 (46%) 869

NEW BANKRUPTCY APPEALS FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2004

* From BAP and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts

** From the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
56 Ninth Circuit United States Courts

T h e W o r k of t h e C o u r t s

Table 4.0

Civil Cases Terminated, Misdemeanor Defendants Disposed of by Ninth Circuit

Magistrate Judges, Fiscal Years 2003-2004

Notes

1 Before 2000, category included 

contested motions only. Beginning 

in 2000, uncontested motions were 

added.

2 Before 2000, category did 

not include status conferences. 

Beginning in 2000, status conferences were added.

3 Category includes writs, mental 

competency hearings, and motion 

hearings.

4 Category includes fee applications, 

summary jury trials, and motion hearings.

5 Category includes material witness 

hearings and attorney appointment 

hearings.

6 Before 2000, this category included 

seizure/inspection warrants and 

orders of entry; judgment debtor 

exams; extradition hearings, contempt proceedings; Criminal Justice 

Act fee applications; naturalization 

proceedings; grand jury returns; civil 

and criminal IRS enforcement proceedings; calendar calls; and voir 

dire. Beginning in 2000, civil and 

criminal other jury matters and international prisoner transfer proceedings 

were added.

Magistrate Judges

Table 4.0

Activity 2003 2004

% Change

2003-2004

Total Matters 49,732 5,350 .%

Preliminary Proceedings 83,230 83,762 0.6%

 Search Warrants 7,953 7,900 -0.7%

 Arrest Warrants/Summonses 6,5 5,588 -9.2%

 Initial Appearances 24,50 24,83 .3%

 Preliminary Examinations 5,355 5,73 -3.4%

 Arraignments 6,62 6,79 3.4%

 Detention Hearings 4,30 3,862 -.9%

 Bail Reviews/Nebbia Hearings 3,582 3,402 -5.0%

 Other 5 5,396 6,287 6.5%

Trial Jurisdiction Cases 7,682 8,709 5.8%

 Class A Misdemeanors 2,480 ,945 -2.6%

 Petty Offenses 5,202 6,764 0.3%

Civil Consent 3,237 3,269 .0%

 Without Trial 3,44 3,7 0.9%

 Jury Trial 48 62 29.2%

 Nonjury Trial 45 36 -20.0%

Additional Duties

 Criminal 26,732 27,547 3.0%

 Motions 636(b)()(A)  ,642 ,792 .3%

 Motions 636(b)()(B) 725 737 .7%

 Evidentiary Hearings 88 240 27.7%

 Pretrial Conferences 2 ,936 ,547 -20.%

 Probation/Supervised Release ,304 ,357 4.%

 Guilty Pleas 5,297 5,892 .2%

 Other 3 5,640 5,982 6.%

 Civil

 Settlement Conferences 4,443 4,004 -9.9%

 Other Pretrial Conferences 2 4,52 3,865 -6.9%

 Motions 636(b)()(A)  9,70 7,859 -9.4%

 Motions 636(b)()(B) ,46 ,309 -7.6%

 Evidentiary Hearings 24 32 33.3%

 Social Security 682 85 24.8%

 Special Masterships 39 39 0.0%

 Other 4 6,79 4,529 -26.7%

 Prisoner Litigation 6,007 5,477 -8.8%

 State Habeas 3,23 2,75 -4.9%

 Federal Habeas 5 508 -0.6%

 Civil Rights 2,225 2,75 -2.2%

 Evidentiary Hearings 40 43 7.5%

Miscellaneous Matters 6 2,844 2,586 -2.0%

CIVIL CASES TERMINATED, MISDEMEANOR DEFENDANTS DISPOSED OF BY NINTH CIRCUIT

MAGISTRATE JUDGES, FISCAL YEARS 2003-2004

NOTES

 Before 2000, category included

contested motions only. Beginning in

2000, uncontested motions were

added.

2 Before 2000, category did not

include status conferences.

Beginning in 2000, status conferences were added.

3 Category includes writs, mental

competency hearings, and motion

hearings.

4 Category includes fee applications,

summary jury trials, and motion hearings.

5 Category includes material witness

hearings and attorney appointment

hearings.

6 Before 2000, this category included

seizure/inspection warrants and

orders of entry; judgment debtor

exams; extradition hearings, contempt proceedings; Criminal Justice

Act fee applications; naturalization

proceedings; grand jury returns; civil

and criminal IRS enforcement proceedings; calendar calls; and voir

dire. Beginning in 2000, civil and

criminal other jury matters and international prisoner transfer proceedings

were added.
Annual Report 2004 57

T h e W o r k of t h e C o u r t s

Magistrate Judges 

The Ninth Circuit Magistrate Judges Executive Board meets twice a year to consider 

issues affecting magistrate judges. Serving on the board in 2004 were: seated from left, 

Magistrate Judges Richard G. Seeborg; Barry Kurren; Virginia Mathis; Robert N. Block; 

standing from left, Magistrate Judges Lawrence J. O’Neill; Robert J. Johnston; J. Kelley 

Arnold, chair; Janice M. Stewart; Harry Branson. Not pictured: Magistrate Judges Leif B. 

Erickson and Bernardo P. Velasco.

Table 4.1

Civil Cases Terminated, Misdemeanor Defe­ndants Disposed of by Ninth Circuit Magistrate Judges, Fiscal Years 2003-2004

Table 4.

CIVIL CASES TERMINATED, MISDEMEANOR DEFENDANTS DISPOSED OF BY NINTH CIRCUIT MAGISTRATE JUDGES, FISCAL YEARS 2003-2004

District 2003 2004

Change

2003-2004 2003 2004

Change

2003-2004

Alaska  0 -00.0% 426 448 5.2%

Arizona 40 37 -2.% 4,949 6,920 39.8%

C. Calif. 9 ,083 8.9% ,705 ,35 -20.8%

E. Calif. 360 536 48.9% 2,92 ,803 -7.7%

N. Calif. 659 652 -.% ,05 ,78 2.%

S. Calif. 33 3 -60.6% 2,028 2,754 35.8%

Guam - 0 - - 2 -

Hawaii 268 49 -8.7% ,65 653 -43.9%

Idaho 73 45 -6.2% 0 00 -9.%

Montana 67 207 24.0% 244 80 -26.2%

Nevada 37 23 -37.8% 803 722 -0.%

Oregon 224 22 -5.4% 788 850 7.9%

E. Wash. 90 55 -8.4% 39 35 -0.3%

W. Wash. 74 57 -23.0% 2,82 ,73 -2.5%

Circuit Total 3,237 3,269 .0% 7,682 8,709 5.8%

 Civil Cases Terminated Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c) Misdemeanor, Petty Offense defendants disposed

Table 4.

CIVIL CASES TERMINATED, MISDEMEANOR DEFENDANTS DISPOSED OF BY NINTH CIRCUIT MAGISTRATE JUDGES, FISCAL YEARS 2003-2004

District 2003 2004

Change

2003-2004 2003 2004

Change

2003-2004

Alaska  0 -00.0% 426 448 5.2%

Arizona 40 37 -2.% 4,949 6,920 39.8%

C. Calif. 9 ,083 8.9% ,705 ,35 -20.8%

E. Calif. 360 536 48.9% 2,92 ,803 -7.7%

N. Calif. 659 652 -.% ,05 ,78 2.%

S. Calif. 33 3 -60.6% 2,028 2,754 35.8%

Guam - 0 - - 2 -

Hawaii 268 49 -8.7% ,65 653 -43.9%

Idaho 73 45 -6.2% 0 00 -9.%

Montana 67 207 24.0% 244 80 -26.2%

Nevada 37 23 -37.8% 803 722 -0.%

Oregon 224 22 -5.4% 788 850 7.9%

E. Wash. 90 55 -8.4% 39 35 -0.3%

W. Wash. 74 57 -23.0% 2,82 ,73 -2.5%

Circuit Total 3,237 3,269 .0% 7,682 8,709 5.8%

 Civil Cases Terminated Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c) Misdemeanor, Petty Offense defendants disposed
58 Ninth Circuit United States Courts

T h e W o r k of t h e C o u r t s

In the Ninth Circuit, the bulk of 

this representation comes from 

federal public defenders, who 

have offices in 10 judicial districts. 

Community defenders serve four 

districts, while the District of the 

Northern Mariana Islands relies on 

attorneys provided through the 

Criminal Justice Act.

Congress created the Office of the 

Federal Public Defender to fulfill 

the constitutional requirement 

that indigents charged with federal 

crimes be provided with no-cost, 

professional legal representation. 

Congress funds public defender 

and community defender offices 

through the Defender Services 

Division of the Administrative 

Office of the United States Courts.

Subsection (g) of the Criminal 

Justice Act provides an option for 

establishment of either a federal 

public defender or a community 

defender organization in a district in which at least 200 persons 

annually require the appointment 

of counsel. Community defender 

organizations are non-profit legal 

service organizations staffed by 

non-government employees, 

while public defender offices 

are federal agencies staffed by 

employees of the judiciary. Both 

types of organizations are staffed 

with experienced federal criminal 

law practitioners who are able to 

provide a consistently high level 

of representation.

In addition to criminal defense 

and appeals, public defenders are 

assigned to court-directed prisoner 

and witness representations, bail 

and presentencing, and probation 

and parole revocation hearings.

Case Filings, Pending Cases 

Increase

Federal public defenders and 

community defenders have seen 

their caseloads increase in four of 

the last five years. In fiscal year 

2004, they opened 24,543 new 

cases, up 4.27 percent over the 

prior fiscal year. The Ninth Circuit 

claimed 24.3 percent of all new 

defender cases opened nationwide. 

The pending caseload of Ninth 

Circuit public and community 

defenders rose 4.32 percent in 

fiscal year to 8,287 cases. In 

addition, federal defenders closed 

24,215 cases, a 4.16 percent 

increase from the prior fiscal year.

Largest Caseloads in Border 

States

Defender offices in the districts 

of Arizona and California, which 

have had the largest caseloads 

since 2000, led the way again in 

fisc­al year 2004. Federal public 

defenders in Arizona had the 

biggest caseload in the circuit 

with 5,664 new cases, a significant

increase of 44.9 percent. The 

Southern District of California 

followed with 5,313 new cases, 

down 6.6 percent from the previous

year. The district’s caseload has 

been steadily decreasing since 

reaching a high of 6,135 cases in 

FY 2000.

The Central District of California 

ranked third in the circuit with 

Federal Public Defender Caseloads Rise

Indigent defendants charged with federal crimes 

who are unable to afford private counsel receive legal 

representation from a Federal Public Defender, a 

Community Defender or private attorneys funded 

through the Criminal Justice Act.

Table 5.0

Federal Public Defenders: Cases Opened, Closed and Pending for

Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2004

Table 5.0

Change

Cases 2003 2004 2003-2004

Opened 23,539 24,543 4.27%

Closed 23,247 24,25 4.6%

Pending 7,944 8,287 4.32%

 Fiscal Year

FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDERS: CASES OPENED, CLOSED AND PENDING FOR

FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2004
Annual Report 2004 59

T h e W o r k of t h e C o u r t s

3,566 new defender cases in fiscal 

year 2004. The district’s caseload 

has followed an upward trend 

since 2000, when 2,657 new cases 

were reported.

Defenders Reappointed

By statute, the judges of the court 

of appeals select and appoint

federal public defenders. 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. 

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 

reappointed two federal public 

defenders in 2004: 

Quin A. Denvir, the federal public 

defender for the Eastern District 

of California since 1996, was 

reappointed in February 2004 to a 

third consecutive four-year term. 

Prior to his appointment, he had 

been a criminal defense lawyer in 

both federal and state courts. 

Peter Wolff, the federal public 

defender for the District of Hawaii 

since 1996, also was reappointed 

to a third consecutive four-year 

term. Mr. Wolff had been a criminal defense lawyer in both federal 

and state courts. He also served 

on the faculty of the Hawaii State 

Public Defender Institute of Trial 

Advocacy and was an arbitrator for 

the Hawaii State Court Annexed 

Arbitration Program.

Table 5.1

Federal Defender Organizations: Summary of Representations by District for Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2004

Table 5.

FEDERAL DEFENDER ORGANIZATIONS: SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS BY DISTRICT FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2004

District

Opened

09/30/2003

Opened

09/30/2004

Change

2003-2004

Closed

09/30/2004

Pending

09/30/2004

Alaska 357 327 -8.4% 295 28

Arizona 3,90 5,664 44.9% 5,532 ,67

C. Calif. 3,52 3,566 .3% 3,84 ,670

E. Calif. 2,88 ,766 -9.3% ,868 675

N. Calif. 930 945 .6% 87 542

*S. Calif. 5,688 5,33 -6.6% 5,550 907

Guam 09 29 8.3% 30 47

Hawaii 70 676 -3.6% 663 558

*Idaho 27 303 .8% 298 32

*Montana 554 64 5.7% 605 253

Nevada ,260 ,26 0.% ,240 697

Oregon ,582 ,47 -7.0% ,52 786

*E. Wash. 750 74 -4.8% 689 297

W. Wash. ,78 ,767 2.9% ,778 428

Circuit Total 23,539 24,543 4.3% 24,25 8,287

National Total 88,925 0,05 3.6% 87,252 34,82

Circuit Total as % of

 National Total 26.5% 24.3% -2.2% 27.8% 24.2%

Northern Mariana Islands is not served by a defender organization.

*Community Defender Organizations (E. Wash. and Idaho are combined into one organization.)

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

witness representations, bail/pre-sentencing, an
60 Ninth Circuit United States Courts

T h e W o r k of t h e C o u r t s

Circuit Probation Caseload Dips, But Some Districts See Increases

Federal probation officers perform

their duties in many different 

settings, from courthouses in 

large metropolitan areas to oneperson offices in rural communities. 

They are recognized nationally for 

delivering the highest quality 

services.

In fiscal year 2004, the U.S. 

Probation Office reported a new 

national record of 112,883 persons

under supervision, up 2 percent 

from the prior fiscal year. In the 

Ninth Circuit, there were 19,472 

persons under supervision, a 1 

percent decrease from FY 2003. 

The Ninth Circuit accounted for 

17.2 percent of the national total.

Among the Ninth Circuit’s 15 

judicial districts, the Central District

of California had the highest 

number of offenders under 

supervision, although its caseload 

slipped from the prior fiscal year. 

The Central District reported 

5,535 supervised offenders, down 

5.3 percent from FY 2003. The 

District of Arizona was second 

highest with 2,993 offenders 

under supervision, up 9 percent, 

while the Southern District of 

California ranked third highest 

with 1,924 supervised offenders, 

up 2.2 percent.

The largest percentage increase 

in caseload was reported by the 

The United States Probation Office assists in the 

administration of justice by preparing presentence 

investigation reports on convicted offenders and by 

supervising offenders placed on probation, supervised 

release, parole and conditional release.

Table 6.0

Ninth Circuit Federal Probation System: Persons Under Supervision, 2004

District of Hawaii, which had 751 

persons under supervision, up 

15.5 percent from 650 in FY 2003.

Both nationally and in the Ninth 

Circuit, drug offenses continue 

to account for the majority of 

offenders under supervision. 

At the end of calendar year 

2004, 7,659 persons were under 

supervision in the Ninth Circuit 

for drug law violations, amounting to 40.6 percent of the total 

caseload. The second largest 

categories was fraud, with a total 

of 3,503 cases under supervision, 

or 18 percent of the total, followed 

by larceny, with 1,177 offenders, 

or 6.1 percent; and robbery with 

1,127 cases, or 5.8 percent.

Revocation Rates

National revocation rates rose to 

29.1 percent in FY 2004, compared 

to 22.9 percent for the prior fiscal

year. Of that figure, 18.2 percent 

were for technical violations, 9.7 

percent for major crimes and 1 

percent for minor crimes. The 

Ninth Circuit’s revocation rate 

was below the national average 

at 24.6 percent, which marked a 

4.2 percent improvement over 

the circuit’s FY 2003 numbers.

Early Terminations

The Criminal Law Committee of 

the Judicial Conference of the 

United States and the U.S. Office 

of Probation and Pretrial Services 

continue to recommend that all 

districts assess the suitability of 

offenders for early termination 

of supervision. In FY 2004, the 

District of Arizona had the largest 

number of cases terminated early, 

325 or 9 percent of its total caseload. 

The Southern District of California 

followed with 303 cases, also 

9 percent of its caseload. The 

Western District of Washington 

was third with 288 cases terminated

early, which was 28 percent of its 

caseload. The Western District 

Table 6.0

Persons Under Supervision 2003 2004

Change

2003-2004

From Courts 5,542 5,63 -6.8%

From Institutions 4,8 4,309 .4%

Total 9,660 9,472 -.0%

Fiscal Year

NINTH CIRCUIT FEDERAL PROBATION SYSTEM: PERSONS UNDER SUPERVISION, 2004
Annual Report 2004 61

T h e W o r k of t h e C o u r t s

of Washington had the highest 

percentage of early terminations, 

followed by the District of Alaska 

at 27 percent, and the Northern 

District of California at 14 percent. 

The average among all districts in 

the Ninth Circuit was 10.6 percent.

Transitions, New Initiatives

New chief probation officers were 

appointed in two districts in 2004. 

Jerry Cooley was named the new 

chief in the District of Montana, 

replacing the retiring Frank 

Fleming. Loretta Martin was chosen the new chief in the Central 

District of California, replacing 

Robert Latta, who also retired. 

Ms. Martin previously served as 

chief in the Virgin Islands. 

Two probation officers from the 

Eastern District of Washington 

were invited to Romania to give 

presentations to Romanian criminal

justice officials. Officers Gloria 

Petretee and Al Barrett were 

accompanied by representatives of the Romanian Ministry of 

Justice, and made presentations 

in Bucharest and five smaller cities.

In February 2004, the Office of 

Probation and Pretrial Services 

was granted partner organization 

status with the Federal Law 

Enforcement Training Center 

(FLETC). The first course being 

offered to probation officers is a 

three-week safety program for 

new officers. OPPS also has plans 

to train all firearms and safety 

instructors at FLETC. 

Budget Matters

Budget reductions in fiscal year 

2004 made reductions in force 

(RIFs) necessary in some districts. In the Ninth Circuit, five 

staff members left through RIFs, 

19 through buyouts and five 

through early-outs. There was 

also one district that eliminated 

10 positions.

Budgetary constraints also have 

caused probation offices in the 

Ninth Circuit and nationwide to 

identify and fund only the most 

crucial investigative and supervision 

work being performed. 

Table 6.1

Ninth Circuit Probation System: Persons Under Supervision By Deistrict for Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2004

Table 6.

NINTH CIRCUIT PROBATION SYSTEM: PERSONS UNDER SUPERVISION BY DISTRICT FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2004

District

District Judge

Probation

Magistrate Judge

Probation

Supervised

Release Other

2003

Total Cases

2004

Total Cases

 Change

2003-2004

Alaska 7 33 78 2 278 284 2.2%

Arizona 776 32 ,820 85 2,746 2,993 9.0%

C. Calif. ,99 34 3,995 207 5,847 5,535 -5.3%

E. Calif. 279 53 ,002 73 ,528 ,507 -.4%

N. Calif. 336 60 924 62 ,625 ,482 -8.8%

S. Calif. 79 24 ,683 38 ,882 ,924 2.2%

Hawaii 29 52 559  650 75 5.5%

Idaho 8 6 226 3 353 373 5.7%

Montana 53 5 47 8 577 593 2.8%

Nevada 236 46 642 86 ,023 ,00 -.3%

Oregon 24 9 73 92 ,077 ,055 -2.0%

E. Wash 83 5 373 5 424 466 9.9%

W. Wash. 205 29 869 83 ,443 ,286 -0.9%

Guam 50 0 07 4 53 6 5.2%

N. Mariana Is. 20 0 32 0 54 52 -3.7%

Circuit Total 4,075 ,088 3,540 769 9,660 9,472 -.0%

Referred by United States Courts Referred by Institutions

Table 6.

NINTH CIRCUIT PROBATION SYSTEM: PERSONS UNDER SUPERVISION BY DISTRICT FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2004

District

District Judge

Probation

Magistrate Judge

Probation

Supervised

Release Other

2003

Total Cases

2004

Total Cases

 Change

2003-2004

Alaska 7 33 78 2 278 284 2.2%

Arizona 776 32 ,820 85 2,746 2,993 9.0%

C. Calif. ,99 34 3,995 207 5,847 5,535 -5.3%

E. Calif. 279 53 ,002 73 ,528 ,507 -.4%

N. Calif. 336 60 924 62 ,625 ,482 -8.8%

S. Calif. 79 24 ,683 38 ,882 ,924 2.2%

Hawaii 29 52 559  650 75 5.5%

Idaho 8 6 226 3 353 373 5.7%

Montana 53 5 47 8 577 593 2.8%

Nevada 236 46 642 86 ,023 ,00 -.3%

Oregon 24 9 73 92 ,077 ,055 -2.0%

E. Wash 83 5 373 5 424 466 9.9%

W. Wash. 205 29 869 83 ,443 ,286 -0.9%

Guam 50 0 07 4 53 6 5.2%

N. Mariana Is. 20 0 32 0 54 52 -3.7%

Circuit Total 4,075 ,088 3,540 769 9,660 9,472 -.0%

Referred by United States Courts Referred by Institutions
62 Ninth Circuit United States Courts

T h e W o r k of t h e C o u r t s

Case Activations Hold Steady for Pretrial Services Officers

The Ninth Circuit ranked first 

nationally in the number of cases 

activated by pretrial services 

officers in its judicial districts. 

Case activations for 2004 were 

23,720, down 0.7 percent from 

the prior year. The Ninth Circuit 

had 24.2 percent of the 97,897 

case activations reported nationally. 

Most districts in the Ninth Circuit 

reported small to moderate 

declines in their pretrial services 

workload, a turnabout from 2003 

when almost all districts had 

significant increases. However, the 

prior year trend continued in three 

districts that reported substantial 

gains in caseload.

Those districts with expanding 

workloads were: Arizona with 

8,512 active cases, up 15 percent; 

the Central District of California 

with 3,363 cases, up 23.4 

percent; and Montana with 520 

cases, up 3.4 percent. The 

biggest decline was reported 

by the Southern District of 

California, whose caseload fell to 

4,120 from 5,334, a 22.8 percent 

decrease. Among smaller districts, Guam saw a 25.4 percent 

decline in case activations to 106 

from 142, and Hawaii was down 

18.6 percent to 459 from 564.

The United States Pretrial Services Office provides the bail 

reports used by judges to decide whether defendants will be 

detained or released and closely monitors those defendants 

who are released under supervision. 

Table 7.0

Pretrial Services Cases Activated in Ninth Circuit Courts, 2004

Pretrial Investigations, 

Defendant Supervisions Increase

Pretrial services officers conducted 

significantly more bail investigations of defendants in 2004. 

Interviews of defendants rose 

22.2 percent from the prior year, 

while the number of pretrial 

reports increased by 4 percent. 

Officers recommended detention

in 64.7 percent of all cases, an 

increase of 3.4 percent from 

2003. At the same time, U.S. 

attorneys’ offices in the circuit 

recommended detention in 65.1 

percent of the cases, up slightly 

from 63.4 percent in 2003.

Pretrial services officers assist 

the courts in reducing the rate of 

unnecessary detentions, while at 

the same time reasonably ensuring the safety of the community 

and future court appearances of 

released defendants. To achieve 

these goals, officers work diligently

to make sure that released 

defendants make scheduled court 

appearances and are not re-arrested 

while on release. This work often 

involves utilizing the services of 

contracted substance abuse, 

mental health, residential treatment,

and electronic and globalpositioning-satellite monitoring. 

During 2004, 6,103 defendants 

were released from custody and 

placed under the supervision of 

Ninth Circuit pretrial services 

officers, an increase of 5 percent 

from 2003. Of those, 4,639 were 

placed on standard pretrial services

supervision, a 7.3 percent decrease;

1,220 were supervised on a 

courtesy basis from another district 

or circuit, a 0.8 percent decrease; 

and 177 were on pretrial diversion 

caseloads, a 2.8 percent increase.

Nonappearance, Re-Arrests, 

Bond Violations

The rate of bail revocation due to 

nonappearance and/or re-arrest of 

*All statistics are for the calendar 

year of 2004 unless otherwise 

Table 7.0

Caseload Measure 2003 2004

Change

2003-2004

Reports 23,345 23,83 -0.7%

Interviews 8,526 0,49 22.2%

Cases Activated 23,892 23,720 -0.7%

PRETRIAL SERVICES CASES ACTIVATED IN NINTH CIRCUIT COURTS, 2004
Annual Report 2004 63

T h e W o r k of t h e C o u r t s

supervised defendants continues 

to be significantly low. In 2004, 

the district courts of the Ninth 

Circuit revoked bail for only 847 

of the 10,876 defendants under 

supervision and ordered them 

returned to detention pending the 

outcome of their case. 

Bond violations also declined in 

2004. Violations of bond conditions

for defendants released in the 

Ninth Circuit totaled 2,107, a 7.9 

percent decrease from 2003. Of 

these violations, 1,464 occurred 

pre-adjudication, up 1.9 percent 

increase; 551 occurred prior to 

sentencing, down 24.4 percent; 

and 92 occurred while pending 

self-surrender to custody, down 

24.6 percent. 

Of the 2,107 violations reported 

in 2004, the court chose not to 

modify bond conditions in 1,113 

of these violations, a 6.2 percent 

decrease, and these defendants 

were allowed to remain in the 

community. Another 147 violations

resulted in modification of bond 

conditions, a 2.8 percent increase. 

Bail was revoked and defendants 

were detained in 847 of the 2,107 

violations reported, or 40.2 percent

of all violations, an 11.5 percent 

decrease.

Supervised defendants found to 

be in violation totaled 1,157, a 

2.8 percent decrease from 2003. 

Of these violators, 183 had 

committed new offenses, down 

1.1 percent, while the remaining 

defendants were cited for technical 

violations.

Table 7.1

Pretrial Services Interviews and Reports, 2004

Table 7.

PRETRIAL SERVICES INTERVIEWS AND REPORTS, 2004

District Interviewed

*Not

Interviewed

Refused

Interview Prebail

Postbail

& Other 2003 2004

Change

2003-2004

Alaska 45 86 35 250  275 266 -3.3%

Arizona 4,80 3,597 735 8,396 58 7,395 8,52 5.%

C. Calif. 2,23 207 925 3,087 46 2,726 3,363 23.4%

E. Calif. 378 92 577 ,026 20 ,74 ,047 -0.8%

N. Calif. 438 649 2 603 44 ,208 ,089 -9.9%

S. Calif. 324 7 3,779 4,08 78 5,334 4,20 -22.8%

Hawaii 34 09 9 456 3 564 459 -8.6%

Idaho 304 2 0 303  354 306 -3.6%

Montana 334 84 2 495 4 503 520 3.4%

Nevada 550 88 355 973 7 ,079 993 -8.0%

Oregon 358 2 467 827 3 973 846 -3.%

E. Wash 82 05 99 230 89 525 486 -7.4%

W. Wash. 547 85 95 ,553  ,579 ,557 -.4%

Guam 73 29 4 82 3 42 06 -25.4%

N. Mariana Is. 34 4 2 36 0 6 50 -8.0%

Circuit Total 0,49 6,05 7,286 22,335 848 23,892 23,720 -0.7%

National Total 69,48 5,373 3,06 86,994 7,020 95,695 97,897 2.3%

Circuit % of 5.0% 39.% 55.6% 25.7% 2.% 25.0% 24.2% -0.7%

National Total

 Defendant Contact Written Reports

*Includes defendants not available for interview and transfer-received cases

in which defendants were interviewed in other districts.

Total Cases Activated

Table 7.

PRETRIAL SERVICES INTERVIEWS AND REPORTS, 2004

District Interviewed

*Not

Interviewed

Refused

Interview Prebail

Postbail

& Other 2003 2004

Change

2003-2004

Alaska 45 86 35 250  275 266 -3.3%

Arizona 4,80 3,597 735 8,396 58 7,395 8,52 5.%

C. Calif. 2,23 207 925 3,087 46 2,726 3,363 23.4%

E. Calif. 378 92 577 ,026 20 ,74 ,047 -0.8%

N. Calif. 438 649 2 603 44 ,208 ,089 -9.9%

S. Calif. 324 7 3,779 4,08 78 5,334 4,20 -22.8%

Hawaii 34 09 9 456 3 564 459 -8.6%

Idaho 304 2 0 303  354 306 -3.6%

Montana 334 84 2 495 4 503 520 3.4%

Nevada 550 88 355 973 7 ,079 993 -8.0%

Oregon 358 2 467 827 3 973 846 -3.%

E. Wash 82 05 99 230 89 525 486 -7.4%

W. Wash. 547 85 95 ,553  ,579 ,557 -.4%

Guam 73 29 4 82 3 42 06 -25.4%

N. Mariana Is. 34 4 2 36 0 6 50 -8.0%

Circuit Total 0,49 6,05 7,286 22,335 848 23,892 23,720 -0.7%

National Total 69,48 5,373 3,06 86,994 7,020 95,695 97,897 2.3%

Circuit % of 5.0% 39.% 55.6% 25.7% 2.% 25.0% 24.2% -0.7%

National Total

 Defendant Contact Written Reports

*Includes defendants not available for interview and transfer-received cases

in which defendants were interviewed in other districts.

Total Cases Activated
64 Ninth Circuit United States Courts

 T h e W o r k of t h e C o u r t s

District Caseloads 

Alaska

Oregon

Nevada

Idaho

Montana

Arizona

Eastern

Washington

Western

Washington

Northern 

California

Hawaii

N. Mariana 

Islands

Guam

Eastern

California

Central

California

Southern

California
Annual Report 2004 65

D i s t r i c t C a s e l o a d s

Table 8.0

District of Alaska

Table 9.0

District of Arizona

Table 8.0

DISTRICT OF ALASKA

Change Per Judgeship Unweighted

Caseload Measure 2003 2004 2003-2004 2004

District Court

 Filings 604 544 -9.9% 8

 Terminations 696 583 -6.2% 94

 *Pending 530 49 -7.4% 64

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings ,50 ,508 -0.% 754

 Terminations ,707 ,529 -0.4% 765

 Pending ,384 ,363 -.5% 682

Authorized Judgeships Authorized places of holding court:

 District 3 Anchorage, Fairbanks, Juneau, Ketchikan,

 Bankruptcy 2 Kodiak, Nome

 Magistrate

 Full time 2

 Part-time 4

*Total pending cases revised for 2003.

Calendar Year

Table 9.0

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Change Per Judgeship Unweighted

Caseload Measure 2003 2004 2003-2004 2004

District Court

 Filings 7,74 8,356 7.9% 643

 Terminations 7,638 7,637 0.0% 587

 *Pending 5,960 6,679 2.% 54

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 3,8 3,387 -.3% 4,484

 Terminations 29,922 34,857 6.5% 4,980

 Pending 33,325 29,855 -0.4% 4,265

Authorized Judgeships Authorized places of holding court:

 District 3 Flagstaff, Phoenix, Prescott, Tucson, Yuma

 Bankruptcy 7

 Magistrate

 Full time 2

 Part-time 0

*Total pending cases revised for 2003.

Calendar Year
66 Ninth Circuit United States Courts

D i s t r i c t C a s e l o a d s

District Caseloads

Table 10

Central District of California

Table 11

Eastern District of California

Table 0

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Change Per Judgeship Unweighted

Caseload Measure 2003 2004 2003-2004 2004

District Court

 Filings 4,79 5,834 7.6% 566

 Terminations 4,854 5,2 2.4% 543

 *Pending 3,743 4,366 4.5% 53

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 75,72 60,633 -9.9% 2,887

 Terminations 8,837 69,020 -5.7% 3,287

 Pending 39,228 30,84 -2.4% ,469

Authorized Judgeships Authorized places of holding court:

 District 28 Los Angeles, Riverside, Santa Ana

 Bankruptcy 2

 Magistrate

 Full time 22

 Part-time 

*Total pending cases revised for 2003.

Calendar Year

Table 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Change Per Judgeship Unweighted

Caseload Measure 2003 2004 2003-2004 2004

District Court

 Filings 5,590 5,265 -5.8% 752

 Terminations 4,94 5,038 2.5% 720

 *Pending 6,358 6,585 3.6% 94

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 3,66 28,985 -7.0% 4,83

 Terminations 3,76 3,4 -0.2% 5,86

 Pending 2,55 9,386 -9.9% 3,23

Authorized Judgeships Authorized places of holding court:

 District 7 Fresno, Redding, Sacramento

 Bankruptcy 6

 Magistrate

 Full time 0

 Part-time 0

*Total pending cases revised for 2003.

Calendar Year
Annual Report 2004 67

D i s t r i c t C a s e l o a d s

Table 12

Northern District of California

Table 13

Southern District of California

Table 2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Change Per Judgeship Unweighted

Caseload Measure 2003 2004 2003-2004 2004

District Court

 Filings 6,839 6,453 -5.6% 46

 Terminations 6,252 6,372 .9% 455

 *Pending 7,484 7,565 .% 540

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 22,948 2,89 -4.9% 2,424

 Terminations 2,593 24,206 2.% 2,690

 Pending 24,298 2,9 -9.8% 2,435

Authorized Judgeships Authorized places of holding court:

 District 4 Eureka, Monterey, Oakland, San Francisco,

 Bankruptcy 9

 Magistrate

 Full time 0

 Part-time 

*Total pending cases revised for 2003.

Calendar Year

Table 3

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Change Per Judgeship Unweighted

Caseload Measure 2003 2004 2003-2004 2004

District Court

 Filings 6,460 6,20 -5.3% 47

 Terminations 6,87 6,75 -0.2% 475

 *Pending 3,637 3,582 -.5% 276

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings ,833 ,259 -4.9% 2,85

 Terminations 3,222 2,52 -5.4% 3,28

 Pending 8,590 7,337 -4.6% ,834

Authorized Judgeships Authorized places of holding court:

 District 3 El Centro, San Diego

 Bankruptcy 4

 Magistrate

 Full time 0

 Part-time 0

*Total pending cases revised for 2003.

Calendar Year
68 Ninth Circuit United States Courts

D i s t r i c t C a s e l o a d s

District Caseloads 

Table 14

District of Guam

Table 15

District of Hawaii

Table 4

DISTRICT OF GUAM

Change Per Judgeship Unweighted

Caseload Measure 2003 2004 2003-2004 2004

District Court

 Filings 55 52 -.9% 52

 Terminations 38 49 8.0% 49

 *Pending 99 202 .5% 202

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 367 346 -5.7% 343

 Terminations 30 399 28.7% 39

 Pending 266 23 -9.9% 248

Authorized Judgeships Authorized place of holding court:

 District  Hagatna

 Bankruptcy 0

 Magistrate

 Full time 

 Part-time 0

The Guam district judge also handles all bankruptcy cases.

*Total pending cases revised for 2003.

Calendar Year

Table 5

DISTRICT OF HAWAII

Change Per Judgeship Unweighted

Caseload Measure 2003 2004 2003-2004 2004

District Court

 Filings ,38 ,20 -8.2% 303

 Terminations ,867 ,66 -37.5% 292

 *Pending ,353 ,397 3.3% 349

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 3,795 3,2 -8.0% 3,2

 Terminations 3,899 3,290 -5.6% 3,290

 Pending 2,467 2,289 -7.2% 2,289

Authorized Judgeships Authorized place of holding court:

 District 4 Honolulu

 Bankruptcy 

 Magistrate

 Full time 3

 Part-time 

*Total pending cases revised for 2003.

Calendar Year
Annual Report 2004 69

D i s t r i c t C a s e l o a d s

Table 16

District of Idaho

Table 17

District of Montana

Table 6

DISTRICT OF IDAHO

Change Per Judgeship Unweighted

Caseload Measure 2003 2004 2003-2004 2004

District Court

 Filings 83 902 8.5% 45

 Terminations 837 877 4.8% 439

 *Pending 889 94 2.8% 457

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 9,660 9,488 -.8% 4,744

 Terminations 9,946 9,060 -8.9% 4,530

 Pending 7,50 7,938 5.7% 3,969

Authorized Judgeships Authorized places of holding court:

 District 2 Boise, Coeur d'Alene, Moscow, Pocatello

 Bankruptcy 2

 Magistrate

 Full time 2

 Part-time 0

*Total pending cases revised for 2003.

Calendar Year

Table 7

DISTRICT OF MONTANA

Change Per Judgeship Unweighted

Caseload Measure 2003 2004 2003-2004 2004

District Court

 Filings ,72 ,75 0.3% 392

 Terminations ,08 ,20 3.6% 373

 *Pending ,78 ,233 4.7% 4

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 4,385 4,332 -.2% 4,332

 Terminations 4,70 4,258 -9.6% 4,258

 Pending 3,99 3,273 2.3% 3,273

Authorized Judgeships Authorized places of holding court:

 District 3 Billings, Butte, Great Falls, Helena,

 Bankruptcy  Kalispell, Missoula

 Magistrate

 Full time 3

 Part-time 

*Total pending cases revised for 2003.

Calendar Year
70 Ninth Circuit United States Courts

D i s t r i c t C a s e l o a d s

District Caseloads

Table 18

District of Nevada

Table 19

District of Northern Mariana Islands

Table 8

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

Change Per Judgeship Unweighted

Caseload Measure 2003 2004 2003-2004 2004

District Court

 Filings 3,70 3,242 2.3% 463

 Terminations 3,20 3,08 -.3% 440

 *Pending 3,2 3,273 5.2% 468

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 20,56 6,92 -7.7% 5,637

 Terminations 22,746 25,030 0.0% 8,343

 Pending 3,48 23,363 -25.8% 7,788

Authorized Judgeships Authorized places of holding court:

 District 7 Carson City, Elko, Ely, Las Vegas, 

 Bankruptcy 3 Lovelock, Reno

 Magistrate

 Full time 6

 Part-time 0

*Total pending cases revised for 2003.

Calendar Year

Table 9

DISTRICT OF NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS

Change Per Judgeship Unweighted

Caseload Measure 2003 2004 2003-2004 2004

District Court

 Filings 82 74 -9.8% 74

 Terminations 58 82 4.4% 82

 *Pending 92 84 -8.7% 84

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 9 23 2.% 20

 Terminations 4 27 92.9% 9

 Pending 34 30 -.8% 4

Authorized Judgeships Authorized place of holding court:

 District  Saipan

 Bankruptcy 0

 Magistrate

 Full time 0

 Part-time 0

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

*Total pending cases revised for 2003.

Calendar Year
Annual Report 2004 71

D i s t r i c t C a s e l o a d s

Table 20

District of Oregon

Table 21

Eastern District of Washington

Table 20

DISTRICT OF OREGON

Change Per Judgeship Unweighted

Caseload Measure 2003 2004 2003-2004 2004

District Court

 Filings 3,208 3,225 0.5% 538

 Terminations 2,804 3,040 8.4% 507

 *Pending 2,989 3,74 6.2% 529

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 25,370 24,455 -3.6% 4,89

 Terminations 23,078 25,65 .0% 5,23

 Pending 8,037 6,877 -6.4% 3,375

Authorized Judgeships Authorized places of holding court:

 District 6 Coquille, Eugene, Klamath Falls,

 Bankruptcy 5 Medford, Pendleton, Portland

 Magistrate

 Full time 6

 Part-time 

*Total pending cases revised for 2003.

Calendar Year

Table 2

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

Change Per Judgeship Unweighted

Caseload Measure 2003 2004 2003-2004 2004

District Court

 Filings ,488 ,423 -4.4% 356

 Terminations ,245 ,45 6.5% 363

 *Pending ,79 ,5 -2.4% 288

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 0,480 9,453 -9.8% 4,727

 Terminations 0,339 9,583 -7.3% 4,792

 Pending 8,668 8,538 -.5% 4,269

Authorized Judgeships Authorized places of holding court:

 District 4 Richland, Spokane, Walla Walla, Yakima

 Bankruptcy 2

 Magistrate

 Full time 2

 Part-time 0

*Total pending cases revised for 2003.

Calendar Year
72 Ninth Circuit United States Courts

D i s t r i c t C a s e l o a d s

Table 22

Western District of Washington

District Caseloads

Table 22

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

Change Per Judgeship Unweighted

Caseload Measure 2003 2004 2003-2004 2004

District Court

 Filings 6,59 4,827 -2.6% 690

 Terminations 4,04 4,8 9.% 687

 *Pending 5,072 5,088 0.3% 727

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 30,075 28,956 -3.7% 5,79

 Terminations 30,000 28,654 -4.5% 5,73

 Pending 20,20 20,422 .5% 4,084

Authorized Judgeships Authorized places of holding court:

 District 7 Bellingham, Seattle, Tacoma

 Bankruptcy 5

 Magistrate

 Full time 5

 Part-time 2

*Total pending cases revised for 2003.

Calendar Year

Office of the Circuit Executive

Gregory B. Walters, Circuit Executive

P.O. Box 193939

San Francisco, CA 94119-3939

ph: (415) 556-2000

http://www.ce9.uscourts.gov