United States Courts 

for the Ninth Circuit

2011 Annual Report
The Office of the Circuit Executive would like to acknowledge the following for their contributions 

to the 2011 Ninth Circuit Annual Report:

Chief Judge Alex Kozinski

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

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

Ryan L. Means, IT Director, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

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

Patrick E. Duffy, Clerk, U.S. District Court, District of Montana

Bernard McCarthy, Clerk, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Montana

Shiela Adkins, Chief Pretrial Services Officer, District of Nevada

Michelle A. Carey, Chief Probation Officer, Central District of California

Judy Ellinghausen, The History Museum, Great Falls, Montana

Sharon Burchett, Assistant to the Director, Charles M. Russell Center for the Study of Art of the 

American West, The University of Oklahoma, School of Art & Art History, Norman, Okla.

The cover drawing was created by famed western artist C.M. Russell in 1898, and appeared on the cover of the 

1899 publication “Great Falls, Montana, Historic and Scenic,” by the Great Falls Tribune. Russell’s pen and ink 

drawing, titled “Discovery of the Great Falls of the Missouri by Messrs. Lewis and Clark, in 1805, ” depicts the 

expedition overlooking the impressive falls for the first time near the future city of Great Falls and the Missouri 

River Courthouse. The image is courtesy of The History Musuem in Great Falls, Montana. Photographs, 

drawings and design details in this report were collected from this and other historical and contemporary sources 

related to the city of Great Falls, its federal courthouses and its landscape. 
2010-2011 Ninth Circuit Judicial Council: Seated from left are Chief District 

Judge Audrey B. Collins (CAC), Circuit Judge Sidney R. Thomas, Chief 

Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski, Circuit and Court of Appeals Executive Cathy A. 

Catterson, and Magistrate Judge David K. Duncan (AZ). Standing middle row, 

from left, are Senior District Judge Stephen M. McNamee (AZ), Chief Probation 

Officer Michelle A. Carey (CAC), Chief Bankruptcy Judge Peter W. Bowie 

(CAS), Circuit Judge Raymond C. Fisher, Chief Pretrial Services Officer Shiela 

Adkins (NV), and District Court Clerk Patrick E. Duffy (MT). Standing back 

row, from left, are District Judge Robert S. Lasnik (WAW), Chief District Judge 

James Ware (CAN), Senior District Judge Roger L. Hunt (NV), Chief District 

Judge Ralph R. Beistline (AK), and Chief District Judge B. Lynn Winmill (ID). 

Not pictured are: Circuit Judge Richard R. Clifton, Circuit Judge Ronald M. Gould, 

Bankruptcy Court Clerk Charlene M. Hiss (OR), Senior Circuit Judge Procter Hug, 

Jr., and Chief District Judge Frances Marie Tydingco-Gatewood (GU).

Judicial Council

of the Ninth Circuit

MISSION STATEMENT

The mission of the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit is to 

support the effective and expeditious administration of justice 

and the safeguarding of fairness in the administration of the 

courts within the circuit. To do so, it will promote the fair and 

prompt resolution of disputes, ensure the effective discharge of 

court business, prevent any form of invidious discrimination, and 

enhance public understanding of, and confidence in the judiciary.
Ninth Circuit Overview

1 Foreword

3 Ninth Circuit Overview

4 Judicial Council, Advisory Groups and Administration

Judicial Transitions

8 New Judges

20 In Memoriam

Ninth Circuit Highlights

28 Retreats Bring Together Federal Prosecutors, Defenders

29 New Pilot Program Brings Cameras 

into the Courtroom in Guam

30 e-Voucher System Helps Courts Control Costs

31 Famed Jurist Marks 50th Year of Service

31 Judges Receiving Awards in 2011

32 Ninth Circuit Welcomes New Judges

33 Judges Get Firsthand Look at Border Enforcement

34 San Diego Judge, Lawyer Produce First 

Ninth Circuit Criminal Handbook

34 L.A. Honors Probation, Pretrial Services Offices

35 Courts, Litigants Benefit from Federal Bar Support 

36 Judges, Court Staff Gather in San Diego 

for COOP Conference

37 Technology Aids Jurors in Deliberations

38 Circuit Judges Embrace the iPad in 2011

39 Work Begins on New Jury Orientation Video

40 Judicial History Highlights Annual 

Ninth Circuit Luncheon in San Francisco

40 Longtime Federal Public Defender Retires

41 Oregon Honors Senior, Recalled and Retired Judges

42 Courts Reach Out to Schools, Community

43 An Old West Venue for Arizona Bankruptcy Court

44 Annual Conference Looks to the Past, 

Plans for the Future

46 Ninth Circuit Law Clerks Orientation

47 Judicial Conference Awards Presented and Announced 

Detail of a drawing of Great Falls, Montana in 1891, the year the courts of appeals in the United States were formed. Library of Congress, Geography and Map Division. 

Table of Contents

Space & Security

50 Missouri River U.S. Courthouse

–A Gem of the Northern Rockies

53 Mansfield Federal Building 

and U.S. Courthouse

54 Ground Broken for Yuma Courthouse

55 Courthouses Under Construction

The Work of the Courts

58 Court of Appeals Remains 

the Nation’s Busiest

62 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Judges

63 Workload Rises in Federal Trial 

Courts of the Ninth Circuit

67 Bankruptcy Filings Down in 2011

69 Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Sees Increase 

in Filings, Terminations

71 Magistrate Judges See Workload 

Increase Again 

73 Federal Defenders Meet Challenge 

of Growing Caseload

75 Probation Officers See Small Upturn 

in Supervision Caseload

77 Workload Rises for Ninth Circuit 

Pretrial Services Officers 

79 Juror Utilization

80 Court Interpreters

81 District Caseloads
Foreword

All of us in the court family were shocked and deeply 

saddened by the untimely death of Arizona Chief 

District Judge John M. Roll in the Tucson shooting 

rampage in January. Judge Roll was an outstanding 

jurist, highly regarded by his colleagues on the bench 

and by the lawyers who appeared before him. Courts 

across the country lowered flags to half-staff in 

memory of Judge Roll (see page 25) and he was fondly 

recalled at several events during the year, including the 

annual circuit conference.

As chief district judge, Judge Roll had been a strong, 

able leader who worked tirelessly on behalf of the 

Arizona court, which has the highest criminal caseload 

in the nation. He was on official business at the time of 

his death, attending the Tucson event to thank U.S. Rep. 

Gabrielle Giffords for supporting his efforts to obtain 

additional judgeships and other resources. He also was 

preparing to declare a judicial emergency, suspending 

certain time limits for bringing defendants to trial, to 

further demonstrate the seriousness of the situation. 

The declaration was issued two weeks after his death by 

his successor, Chief District Judge Roslyn O. Silver, with 

the support of the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit.

The Arizona court is not the only one in the Ninth 

Circuit struggling with an overload of cases. The 

Eastern District of California, which includes 

Sacramento, Fresno and the Central Valley, remains 

awash in civil litigation and reported the most pending 

prisoner petitions in the nation. Eastern District judges 

carry the highest weighted caseloads in the nation.

In May, we welcomed 

the introduction of the 

Emergency Judicial Relief 

Act of 2011, which would 

authorize new judgeships 

for the courts in Arizona 

and Eastern California. 

We commend California 

Senators Dianne Feinstein 

and Barbara Boxer and 

Arizona Senator Jon 

Kyl, among others, for 

sponsoring the legislation, 

which is awaiting action 

by the Senate Judiciary 

Committee. We remain hopeful the bill will be 

enacted during the current legislative session.

Judges of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals were 

rocked by the deaths of five colleagues during the 

year. Senior Circuit Judges David R. Thompson of 

San Diego and Cynthia Holcomb Hall of Pasadena 

died in February, just weeks apart. Senior Circuit 

Judge Thomas G. Nelson of Boise, Idaho, died in 

May; Circuit Judge Pamela Ann Rymer of Pasadena 

in September; and Senior Circuit Judge Robert M. 

Boochever, the first Alaskan to sit on the court, in 

October, also in Pasadena.

Elsewhere in the circuit, courts mourned the passing of 

District Judges Helen J. Frye of Oregon and James M. 

Fitzgerald of Alaska; Bankruptcy Judges Jon J. Chinen 

Chief Judge

Alex Kozinski

S ome years are remembered not only for what was gained, but also for what was lost. 

2011 may have been such a year for the federal courts of the Ninth Circuit. In 

dispensing criminal justice and settling civil disputes, our dedicated judges and 

court staff once again provided outstanding service to litigants and the public in 

nine western states and two Pacific Island jurisdictions. They worked hard to pare down 

caseloads and processing times, and made notable advances in the use of technology to lower 

costs and improve efficiency. But 2011 also was noteworthy for the passing of 15 respected 

jurists, one of them under tragic circumstances, who had made important contributions to 

justice and the judiciary. The 2011 Ninth Circuit Annual Report looks back at these gains and 

losses. I hope you find it useful and encourage you to provide us with feedback.
2 2011 Annual Report

of Hawaii, Albert E. Radcliffe of Oregon, Samuel J. 

Steiner of the Western District of Washington and 

James H. Thompson of Nevada; and Magistrate Judges 

Donald C. Ashmanskas of Oregon, James B. Hovis of 

Eastern Washington, and John R. Kronenberg of the 

Central District.

All of these judges had long and distinguished careers 

and many of them worked well into their retirement 

years. Indeed, senior judges, who are eligible to 

retire with full pay but choose to continue working 

essentially for free, have become indispensable to the 

operation of the federal courts. In the Ninth Circuit 

last fiscal year, senior circuit judges participated in one 

third of all appeals decided on the merits, while senior 

district judges logged hundreds of hours presiding 

over trials and proceedings or serving their courts in 

administrative capacities. The contributions of senior 

judges often go unrecognized so it was heartening 

to see the federal bar honor 13 senior judges and 

recalled judges from Oregon during a program held in 

December at the U.S. District Court in Portland. 

Filling vacancies on the federal courts of the circuit 

continues to be a slow process. In 2011, the Senate 

confirmed just one new circuit judge, Morgan Christen 

of Anchorage, Alaska, who received her commission 

in January 2012. The court ended the year with four 

vacancies, one of them dating back to 2004. Among 

the 15 district courts of the circuit, 11 new judges 

were confirmed, including Jennifer Guerin Zipps, a 

Tucson magistrate judge elevated to fill the vacancy left 

by Judge Roll’s death. At year’s end, 12 district court 

judgeships remained vacant.

Most of our courts saw increases in case filings and, 

thanks to the hard work of judges and staff, reductions 

in pending caseloads. At the Ninth Circuit Court of 

Appeals, which continues to be the nation’s busiest 

appellate court, filings were up 1.3 percent. The 

pending caseload was reduced by 5.9 percent, which 

followed an 8.2-percent decrease the prior year. 

Immigration matters and appeals brought by inmates 

in state or federal prisons predominated the court’s 

docket numerically, while more than half of all appeals 

were brought by pro se litigants.

In the district courts of the circuit, new filings were 

up 7.2 percent overall and 12.1 percent in criminal 

matters. Prisoner petitions predominated on the civil 

side, immigration and drug offenses on the criminal side. 

Pending cases in the district courts decreased 1.5 percent 

for civil matters and 1.2 percent for criminal matters.

In an indication of an improving economy, new 

bankruptcy filings in the circuit were down 4.3 

percent, the first decline in four years. Among 14 

courts, filings were down between 1.1 percent and 14.6 

percent. Only the Central District of California, the 

nation’s busiest bankruptcy court, saw a slight increase. 

New initiatives in our courts included implementation 

of an electronic voucher system to better manage costs 

for providing indigents with adequate legal counsel as 

required under the Criminal Justice Act. Also during 

the year, the district court in Guam became the first 

in the Ninth Circuit to video record a proceeding 

under the new national program testing cameras in 

the courtroom. Also of note was publication of the 

first Ninth Circuit criminal handbook and the start of 

production work on a new juror orientation video.

A number of our judges were honored during the 

year, including Circuit Judge Marsha S. Berzon, 

who received the Margaret Brent Women Lawyers 

of Achievement Award from the American Bar 

Association Commission on Women in the Profession, 

and Senior District Judge Ronald M. Whyte of the 

Northern District of California, who received the 

prestigious 2011 Ninth Circuit Professionalism Award 

from the American Inns of Court. A full list of award 

winners can be found elsewhere in the report.

District Judge Jeremy D. Fogel of the Northern 

District of California was named the new director of 

the Federal Judicial Center in Washington, D.C. He 

succeeds another Ninth Circuit jurist, Senior District 

Judge Barbara J. Rothstein of the Western District of 

Washington, who had been FJC director since 2003. 

Judge Fogel also was named Federal Judge of the Year 

by the Santa Clara County Trial Lawyers Association.

We invite you to review this report further for more 

information about the work of the federal courts of 

the West.
Ninth Circuit Overview 3

he United States Courts for the 

Ninth Circuit consists of the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the Ninth 

Circuit, the federal trial and 

bankruptcy courts in the 15 judicial districts 

within the circuit, and associated administrative 

units that provide various services to the court.

Judicial districts within the Ninth Circuit include 

the districts of Alaska, Arizona, Central California, 

Eastern California, Northern California, 

Southern California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, 

Nevada, Oregon, Eastern Washington, Western 

Washington, the U.S. Territory of Guam and the 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. 

The establishment of the Ninth Circuit in 1866 

began the development of the federal judicial 

system for the western United States. Today, it is 

the largest and busiest of federal circuits.

Judges serving on the circuit and district courts 

are known as Article III judges, a reference to 

the article in the Constitution establishing the 

federal judiciary. Nominated by the president 

and confirmed by the Senate, Article III judges 

serve lifetime appointments upon good behavior. 

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has been 

authorized 29 judgeships and ended 2011 with 

four vacant positions. For most of the year, the 

district courts were authorized 112 judgeships, 12 

of which were vacant at year’s end.

Federal courts also rely on senior circuit and 

senior district judges to assist with their workload. 

These are Article III judges, who are eligible for 

retirement but have chosen to continue working 

with reduced caseloads. On the Ninth Circuit 

Court of Appeals, 20 senior circuit judges 

were at work for most of the year, sitting on 

appellate panels, serving on circuit and national 

judicial committees, and handling a variety of 

administrative matters. In the district courts within 

the circuit, 62 senior judges heard cases, presided 

over procedural matters, served on committees and 

conducted other business during 2011.

In addition to Article III judges, the federal bench 

includes Article I judges, who serve as magistrate 

judges in the district courts and bankruptcy 

judges in the bankruptcy courts. Bankruptcy 

judges are appointed by the court of appeals and 

serve terms of 14 years. Magistrate judges are 

appointed by the judges of each district court and 

hold their positions for eight years. 

In 2011, bankruptcy courts in the Ninth Circuit 

were authorized 68 permanent and five temporary 

judgeships. The district courts were authorized 

103 full-time and 11 part-time magistrate judges. 

Several courts also utilized recalled bankruptcy 

and recalled magistrate judges. 

Overall, the Ninth Circuit courts, with the 

exception of bankruptcy courts, experienced 

increased caseloads in 2011. Unless otherwise 

noted, statistics in this report cover the 2011 

fiscal year ending September 30, 2011

Ninth Circuit Overview

T
4 2011 Annual Report

he Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit 

is the governing body for federal district 

and bankruptcy courts in nine western 

states and two Pacific island jurisdictions. 

The Judicial Council’s statutory mission is to support 

the effective and expeditious administration of justice 

and the safeguarding of fairness in the administration 

of the courts. It has statutory authority to “make all 

necessary and appropriate orders for the effective and 

expeditious administration of justice within its circuit,” 

[28 U.S.C. 332(d)(1)]. 

The Judicial Council also has been delegated 

responsibilities by the Judicial Conference of the 

United States, the national governing body for 

the federal courts. These responsibilities include 

authorizing senior judge staffing levels and pay.

In governing the circuit, the Judicial Council relies 

on advisory groups and committees to accomplish its 

goals. Chairs of three advisory groups attend council 

meetings as observers and sometimes voting members. 

Committee chairs report to the council as needed.

In 2011, the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit, 

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3174, ordered on March 2 to 

approve extending the judicial emergency declared 

in the District of Arizona for an additional one-year 

period ending February 19, 2012. Chief District 

Judge Roslyn O. Silver declared a 30-day judicial 

emergency on January 20, 2011, following the death 

of Chief District Judge John M. Roll, who was killed 

in a shooting rampage in Tucson.

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

Ninth Circuit considers petitions for review of the 

chief judge’s orders in judicial misconduct complaints. 

In 2011, 15 petitions for review were filed and all 15 

were resolved by the Judicial Council.

Conference of Chief District Judges

The Conference of Chief District Judges advises 

the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit about the 

administration of justice in the circuit’s 15 district 

courts. The conference, which meets twice a year, 

is comprised of the chief district judge of each 

district. Chief District Judge Robert S. Lasnik of the 

Western District of Washington served as chair of 

the conference from October 2010 to August 2011. 

He was succeeded by Chief District Judge Irma E. 

Gonzalez of the Southern District of California, who 

will chair the conference until August 2012.

Elevated to chief district judge during the year were 

district judges Robert Clive Jones of the District of 

Nevada; Marsha J. Pechman of the Western District of 

Washington; Rosanna Malouf Peterson of the Eastern 

District of Washington; Roslyn O. Silver of the 

District of Arizona; and James Ware of the Northern 

District of California. Chief District Judge Ramona V. 

Manglona of the Northern Mariana Islands took office 

on July 29, 2011.

Conference of Chief Bankruptcy Judges

The Conference of Chief Bankruptcy Judges advises 

the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit on the 

administration of the bankruptcy courts within the 

circuit. The conference, which also meets twice per year, 

consists of chief bankruptcy judges from each district, 

the chief bankruptcy judge of the BAP, and a recalled 

Judicial Council 

of the Ninth Circuit

Chief Judge Alex Kozinski

Office of the Circuit Executive

Cathy A. Catterson , Circuit & Court of Appeals Executive

Executive Committee

Judicial Council, Advisory Groups and Administration

T
Ninth Circuit Overview 5

bankruptcy judge representative. Chief Bankruptcy 

Judge Terry L. Myers of the District of Idaho chaired 

the conference from October 2010 to September 2011. 

He was succeeded by Chief Bankruptcy Judge Peter W. 

Bowie of the Southern District of California, who will 

chair the conference until August 2012.

Elevated to chief bankruptcy judge during the year 

were bankruptcy judges Peter H. Carroll of the 

Central District of California; Alan Jaroslovsky of the 

Northern District of California; and Paul B. Snyder of 

the Western District of Washington.

Magistrate Judges Executive Board

The Magistrate Judges Executive Board communicates 

to the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit on behalf 

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

magistrate judges serving in the district courts. The 

15-member board meets twice a year and holds a 

session with all magistrate judges at the annual circuit 

conference. Magistrate Judge David K. Duncan of 

the District of Arizona is the current chair. His term 

began in July 2010 and will expire in July 2012.

Clerks of Court

Day-to-day management of the courts rests with 

the chief judges and clerks or district executives of 

the court of appeals and each of the district and 

bankruptcy courts. The clerks’ offices process new 

cases and appeals, handle docketing functions, respond 

to procedural questions from the public and bar, 

and provide adequate judicial staff resources. The 

clerk of court for the court of appeals also supervises 

the work of the Circuit Mediation Office and the 

Office of the Staff Attorneys, which includes the 

research, motions, case management and pro se

(self-represented) litigation units. The Office of the 

Appellate Commissioner, also in the Ninth Circuit 

Court of Appeals Clerk’s Office, reviews Criminal 

Justice Act vouchers for cases that come before the 

court of appeals.

Judicial Conference 

Executive Committee

•	 Lawyer Representatives 

Coordinating 

Committee

Associations of

Judicial Officers

•	 Conference of Chief 

District Judges

•	 Conference of Chief 

Bankruptcy Judges

•	 Magistrate Judges 

Executive Board

Liaison 

Committees

•	 District Clerks

•	 Bankruptcy

Clerks

•	 Chief Probation

& Chief Pretrial 

Services Officers

•	 Advisory Board

•	Alternative

Dispute 

Resolution

•	 Capital Case

•	 Court-Council 

Committee on 

Bankruptcy Judge 

Appointments

•	 Courts & 

Community

•	 Federal Public 

Defenders

Advisory Standing 

Committees

•	Information 

Technology

•	 Jury Instructions

•	 Jury Trial 

Improvement

•	 Ninth Circuit

Judges Education

•	 Pacific Islands

•	 Self Represented 

Litigants (Pro se)

•	 Space & Security

•	 Wellness
6 2011 Annual Report

Associated Court Units

Ninth Circuit courts also rely on several important 

court-related agencies to ensure the fair administration 

of justice. The district courts maintain oversight of 

U.S. Probation and Pretrial Services offices. Pretrial 

services officers are responsible for background 

investigations and reports on defendants awaiting trial, 

while probation officers supervise persons convicted of 

federal crimes after their release into the community. 

All but one judicial district in the circuit is served 

by either federal public defender or community 

defenders, who represent indigent defendants unable 

to afford private counsel. Indigent defendants in the 

District of Northern Mariana Islands are represented 

by private attorneys provided by the District of Guam 

and paid through the federal Criminal Justice Act.

Circuit Libraries

The Ninth Circuit Library System assists judges, 

attorneys, court staff and the public through a network 

of 24 law libraries housed in courthouses throughout 

the western states. The primary mission of court 

librarians is to provide research services to judges 

and their staff. Research librarians assist law clerks 

on case-related research by providing guidance and 

recommendations, offering training opportunities, 

and performing direct research on more complex 

topics. Librarians also conduct research to assist court 

executives and judges in the administration of local 

courts and on matters involving committees of the 

Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit and the Judicial 

Conference of the U.S. Library resources are also made 

available to the bar and public with the level of access 

determined by local judges.

Office of the Circuit Executive

The Office of the Circuit Executive provides staff 

support to the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit 

and implements the council’s administrative decisions 

and policies. By statute, the circuit executive is the 

administrative assistant to the chief judge of the circuit 

and secretary to the council. The circuit executive 

and her staff assist in identifying circuit-wide needs, 

conducting studies, developing and implementing 

policies, providing training, public information and 

human resources support. Circuit executive staff 

also coordinates building and automation projects, 

and advises the council on procedural and ethical 

matters. The Office of the Circuit Executive provides 

management and technical assistance to courts within 

the circuit upon request. It also administers the annual 

Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference.
Judicial Transitions 7

Judicial

transitions
8 2011 Annual Report

New Judges

Circuit Judge

Judge Mary H. Murguia was 

confirmed by the Senate to serve 

as a judge of the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Ninth 

Circuit on December 22, 2010, 

and received her commission on 

January 4, 2011. Prior to her 

elevation to the appellate court, 

Judge Murguia had served as a U.S. district judge for 

the District of Arizona since 2000. Before coming 

onto the bench, Judge Murguia held various positions 

in the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys in 

Washington, D.C., including director from 1999 to 

2000; as principal deputy director in 1999; and as 

counsel to the director’s staff from 1998 to 1999. She 

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

Attorney’s Office for the District of Arizona from 

1990 to 2000, and as an assistant district attorney in 

Wyandotte County District Attorney’s Office in 

Kansas from 1985 to 1990. Judge Murguia received 

her B.S. and B.A. from the University of Kansas in 

1982 and her J.D. from the University of Kansas Law 

School in 1985. She maintains chambers in Phoenix.

District Judges

Judge Anthony J. Battaglia was 

confirmed by the Senate to serve 

as a U.S. district judge for the 

Southern District of California on 

March 7, 2011, and received his 

commission on March 9, 2011. 

Judge Battaglia had served as a 

U.S. magistrate judge for the 

Southern District of California since 1993. Prior to his 

appointment to the bench, he engaged in private practice 

as an associate then partner at Battaglia, Fitzpatrick & 

Battaglia, P.C., in San Diego, California, from 1991 to 

1993. He was a sole proprietor of Anthony J. Battaglia, 

P.C., in San Diego, from 1981 to 1991. Judge Battaglia 

received his B.A. from United States International 

University in 1971 and his J.D. from California Western, 

School of Law, in 1974. Following law school, he clerked 

for the Law Offices of Marinos & Styn from 1972 to 

1974. Judge Battaglia maintains chambers in San Diego.

Judge Edward M. Chen was 

confirmed by the Senate to serve 

as a U.S. district judge for the 

Northern District of California 

on May 10, 2011, and received 

his commission on May 12, 2011. 

Prior to his appointment, Judge 

Chen had served as a magistrate 

judge for the Northern District of California since 

2001. Prior to coming onto the bench, he worked as a 

staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of 

Northern California from 1985 to 2001, and engaged in 

private practice as a litigation associate for Coblentz, 

Cohen, McCabe & Breyer in San Francisco from 1982 

to 1985. Judge Chen received his A.B. from the 

University of California at Berkeley in 1975 and his J.D. 

from UC Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law, in 1979. 

Following law school, he clerked for Circuit Judge 

James R. Browning of the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

the Ninth Circuit from 1981 to 1982. He maintains 

chambers in San Francisco.
Judicial Transitions 9

Judge Dana L. Christensen was 

confirmed by the Senate to serve 

as a U.S. district judge for the 

District of Montana on 

December 5, 2011, and received 

his commission on December 6, 

2011. Prior to his appointment, 

Judge Christensen had practiced 

law in Montana for more than 30 years, most recently 

as a civil litigator and partner at the law firm of 

Christensen, Moore, Cockrell, Cummings & Axelberg, 

P.C., in Kalispell, Montana, since 1996. Before that, he 

was a shareholder in the law firm of Murphy, Robinson, 

Heckathorn & Phillips, P.C., in Kalispell from 1981 to 

1996, and an associate at the law firm of Moulton, 

Bellingham, Longo & Mather, P.C., in Billings from 

1977 to 1981. He had served on the Ninth Circuit’s 

Lawyer Representatives Coordinating Committee from 

2006 to 2009, and on the Ninth Circuit’s Advisory 

Board since 2010. Judge Christensen received his B.A. 

from Stanford University in 1973 and his J.D. from the 

University of Montana, School of Law, in 1976. He 

maintains chambers in Missoula.

Judge Edward J. Davila was 

confirmed by the Senate to serve 

as a U.S. district judge for the 

Northern District of California 

on February 14, 2011, and 

received his commission on 

March 3, 2011. Prior to his 

appointment to the federal 

bench, Judge Davila had served as a California (Santa 

Clara County) Superior Court judge since 2001. He 

engaged in private practice at the law firm of Davila & 

Polverino in San Jose, California, from 1988 to 2001 

and served as a deputy public defender, Santa Clara 

County Office of the Public Defender from 1981 to 

1988. Judge Davila received his B.A. from California 

State University at San Diego in 1976 and his J.D. from 

the University of California, Hastings College of the 

Law, in 1979. He maintains chambers in San Jose.

Judge Marco A. Hernandez was 

confirmed by the Senate to serve 

as a U.S. district judge for the 

District of Oregon on February 7, 

2011, and received his 

commission on February 9, 2011. 

Prior to his appointment to the 

federal bench, Judge Hernandez 

served on the Oregon State Court in Washington 

County as a circuit judge from 1998 to 2011 and as a 

district court judge from 1995 to 1998. He was the 

court’s presiding judge from 2002 to 2005. Earlier in his 

career, Judge Hernandez worked as a deputy district 

attorney in Washington County from 1989 to 1994, and 

as a staff attorney for Oregon Legal Services in Hillsboro 

from 1986 to 1989. Judge Hernandez received his B.A. 

from Western Oregon State College in 1983 and his J.D. 

from the University of Washington, School of Law, in 

1986. He maintains chambers in Portland. 

Judge John A. Kronstadt was 

confirmed by the Senate to serve 

as a U.S. district judge for the 

Central District of California on 

April 12, 2011, and received his 

commission on April 14, 2011. 

Prior to his appointment to the 

federal bench, Judge Kronstadt 

had served as a California (Los Angeles County) 

Superior Court judge since 2002. He engaged in 

private practice in Los Angeles as a partner at the law 

firm of Arnold & Porter, LLP, from 2000 to 2002; a 

partner at Blanc Williams Johnston & Kronstadt, from 

1991 to 2000; and a partner at Blanc Gilburne 

Williams & Johnston from 1985 to 1991. He began 

his career as an associate then partner at Arnold & 

Porter, LLP, in Washington, D.C., from 1978 to 1985. 

Judge Kronstadt received his B.A. from Cornell 

University in 1973 and his J.D. from Yale Law School 

in 1976. Following law school, he clerked for District 

Judge William P. Gray of the U.S. District Court for 

the Central District of California from 1976 to 1977. 

He maintains chambers in Los Angeles. 
10 2011 Annual Report

Judge Ramona Villagomez 

Manglona was confirmed to 

serve as a U.S. district judge for 

the District of the Northern 

Mariana Islands, receiving her 

commission on July 29, 2011. 

Prior to her appointment, Judge 

Manglona had served as a judge 

of Superior Court of the Commonwealth of the 

Northern Mariana Islands since 2003. Before coming 

onto the bench, she served as the islands’ first female 

attorney general, winning confirmation from the CNMI 

Senate in 2002. Judge Manglona received her B.A. from 

the University of California at Berkeley in 1990 and her 

J.D. in 1996 from the University of New Mexico, School 

of Law, where she made the Dean’s List and Honor Roll. 

Following law school, Judge Manglona clerked for Judge 

Virginia Sablan Onerheim and then for Presiding Judge 

Alexandro C. Castro of the CNMI Superior Court. She 

maintains chambers in Saipan.

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers

was confirmed to serve as a U.S. 

district judge for the Northern 

District of California on 

November 15, 2011. She 

received her commission on 

November 21, 2011. Prior to her 

appointment to the federal 

bench, Judge Gonzalez Rogers had served as a California 

(Alameda County) Superior Court judge since 2008. 

She served the court as a judge pro tem from 2007 to 

2008 and as a member of the civil grand jury from 2005 

to 2007, serving as foreperson from 2006 to 2007. 

Judge Gonzalez Rogers engaged in private practice with 

the law firm of Cooley Godward LLP (now Cooley 

LLP) in San Francisco, where she was an equity partner 

from 1999 to 2001 and a litigator from 1991 to 2003. 

Judge Gonzalez Rogers received her A.B. in 1987 from 

Princeton University, where she graduated cum laude, 

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

Law, in 1991. She maintains chambers in San Francisco.

Judge Michael H. Simon was 

confirmed by the Senate to serve 

as a U.S. district judge for the 

District of Oregon on June 21, 

2011, and received his 

commission on June 22, 2011. 

Prior to his appointment, Judge 

Simon was a partner at the law 

firm of Perkins Coie in Portland, Oregon. He taught 

as an adjunct professor of law at Lewis and Clark Law 

School in 1997, 1999, 2006, and 2009. He began his 

legal career in the Department of Justice, where he 

worked as a special assistant to the U.S. attorney in 

1986 and as a trial attorney in the Antitrust Division 

from 1981 to 1986. Judge Simon received his B.A., 

Phi Beta Kappa, in 1978 from the University of 

California at Los Angeles, where he graduated summa

cum laude. He received his J.D. in 1981 from Harvard 

Law School, where he graduated cum laude. Judge 

Simon maintains chambers in Portland.

Judge Jennifer Guerin Zipps 

was confirmed by the Senate to 

serve as a U.S. district judge for 

the District of Arizona on 

October 3, 2011, and received 

her commission on October 5, 

2011. Prior to her appointment, 

Judge Zipps had served as a 

magistrate judge for the District of Arizona since 2005. 

She served as an assistant U.S. attorney for the District 

of Arizona from 1995 to 2005 and was in private 

practice in Tucson, Arizona, from 1991 to 1995. Judge 

Zipps received her B.A. from the University of Arizona 

in 1986 and her J.D. from Georgetown University Law 

Center in 1990. Following law school, she clerked for 

Circuit Judge William C. Canby of the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from 1990 to 1991. She 

maintains chambers in Tucson.

District Judges continued
Judicial Transitions 11

Judge Neil W. Bason was 

appointed a bankruptcy judge 

for the Central District of 

California on October 24, 2011. 

Prior to his appointment, Judge 

Bason had been a special counsel 

at Duane Morris LLP in Los 

Angeles since 2009, and 

previously was a special counsel at Howard Rice 

Nemerovski Canady Falk & Rabkin, P.C., in San 

Francisco from 2008 to 2009. Judge Bason served as a 

law clerk to Bankruptcy Judge Dennis Montali of the 

U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of 

California from 2000 to 2008. He had been an 

associate in the former law firm of Hovis, Smith, 

Stewart, Lipscomb & Cross, LLP from 1996 to 1999, 

and a contract attorney for various law firms from 

1993 to 1996. Judge Bason received his B.A. from 

Johns Hopkins University in 1984. His undergraduate 

studies include attending the University of London 

from 1982 to 1983. He received his J.D. in 1988 from 

Boston University, School of Law, where he graduated 

magna cum laude and was a note editor of the Boston 

University Law Review. He maintains chambers in 

Los Angeles.

Judge Bruce T. Beesley was 

appointed a bankruptcy judge 

for the District of Nevada on 

January 3, 2011. Prior to his 

appointment, Judge Beesley was 

a partner and served as the 

bankruptcy practice group leader 

for the Lewis and Roca LLP 

offices in Reno, Las Vegas, Phoenix, and Albuquerque, 

New Mexico. He was a partner at Beckley Singleton, 

Ltd., in Las Vegas from 2006 to 2007, and was a 

shareholder and president of Beesley, Peck & Matteoni, 

Ltd., in Reno from 1995 to 2006. Judge Beesley 

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

in 1975 and his J.D. in 1978 from the University of the 

Pacific, McGeorge School of Law, where he graduated 

with distinction. He maintains chambers in Reno.

Judge Julia W. Brand was 

appointed a bankruptcy judge for 

the Central District of California 

on October 24, 2011. She 

engaged in private practice in Los 

Angeles for more than 20 years. 

Prior to her appointment, Judge 

Brand had been a shareholder in 

the law firm of Brownstein Hyatt Farber Shreck LLP 

since 2010. Before that, she was of counsel for 11 months 

to Danning Gill Diamond & Kollitz LLP; a partner in 

the law firm of Liner Grode Stein Yankelevitz Sunshine 

Regenstreif & Taylor LLP from 2007 to 2009; a partner 

at the law firm of Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP from 

1991 to 2007; and an associate at Gendel Raskoff Shapiro 

& Quittner, and at Bolton Dunn & Moore. Judge Brand 

received her B.A. from the University of California at Los 

Angeles in 1981 and her J.D. in 1985 from the University 

of Southern California, Gould School of Law, where she 

served as editor of the Computer Law Journal and 

received the American Jurisprudence Award for Labor 

Law. She maintains chambers in Los Angeles.

Judge Scott C. Clarkson was 

appointed a bankruptcy judge 

for the Central District of 

California on January 20, 2011. 

Prior to his appointment, Judge 

Clarkson had served as the 

managing attorney of Clarkson, 

Gore & Marsella, APLC, in 

Torrance, California, and had been a practicing attorney 

for over 20 years. He was a direct observer of and 

participant in the creation of the 1978 Bankruptcy 

Code in the U.S. House of Representatives. Since 1989, 

he has practiced in all areas of bankruptcy law including 

working with individuals, and public and private 

corporations. Judge Clarkson worked as a litigator, 

involved in both prosecution and defense of preference 

and fraudulent avoidance actions, and recovery actions. 

He received his B.A. from Indiana University in 1979 

and his J.D. from George Mason University, School of 

Law, in 1982. He maintains chambers in Santa Ana.

Bankruptcy Judges
12 2011 Annual Report

Judge Timothy W. Dore was 

appointed a bankruptcy judge 

for the Western District of 

Washington on April 4, 2011. 

Prior to his appointment, Judge 

Dore had worked since 1987 for 

the Seattle law firm of Ryan, 

Swanson & Cleveland. He 

became a member of the firm in 1995 and had served 

as chair of its Bankruptcy and Creditors’ Rights Group 

since 2000. Judge Dore received his B.A. in 1983 from 

Seattle University, where he graduated magna cum 

laude, and his J.D. in 1987 from the University of 

Washington, School of Law, where he graduated with 

honors. He maintains chambers in Seattle.

Judge Wayne E. Johnson was 

appointed a bankruptcy judge 

for the Central District of 

California on February 28, 

2011. Prior to his appointment, 

Judge Johnson had been in 

private practice as a sole 

practitioner in Redlands, 

California, since 2003. He had previously worked in 

Los Angeles as a bankruptcy attorney at Brobeck, 

Phleger & Harrison LLP, from 1996 to 2003, and at 

Lewis, D’Amato, Brisbois & Bisgaard LLP, from 1994 

to 1996. Judge Johnson also worked as an adjunct 

professor of law at Trinity Law School in Santa Ana, 

California, from 1999 to 2001. He received his B.A. 

in 1989 from Cornell University, graduating magna 

cum laude, and his J.D. from the University of 

Pennsylvania Law School in 1992. He maintains 

chambers in Riverside.

Judge Sandra R. Klein was 

appointed a bankruptcy judge for 

the Central District of California 

on April 22, 2011. Prior to her 

appointment, Judge Klein had 

worked in the Criminal 

Enforcement Unit of the 

Department of Justice, U.S. 

Trustee Program, as acting chief since 2009, and as the 

bankruptcy fraud criminal coordinator from 2003 to 

2009. Judge Klein worked as a special assistant U.S. 

attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Central District of 

California, from 1997 to 2003, and as a litigation 

associate at the law firm of O’Melveny & Myers, LLP, in 

Los Angeles from 1995 to 1997. She had also been a parttime adjunct professor at Loyola Law School in 2003, 

2005 and 2006. Judge Klein received her undergraduate 

degree in 1982 from the University of Massachusetts, 

graduating magna cum laude. She received her J.D. in 

1992 from Loyola Law School, also graduating magna 

cum laude and serving as the comment editor of the 

Loyola International & Comparative Law Journal. She 

clerked for Circuit Judge Arthur L. Alarcón of the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from 1994 to 

1995. Judge Klein received her master’s degree in 2009 

from the UCLA Anderson School of Management, 

where she graduated as a member of its Honor Society. 

She maintains chambers in Los Angeles.

Judge William J. Lafferty, III, 

was appointed a bankruptcy 

judge for the Northern District 

of California on April 20, 2011. 

Prior to his appointment, Judge 

Lafferty had been an attorney at 

the law firm of Howard Rice in 

San Francisco, acting as director 

of the firm’s Bankruptcy and Reorganization Practice 

Group since 1983. Judge Lafferty received his B.A. in 

1978 from the University of California at Berkeley, 

graduating with honors. He received his J.D. in 1985 

from the University of California, Hastings College of 

the Law, where he was a member of the Constitutional 

Bankruptcy Judges continued
Judicial Transitions 13

Law Quarterly. Following law school, he clerked for 

Bankruptcy Judge Thomas E. Carlson of the U.S. 

Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of 

California from 1985 to 1987. He maintains chambers 

in San Francisco. 

Judge Thomas M. Renn was 

appointed a bankruptcy judge for 

the District of Oregon on 

October 28, 2011. Prior to his 

appointment, Judge Renn had 

been a solo practitioner, working 

as a Chapter 7 panel trustee in the 

Portland division of the U.S. 

Bankruptcy Court for the District of Oregon since 

2002. From 1995 to 2002, he practiced law, authored a 

book containing an annual survey of bankruptcy law, 

and taught business law at Pacific University. Judge 

Renn received his B.A. from Gustavus Adolphus College 

in 1981 and his J.D. from the University of Minnesota 

Law School in 1984. He maintains chambers in Eugene.

Judge Mark S. Wallace was 

appointed a bankruptcy judge 

for the Central District of 

California on January 20, 2011. 

Prior to his appointment, Judge 

Wallace had been of counsel at 

Stutman, Treister & Glatt, P.C., 

in Los Angeles since 1991. From 

1979 to 1991, he was a shareholder at Osborn, 

Maledon, P.A., in Phoenix, Arizona, where he 

practiced tax and corporate law, and was the firm’s 

principal tax lawyer. He received his B.A. in 1974 from 

Princeton University, graduating summa cum laude. 

Judge Wallace received his J.D. in 1977 from Columbia 

University, School of Law, where he was the notes and 

comments editor of the Columbia Law Review. He 

maintains chambers in Santa Ana.

Judge William Cobb was 

appointed a magistrate judge for 

the District of Nevada on 

September 4, 2011. Prior to his 

appointment to the federal bench, 

he was managing and senior 

partner of the civil litigation law 

firm of Erickson, Thorpe & 

Swainston, Ltd., where he practiced law for 33 years. 

Judge Cobb was formerly a deputy district attorney in 

the Washoe County District Attorney’s Office. A native 

of Nevada, he attended the University of Nevada, Reno, 

and the Lewis & Clark Law School. He served in the 

Army Reserves as captain, Air Defense Artillery. While 

engaged in the practice of law, Judge Cobb was a Nevada 

lawyer delegate to the Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference 

(chair, 1991). He is a former president of the Thompson 

Inn of Court and was honored as a Master Emeritus of 

the Inn, and is a member of the American Board of Trial 

Advocates. He served as a Nevada Supreme Court 

settlement judge for 14 years and was also a judge pro 

tempore of Nevada’s “Short Trial” program. Judge Cobb 

was a member of the Board of Regents of the Nevada 

System of Higher Education. Judge Cobb maintains his 

chambers in Reno. 

Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley 

was appointed a magistrate for 

the Northern District of 

California on May 18, 2011. 

Prior to her appointment, she was 

a partner at Kerr & Wagstaffe, 

LLP, in San Francisco, from 2009 

to 2011. She served as a law clerk 

for District Judge Charles R. Breyer of the U.S. District 

Court for the Northern District of California from 1998 

to 2009. Earlier in her career, Judge Corley worked as a 

litigation associate at Coblentz, Patch, Duffy & Bass, 

LLP, in San Francisco from 1994 to 1997, and as a 

commercial litigation and criminal defense attorney at 

Goodwin Procter, LLP, in Boston, Massachusetts, from 

1992 to 1994. She received her undergraduate degree 

from the University of California at Berkeley in 1988, 

and her J.D. in 1991 from Harvard Law School, 

Magistrate Judges
14 2011 Annual Report

graduating magna cum laude. Following law school, 

Judge Corley clerked for District Judge Robert Keeton 

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

Massachusetts from 1991 to 1992. She maintains 

chambers in San Francisco.

Judge Nathanael M. Cousins was 

appointed a magistrate judge for 

the Northern District of 

California on July 5, 2011. Prior 

to his appointment, Judge Cousins 

had served as a federal prosecutor 

in the Antitrust Division of the 

U.S. Attorney’s Office for the 

Northern District of California since 2003. He worked 

previously as an associate, of counsel, then partner with 

the law firm of Kirkland & Ellis in Chicago, from 1997 to 

2003; as a pro bono class counsel for Illinois River 

Correctional Center inmates from 1998 to 2001; and as 

an associate with Greenberg Glusker in Los Angeles, from 

1995 to 1996. Judge Cousins received his B.A. from 

Stanford University in 1992, and received his J.D., Order 

of the Coif, from the University of California, Hastings 

College of the Law, in 1995. He clerked for Chief District 

Judge F.A. Little, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the 

Western District of Louisiana from 1996 to 1997. Judge 

Cousins maintains chambers in San Francisco.

Judge Carolyn K. Delaney was 

appointed a magistrate judge for 

the Eastern District of California 

on July 29, 2011. Prior to her 

appointment, Judge Delaney 

served in the Office of the U.S. 

Attorney for the Eastern District 

of California as the first assistant 

U.S. attorney, from 2009 to 2011; as the executive 

assistant U.S. attorney from 2000 to 2009; and as an 

assistant U.S. attorney from 1998 to 2000. She also served 

as the Department of Justice’s resident legal advisor in the 

American Embassy in Ankara, Turkey, from 2008 to 

2009. Earlier in her career, she served as a deputy state 

attorney general in Pennsylvania from 1996 to 1997; as a 

deputy district attorney in Bucks County, Pennsylvania, 

from 1991 to 1996; and as a deputy district attorney in 

San Mateo County, California, from 1989 to 1990. Judge 

Delaney received her B.A. from Wesleyan University in 

1984 and her J.D. from Stanford Law School in 1988. 

She maintains chambers in Sacramento. 

Judge Mitchell D. Dembin was 

appointed a magistrate judge for 

the Southern District of 

California on March 18, 2011. 

Prior to his appointment, Judge 

Dembin had served as an assistant 

U.S. attorney in the Southern 

District of California since 1991. 

He had been the cyber crime coordinator since 2005 and 

was previously chief of General Crimes Section, chief of 

the Financial Institution Fraud Section, and legal 

coordinator of Boiler Room Task Force. Earlier in his 

career, Judge Dembin worked as chief security advisor for 

Microsoft Corporation in Redmond, Washington, from 

2004 to 2005; as president of EvidentData, Inc., in 

Rancho Cucamonga, California, from 2001 to 2004; and 

as program director, CyberAttack Team, Exodus 

Communications, in Santa Clara, California, from 2000 

to 2001. He engaged in private practice as a partner at 

Dembin and Mitchell in Springfield, Massachusetts, 

from 1989 to 1991. He was an assistant U.S. attorney in 

the District of Massachusetts from 1985 to 1989, and a 

staff attorney at the Securities & Exchange Commission, 

in Washington, D.C., from 1978 to 1983. Judge Dembin 

received his B.A. from Brooklyn College of the City 

University of New York in 1975, and his J.D. from 

Western New England College, School of Law, in 1978. 

He maintains chambers in San Diego.

Judge Cam Ferenbach was 

appointed a magistrate judge for 

the District of Nevada on 

October 8, 2011. Prior to coming 

onto the bench, Judge Ferenbach 

was a litigation partner with the 

law firm of Lionel Sawyer & 

Collins in Las Vegas, Nevada, 

where he practiced for 31 years. In 2002, he served as 

Magistrate Judges continued
Judicial Transitions 15

president of the Clark County (Nevada) Bar Association 

and served as president of the State Bar of Nevada from 

2010 to 2011. After receiving his undergraduate degree 

from Princeton University in 1969, Judge Ferenbach 

served as an ensign in the Navy’s submarine force until 

1973. He lived and worked in rural Arizona before 

attending the Arizona State University, College of Law, 

where he received his J.D. in 1979. He maintains 

chambers in Las Vegas.

Judge Carl W. Hoffman, Jr., was 

appointed a magistrate judge for 

the District of Nevada on 

August 5, 2011. Prior to his 

appointment, Judge Hoffman 

had been the general counsel of 

the Clark County (Nevada) 

School District in Las Vegas 

since 1995. He provided legal services to district 

employees and elected officials in various areas of the 

law, including employment, personal injury, civil rights 

and education. Earlier in his career, Judge Hoffman 

served as a lieutenant colonel in the Marine Corps, 

initially as an infantry officer and later as a judge 

advocate acting as a criminal prosecutor or defense 

counsel. He also was a special assistant U.S. attorney, 

and legal advisor for international military operations. 

Judge Hoffman received his B.A. from the University 

of Colorado, his J.D. from the University of San Diego, 

and his LL.M from the Army Judge Advocate General’s 

School in Charlottesville, Virginia. He maintains 

chambers in Las Vegas.

Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe was 

appointed a magistrate judge for 

the Eastern District of California 

on October 14, 2011. Prior to 

her appointment, Judge 

McAuliffe served as a law clerk 

for then Magistrate Judge 

Lawrence J. O’Neill (since 

elevated to district judge) from 2000 to 2011. She 

engaged in private practice for 11 years working on 

complex civil litigation in employment, construction 

and business litigation. An adjunct professor at local 

educational institutions, she taught legal research and 

writing, business law, business ethics, administrative 

law and international law. Judge McAuliffe received 

her B.S. from Louisiana State University in 1980 and 

her J.D. in 1989 from the University of San Diego, 

School of Law, graduating magna cum laude and 

serving as executive editor of the San Diego Law 

Review. She maintains chambers in Fresno. 

Judge James F. Metcalf was 

appointed a full-time magistrate 

judge for the District of Arizona 

on November 23, 2011. Before 

being appointed full-time, he 

had served as a part-time 

magistrate judge for the District 

of Arizona since 2009. Prior to 

that, Judge Metcalf engaged in private practice for ten 

years in Yuma, where his practice focused primarily on 

immigration law and criminal defense. He served as a 

sector counsel for the U.S. Border Patrol and as 

assistant district counsel for the Immigration and 

Naturalization Service. Judge Metcalf served on active 

duty as a judge advocate in the Marines. He received 

his B.A. from Loyola University of New Orleans and 

his law degree from the University of Arkansas at Little 

Rock, School of Law. Judge Metcalf maintains 

chambers in Yuma.

Judge Richard Puglisi was 

appointed a magistrate judge for 

the District of Hawaii on April 1, 

2011. He had served previously 

as a federal magistrate judge for 

the District of New Mexico since 

1996. Prior to coming onto the 

bench, Judge Puglisi engaged in 

private practice in Albuquerque and Santa Fe, New 

Mexico, as a partner at Madison Harbour, Mroz & 

Puglisi, P.A., from 1991 to 1996, and as an associate 

then partner at Montgomery & Andrews, P.A., from 

1984 to 1991. Judge Puglisi served as judge advocate in 

the Navy, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, from 1980 to 1984. He 
16 2011 Annual Report

received his B.A. in 1975 from the University of New 

Mexico, graduating cum laude. Judge Puglisi received 

his J.D. from the University of New Mexico, School of 

Law, in 1979, and his M.S. from the U.S. Army War 

College in 2002. He maintains chambers in Honolulu.

Judge Sheri N. Pym was 

appointed a magistrate judge 

for the Central District of 

California on April 18, 2011. 

Prior to her appointment, Judge 

Pym engaged in private practice 

as an associate at Milberg Weiss 

Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP 

in San Diego from 1994 to 2001. She worked in the 

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

California as chief of its Riverside Branch Office 

from 2006 to 2011, and as an assistant U.S. attorney 

from 2002 to 2011. Judge Pym received her B.A. 

from Williams College in 1989 and her J.D. from the 

University of California at Los Angeles, School of 

Law, in 1994. She maintains chambers in Riverside.

Judge Jean P. Rosenbluth was 

appointed a magistrate judge for 

the Central District of California 

on September 23, 2011. Prior to 

her appointment, Judge 

Rosenbluth served as director of 

the legal writing and advocacy 

program from 2002 to 2011, and 

as a clinical professor of law from 2007 to 2011 at the 

University of Southern California, Gould School of 

Law. Earlier in her career, Judge Rosenbluth worked in 

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

serving as the senior litigation counsel in the Criminal 

Division from 2000 to 2002, as acting co-chief of the 

Criminal Appeals Unit in 2002, and as an assistant U.S. 

attorney from 1995 to 2000. Judge Rosenbluth received 

her B.A. from Barnard College in 1983 and her J.D. in 

1993 from the USC Gould School of Law, where she 

was editor-in-chief of the Southern California Law 

Review and a member of the Order of the Coif. She 

clerked for Circuit Judge Ferdinand F. Fernandez of the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from 1994 

to 1995; for District Judge Alicemarie H. Stotler of the 

Central District from 1993 to 1994; and for the Los 

Angeles County District Attorney’s Office in 1992. 

Judge Rosenbluth maintains chambers in Santa Ana.

Judge Michael R. Wilner was 

appointed a magistrate judge for 

the Central District of 

California on April 1, 2011. 

Prior to his appointment to the 

bench, Judge Wilner had served 

as a special assistant U.S. 

attorney and deputy chief of the 

Major Frauds Section of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in 

the Central District of California since 2000. He 

previously worked as a civil enforcement attorney at 

the Securities and Exchange Commission in Los 

Angeles, from 1995 to 2002, and engaged in private 

practice as a litigation associate at Proskauer Rose LLP 

in Century City, California, from 1991 to 1994. Judge 

Wilner received his B.A. from Dartmouth College in 

1988 and his J.D. in 1991 from the University of 

Pennsylvania Law School, graduating with honors. 

Judge Wilner served as a summer law clerk for Senior 

District Judge Norma L. Shapiro of the Eastern 

District of Pennsylvania in 1989. He maintains 

chambers in Los Angeles.

Magistrate Judges continued
Judicial Transitions 17

Judge Charles R. Breyer was 

confirmed by the Senate to 

serve as a district judge for the 

Northern District of California 

on November 8, 1997, and 

received his commission on 

November 12, 1997. He 

assumed senior status on 

December 31, 2011. Prior to his appointment to the 

bench, he engaged in private practice as a partner at 

Coblentz, Cahen, McCabe & Breyer in San Francisco 

from 1980 to 1997 and as an associate at Jacobs, Sills 

& Coblentz from 1974 to 1979. He did a brief stint 

as chief assistant district attorney in the District 

Attorney’s Office for the City and County of San 

Francisco in 1979. Judge Breyer served as an assistant 

special prosecutor for the Watergate Special 

Prosecution Force from 1973 to 1974; as the assistant 

district attorney in San Francisco from 1967 to 1973; 

and as counsel for Legal Aid Society of San Francisco 

in 1967. Judge Breyer received his A.B. from 

Harvard College in 1963 and his J.D. from the 

University of California at Berkeley, Boalt Hall 

School of Law, in 1966. Following law school, he 

clerked for District Judge Oliver Carter of the U.S. 

District Court for the Northern District of 

California from 1966 to 1967. He maintains 

chambers in San Francisco.

Judge Michael R. Hogan was 

confirmed by the Senate to serve 

as a district judge for the District 

of Oregon on September 12, 

1991, and received his 

commission on September 16, 

1991. Prior to his appointment, 

Judge Hogan had served both as 

a magistrate judge from 1980 to 1991 and as a 

bankruptcy judge from 1973 to 1980 for the District of 

Oregon. He engaged in private practice in Portland, 

Oregon, from 1972 to 1973. Judge Hogan received his 

B.A. from the University of Oregon in 1968 and his J.D. 

from Georgetown University Law Center in 1971. 

Following law school, he clerked for District Judge 

Robert C. Belloni of the U.S. District Court for the 

District of Oregon from 1971 to 1972. Judge Hogan 

maintains chambers in Eugene.

Judge Roger L. Hunt was 

confirmed by the Senate to 

serve as a district judge for the 

District of Nevada on May 24, 

2000, and received his 

commission on May 25, 2000. 

He assumed senior status on 

May 26, 2011, after serving as 

chief judge of the district from 2007 to 2011. Prior 

to his appointment, Judge Hunt had served as a 

magistrate judge for the District of Montana from 

1992 to 2000. He engaged in private practice in Las 

Vegas from 1971 to 1992. Judge Hunt served as a 

deputy district attorney for Clark County (Nevada) 

District Attorney’s Office in Las Vegas from 1970 to 

1971. He received his B.A. from Brigham Young 

University in 1966 and his J.D. from George 

Washington University in 1970. Judge Hunt 

maintains chambers in Las Vegas.

Judge A. Howard Matz was 

confirmed by the Senate to 

serve as a district judge for the 

Central District of California 

on June 26, 1998, and received 

his commission on June 29, 

1998. He assumed senior status 

on July 11, 2011. Prior to his 

appointment, Judge Matz was a principal at Bird, 

Marella, Boxer, Wolpert & Matz, P.C., in Los Angeles 

from 1983 to 1998. He worked as an associate from 

1970 to 1974 then as a partner from 1979 to 1983 at 

Hughes, Hubbard & Reed in Los Angeles. Judge 

Matz joined the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Central 

District of California, where he worked as an 

assistant U.S. attorney from 1974 to 1978 then 

served as chief of the Special Prosecutions Unit from 

1977 to 1978. He received his A.B. in 1965 from 

Senior Judges
18 2011 Annual Report

Columbia University, graduating cum laude, and his 

J.D. from Harvard Law School in 1968. Following 

law school, he clerked for District Judge Morris E. 

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

District of New York from 1969 to 1970. He 

maintains chambers in Los Angeles.

Judge Donald W. Molloy was 

confirmed by the Senate to 

serve as a district judge for the 

District of Montana on July 

18, 1996, and received his 

commission on August 1, 

1996. He assumed senior 

status on August 16, 2011. 

Prior to coming onto the bench, Judge Molloy 

engaged in private practice at the Molloy Law 

Offices in Billings, Montana, from 1991 to 1995. 

He was a partner at Anderson & Molloy in Billings 

from 1990 to 1991; a partner at Anderson, Edwards 

& Molloy from 1981 to 1990; a partner at Berger 

Anderson, Sinclair, Murphy, Nelson, Edwards, 

McGimpsey & Molloy from 1979 to 1980; and an 

associate at Berger, Anderson, Sinclair & Murphy 

from 1978 to 1979. Judge Molloy received his B.A. 

from the University of Montana at Missoula in 

1968 and his J.D. from the University of Montana, 

School of Law, in 1976. He served in the Navy, 

Naval Aviation, from 1968 to 1973. Judge Molloy 

maintains chambers in Billings.

Philip M. Pro was confirmed 

by the Senate to serve as a 

district judge for the District of 

Nevada on July 22, 1987, and 

received his commission on July 

23, 1987. He served as chief 

district judge from 2002 to 

2007 and assumed senior status 

on December 31, 2011. He previously served the 

District of Nevada as a magistrate judge, from 1980 

to 1987. Prior to coming on the bench, Judge Pro 

served in the Office of U.S. Attorney for the District 

of Nevada as chief assistant U.S. attorney in Reno in 

1980, and was the deputy state attorney general for 

Nevada from 1979 to 1980. Judge Pro engaged in 

private practice in Reno from 1978 to 1979. He 

worked as an assistant U.S. attorney in Las Vegas 

from 1975 to 1978 and as deputy public defender in 

Las Vegas from 1973 to 1975. Judge Pro received his 

B.A. from San Francisco State University in 1968 and 

his J.D. from Golden Gate University, School of Law, 

in 1972. Following law school, he clerked for Judge 

William P. Compton of the Eight Judicial District 

Court of Nevada from 1972 to 1973. He was in the 

Naval Reserve from 1964 to 1968. Judge Pro 

maintains chambers in Las Vegas.

Judge Barbara J. Rothstein was 

confirmed by the Senate to serve 

as a district judge for the 

Western District of Washington 

and received her commission on 

February 20, 1980. She served 

as chief judge of the district 

from 1987 to 1994 and as 

director of the Federal Judicial Center from 2003 to 

2011. Judge Rothstein assumed senior status on 

September 1, 2011. Prior to her appointment to the 

federal bench, she had served as judge, Washington 

(King County) Superior Court since 1977. Judge 

Rothstein was an adjunct professor at the University of 

Washington Law School from 1975 to 1977. She 

served as an assistant attorney general and chief trial 

attorney, Consumer Protection and Antitrust 

Division, Washington State Attorney General’s Office, 

from 1968 to 1977. Judge Rothstein engaged in 

private practice in Boston, Massachusetts, from 1966 

to 1968. She received her B.A. from Cornell 

University in 1960 and her LL.B. from Harvard Law 

School in 1966. She maintains chambers in 

Washington, D.C.

Senior Judges continued
Judicial Transitions 19

Judge Mary M. Schroeder is the 

first woman to preside as chief 

judge of the United States Court 

of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 

from 2000 to 2007. She was 

confirmed by the Senate to serve 

as a circuit judge for the Ninth 

Circuit on September 25, 1979, 

and received her commission on September 26, 1979. 

Judge Schroeder assumed senior status on December 31, 

2011. Prior to her appointment to the federal bench, 

Judge Schroeder had served as judge of the Arizona 

Court of Appeals, Division One, in Phoenix, Arizona, 

since 1975. She was a visiting instructor at Arizona 

State University Law School in 1978 and from 1975 to 

1976. She clerked for Arizona Supreme Court Justice 

Jesse A. Udall from 1969 to 1970 before entering into 

private practice in 1971. Judge Schroeder worked as a 

trial attorney in the Civil Division of the U.S. 

Department of Justice in Washington, D.C., from 1965 

to 1969. She received her B.A. from Swarthmore 

College in 1962 and her J.D. from the University of 

Chicago Law School in 1965. Judge Schroeder 

maintains chambers in Phoenix.

John W. Sedwick was confirmed 

by the Senate to serve as a 

district judge for the District of 

Alaska on October 8, 1992, and 

received his commission on 

October 9, 1992. He served as 

chief judge from 2002 to 2009 

and assumed senior status on 

March 13, 2011. Prior to his appointment to the 

bench, Judge Sedwick engaged in private practice in 

Anchorage from 1982 to 1992. He served as director 

of the Land and Water Management Division, 

Department of Natural Resources, State of Alaska, 

from 1981 to 1982. Before that, he was in private 

practice in Anchorage from 1972 to 1981. Judge 

Sedwick received his B.A. from Dartmouth College in 

1968 and his J.D. from Harvard Law School in 1972. 

He maintains chambers in Anchorage.
20 2011 Annual Report

Judge Donald C. Ashmanskas, 

75, a recalled magistrate judge of 

the U.S. District Court for the 

District of Oregon, died on July 

18, 2011. Judge Ashmanskas was 

appointed on September 24, 

1992. He retired in 2008 but had 

continued to serve as a recalled 

magistrate judge since then. Before coming onto the 

federal bench, Judge Ashmanskas served on the Oregon 

State Court in Washington County as a circuit judge, 

from 1977 to 1992, and as a district court judge, from 

1975 to 1977. Earlier in his career, he served as a city 

attorney in Beaverton, Oregon, from 1970 to 1975. 

Judge Ashmanskas also worked as a legal counsel and field 

consultant, League of Oregon Cities, from 1968 to 1970; 

as an assistant professor, University of Oregon, from 1966 

to 1968; as an editor, Commerce Clearing House, Inc., 

from 1961 to 1966; and as a revenue officer, U.S. Treasury 

Department, from 1959 to 1961. Judge Ashmanskas 

received his B.A. from Rutgers University in 1960 and his 

J.D. from New York University, School of Law, in 1966. 

He pursued advanced study at Cornell University and the 

National Judicial College. Judge Ashmanskas is survived 

by three children and one grandchild.

Judge Robert Boochever, 94, a 

senior circuit judge of the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the Ninth 

Circuit, died on October 9, 

2011. Judge Boochever was 

appointed on June 18, 1980, and 

assumed senior status on June 10, 

1986. Prior to his appointment 

to the federal bench, Judge Boochever served as an 

associate justice of the Alaska Supreme Court from 

1972 to 1980 and as its chief justice from 1975 to 1978. 

Judge Boochever moved to Juneau, Alaska, in 1946 to 

take a job as an assistant U.S. attorney for the Alaska 

Territory. A year later, he went into private practice as a 

partner in the Juneau law firm of Faulkner, Banfield, 

Boochever & Doogan, where he remained until his 

appointment to the state bench. Judge Boochever is 

survived by four daughters, three step-daughters, 11 

grandchildren, and three great-grandchildren. He was 

preceded in death by his first wife, Connie, who died in 

1999 after 56 years of marriage, and by his second wife, 

Rose Marie, who died in 2010.

Judge Jon J. Chinen, 91, a 

retired bankruptcy judge of the 

District of Hawaii, died on April 

14, 2011. Judge Chinen was 

appointed as a bankruptcy judge 

on May 1, 1976. Following the 

enactment of the Bankruptcy 

Reform Act, he was reappointed 

in 1984 and became the first bankruptcy judge 

appointed to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the 

District of Hawaii. Judge Chinen was reappointed to a 

14-year term on August 25, 1986. He retired on July 

31, 1991, but later served as a recalled bankruptcy 

judge from 1993 to 2000. Judge Chinen began his 

legal career in 1953 when he worked as a deputy 

territorial attorney general and served as a per diem 

district judge in the Hawaii court system from 1960 to 

1976. He received his undergraduate degree from the 

University of Hawaii in 1941. Judge Chinen served in 

the Army and earned a Bronze Star and Purple Heart 

for injuries received in combat. After being discharged 

from military service, he enrolled at the University of 

Michigan Law School, where he received an LL.M. in 

1952. Judge Chinen is survived by his wife, Winnie, 

two sons, and four grandchildren.

Judge James M. Fitzgerald, 90, a 

senior district judge of the District 

of Alaska, died on April 3, 2011. 

Judge Fitzgerald was appointed on 

December 20, 1974. He served as 

chief judge of the district from 

1984 to 1989 and assumed senior 

status on January 1, 1989. Before 

joining the federal bench, Judge Fitzgerald served as an 

Alaska Supreme Court justice from 1972 to 1974, and as 

a judge of the Alaska Superior Court, Third District, from 

1959 to 1972, the last three years as the court’s presiding 

judge. He served as the state commissioner of public 

In Memoriam
Judicial Transitions 21

safety and as legal counsel to the governor of Alaska in 

1959. Judge Fitzgerald was the city attorney in 

Anchorage, Alaska, from 1956 to 1959, and served as 

assistant U.S. attorney for the District of Alaska from 

1952 to 1956. He received his B.A. from Willamette 

University in 1950 and his LL.B. from Willamette 

University, College of Law, in 1951. He served as 

sergeant in the Marine Corps from 1942 to 1946 and as 

private in the Army from 1940 to 1941. Judge Fitzgerald 

is survived by his wife, Karin, four children, nine 

grandchildren, a great-grandchild, and a sister. 

Judge Helen J. Frye, 80, a 

retired senior district judge of 

the District of Oregon, died on 

April 21, 2011. Judge Frye was 

appointed on December 20, 

1980, becoming the first woman 

to serve as a federal judge in 

Oregon. She assumed senior 

status on December 10, 1995. Prior to her 

appointment to the federal bench, Judge Frye served as 

a judge of the Oregon Circuit Court, Second Judicial 

District, from 1971 to 1980. She engaged in private 

practice in Eugene, Oregon, from 1966 to 1971. Judge 

Frye attended the University of Oregon, receiving her 

B.A. in 1953 and M.A. in 1961. She received her J.D. 

from the University of Oregon Law School in 1966. 

Judge Frye is survived by her husband, Perry, four 

children, five grandchildren, and a great grandchild. 

Judge Cynthia Holcomb Hall, 

82, a senior circuit judge of the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

Ninth Circuit, died on February 

26, 2011. Judge Hall was first 

appointed to the U.S. District 

Court for the Central District of 

California on November 18, 

1981, and then to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on 

October 4, 1984. She assumed senior status on August 

31, 1997. In addition to her judicial service in the Ninth 

Circuit, Judge Hall served as a judge of the U.S. Tax 

Court from 1972 to 1981. Prior to coming onto the 

bench, she engaged in private practice in Beverly Hills, 

California, from 1966 to 1972. Earlier in her career, 

Judge Hall was an attorney advisor in the U.S. Treasury 

Department, Office of the Tax Legislative Counsel, from 

1964 to 1966; a trial attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, 

Tax Division, from 1960 to 1974; and a research assistant, 

Tax Law Review, from 1959 to 1960. Judge Hall received 

her A.B. from Stanford University in 1951, her LL.B. 

from Stanford Law School in 1954, and her LL.M. from 

New York University, School of Law, in 1960. She 

clerked for the late Circuit Judge Richard H. Chambers 

of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals from 1954 to 

1955, and served in the Navy JAG Corps as a reserve 

lieutenant from 1951 to 1953. Judge Hall is survived by 

her brother, two children, two daughters-in-law, three 

grandchildren, four step-children and their spouses, and 

six step-grandchildren.

Judge James B. Hovis, 88, a 

retired magistrate judge of the 

Eastern District of Washington, 

died on January 6, 2011. Judge 

Hovis was appointed a magistrate 

judge in 1987 and served full 

time until retiring from the 

bench in 1995. Prior to his 

appointment, Judge Hovis practiced law for 37 years in 

Yakima, Washington, and served as lead attorney for the 

Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation. 

He served on the Washington State Racing Commission 

from 2002 to 2003 and from 1979 to 1980. Judge 

Hovis was one of the original incorporators of Sundown 

M Ranch, the first non-aversion treatment center for 

chemical addiction in Washington, and served on its 

board of directors from 1967 to 1987. He was a 

member of the Washington State Parks and Recreation 

Commission from 1961 to 1966 and served as its 

chairman from 1962 to 1966. Judge Hovis received his 

B.S. from the University of Washington and J.D. from 

the University of Washington, School of Law. He 

served in the Army during World War II and was 

honorably discharged at the rank of first sergeant in 

1946. Judge Hovis is survived by his four children, a 

grandchild, and a sister-in-law.
22 2011 Annual Report

Judge John R. Kronenberg, 87, 

a retired magistrate judge of the 

Central District of California, 

died on March 11, 2011. Judge 

Kronenberg was appointed on 

April 23, 1973, and maintained 

chambers in Los Angeles until 

his retirement on July 14, 1992. 

Judge Kronenberg served as a recalled judge from 1994 

to 1995. Prior to coming onto the bench, he served as 

a public defender with the County of Los Angeles 

from 1959 to 1973. Judge Kronenberg attended 

Gonzaga University but was drafted into the Army and 

served during World War II. He received his law 

degree from Loyola Law School in 1958. Judge 

Kronenberg is survived by his wife, Marilyn, three 

children, seven grandchildren, a sister, and a brother.

Judge Thomas G. Nelson, 74, a 

senior circuit judge of the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the Ninth 

Circuit, died on May 4, 2011. 

Judge Nelson was appointed on 

October 17, 1990, and assumed 

senior status on November 14, 

2003. Prior to joining the 

federal bench, Judge Nelson was in private practice in 

Twin Falls, Idaho. He worked at Parry, Robertson and 

Daly from 1965 to 1979, and was a principal partner 

at Nelson, Rosholt, Robertson, Tolman & Tucker from 

1979 until his federal appointment. He began his legal 

career in the Idaho Office of the State Attorney 

General, where he worked as an assistant state attorney 

general then as chief deputy state attorney general 

from 1963 to 1965. While a member of the Army 

Reserve, Judge Nelson served in the Judge Advocate 

General’s Corps from 1965 to 1968. He attended the 

University of Idaho, College of Law, receiving his 

LL.B. in 1962. Judge Nelson is survived by his wife, 

Sharon, four children, and four grandchildren.

Judge Albert E. Radcliffe, 63, a 

bankruptcy judge of the District 

of Oregon, died on January 19, 

2011. First appointed a parttime bankruptcy judge in 1983, 

he became a full-time bankruptcy 

judge in 1988 and was 

reappointed to a second 14-year 

term in 2002. Judge Radcliffe served as chief 

bankruptcy judge of the district, as judge pro tem on the 

Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, and as a 

visiting bankruptcy judge in the Western District of 

Washington and Central District of California. Prior 

to his appointment, Judge Radcliffe practiced general 

law, with an emphasis on bankruptcy and related 

matters, in Eugene, Oregon, from 1973 to 1986. He 

was an adjunct professor at the University of Oregon, 

School of Law, and authored or co-authored several 

articles on bankruptcy law. He received his 

undergraduate degree from the University of Oregon 

in 1969 and his J.D. from the University of Oregon 

Law School in 1972. Judge Radcliffe is survived by his 

wife, Nancy, and two daughters.

Judge John M. Roll, 63, the 

chief district judge of the 

District of Arizona, died on 

January 8, 2011, in a mass 

shooting in Tucson, Arizona. 

Judge Roll was appointed on 

November 25, 1991. He served 

as chief judge of the district 

from 2006 until his death. Prior to his appointment to 

the federal bench, Judge Roll served as a judge of the 

Pima County (Arizona) Superior Court, Criminal 

Bench, in 1991, and the Arizona Court of Appeals, 

Division Two, from 1987 to 1991. Before coming 

onto the bench, he worked as an assistant U.S. attorney 

in the District of Arizona from 1980 to 1987, serving 

in the Organized Crime Drug Task Force, from 1982 

to 1986, and the Civil Division, from 1986 to 1987. 

Judge Roll was a clinical instructor at the University of 

Arizona, College of Law, from 1978 to 1979; a deputy 

county attorney for Pima County, Criminal Division, 

In Memoriam continued
Judicial Transitions 23

from 1973 to 1980; an assistant city attorney for 

Tucson in 1973; and a bailiff, Pima County Superior 

Court, from 1972 to 1973. He received a B.A. from 

the University of Arizona in 1969; a J.D. from the 

University of Arizona, College of Law, in 1973; and an 

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

in 1990. Judge Roll is survived by his wife, Maureen, 

three sons, and five grandchildren.

Judge Pamela Ann Rymer, 70, a 

senior circuit judge of the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the Ninth 

Circuit, died on September 21, 

2011. Judge Rymer was 

appointed on October 17, 1990, 

and assumed senior status on 

November 14, 2003. Prior to her 

appointment to the appellate bench, Judge Rymer had 

served as a district judge for the Central District of 

California since 1983. She engaged in private practice 

in Los Angeles from 1966 to 1983. Judge Rymer was a 

member and chairman of the California Post-Secondary 

Education Commission from 1974 to 1984. She 

received her A.B. from Vassar College in 1961 and her 

LL.B. from Stanford Law School in 1964. Following 

law school, Judge Rymer worked in the 1964 

presidential campaign of Barry Goldwater. She began 

her legal career with Rus Walton & Associates in Los 

Altos, California, in 1965, and went into private 

practice in 1966 in Los Angeles, becoming the first 

woman partner at the law firm of Lilick, McHose & 

Charles. She later started her own firm, Toy and Rymer. 

Judge Samuel J. Steiner, 83, a 

recalled bankruptcy judge of the 

United States District Court for 

the Western District of 

Washington, died on July 19, 

2011. First appointed as a 

bankruptcy referee in 1978, he 

was appointed as a bankruptcy 

judge in 1979, following the enactment of bankruptcy 

reform legislation, and reappointed in 1986 and 2000. 

Judge Steiner had been among the longest serving, 

non-recalled active bankruptcy judges in the nation 

until his retirement on December 31, 2010. Prior to 

his appointment to the bench, he engaged in private 

practice in Seattle, Washington, from 1954 to 1978. 

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

Washington in 1949 and his J.D. from the University 

of Washington, School of Law, in 1951. He was 

drafted into the Army in 1952 and served as a JAG 

officer during the Korean War. He continued military 

service in the Army Reserve until retiring in 1978 at 

the rank of colonel. Judge Steiner is survived by two 

children and one grandchild.
24 2011 Annual Report

Judge David R. Thompson, 80, 

a senior circuit judge of the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the Ninth 

Circuit, died on February 19, 

2011. Judge Thompson was 

appointed on December 17, 

1985. He assumed senior status 

on December 31, 1998, but 

continued to hear cases and serve the court in other 

capacities for many years. Prior to coming onto the 

bench, Judge Thompson engaged in private practice 

for 28 years in San Diego, California, where he focused 

on business litigation. He received his undergraduate 

degree from the University of Southern California in 

1951 and an LL.B. from the University of Southern 

California Law School in 1955. He served in the Navy 

from 1955 to 1957. Judge Thompson is survived by 

two sons, a daughter, and four grandchildren.

Judge James H. Thompson, 83, 

a retired bankruptcy judge of the 

District of Nevada, died on 

February 14, 2011. Judge 

Thompson was appointed on 

September 9, 1985, and served 

for nine years in the court’s 

Reno division. Judge Thompson 

retired on October 10, 1994. Prior to joining the 

bench, Judge Thompson worked in the Nevada 

attorney general’s office. He served as a Nevada district 

judge, a Washoe County district judge and a justice of 

the peace for Reno Township. He received his B.A. 

from American University in 1959 and his LL.B. from 

American University, College of Law, in 1961. Judge 

Thompson is survived by his daughter and son-in-law, 

and two grandchildren.

In Memoriam continued
Judicial Transitions 25

Supreme Court, WaShington, D.C. ninth CirCuit, San FranCiSCo, Ca White houSe, WaShington, D.C. ao, WaShington, D. C. tuCSon, aZ phoenix, aZ Yuma, aZ

hagatna, guam

FlagStaFF, aZ

D.C. CirCuit, WaShington St. louiS, mo BoSton, ma portlanD, me BillingS, mt

BrooklYn, nY

BiSmarCk, nD

FreSno, Ca

Denver, Co

riverSiDe, Ca

anChorage, ak ConCorD, nh

Denver, Co Denver, Co

neW orleanS, la

CeDar rapiDS, ia

minneapoliS, mn

San FranCiSCo, Ca neW orleanS, la San Diego, Ca

Central iSlip, nY

kanSaS CitY, mo reno, nv

neW orleanS, la Sioux FallS, SD

neW York, nY

alBanY, nY paSaDena, Ca SYraCuSe, nY proviDenCe, ri miSSoula, mt el Centro, Ca naShville, tn garapan, northern mariana iSlanDS

laS vegaS, nv north platte, ne ClevelanD, oh Binghamton, nY lexington, kY

granD rapiDS, mi laS vegaS, nv DeS moineS, ia

toleDo, oh

omaha, ne San Diego, Ca helena, mt

loS angeleS, Ca Santa ana, Ca utiCa, nY Butte, mt knoxville, tn

honolulu, hi SaCramento, Ca

loS angeleS, Ca

great FallS, mt akron, oh linColn, ne

DaYton, oh little roCk, ar CinCinnati, oh poCatello, iD BoiSe, iD

Coeur D’alene, iD YoungStoWn, oh moSCoW, iD

BriDgeport, Ct

Seattle, Wa

SpringFielD, il

taComa, Wa

SCranton, pa reno, nv roCheSter, nY

San JoSe, Ca neW haven, Ct

ColumBuS, oh

Detroit, mi hartForD, Ct

riChmonD, va

milWaukee, Wi

tallahaSSee, Fl alexanDria, va

ChiCago, il

portlanD, or

WeSt palm BeaCh, Fl houSton, tx national CourtS BuilDing, WaShington D.C. inDianapoliS, in montgomerY, al

BroWnSville, tx lake CharleS, la

alBuquerque, nm oaklanD, Ca

panama CitY, Fl trenton, nJ meDForD, or YoSemite, Ca

eugene, or

pittSBurgh, pa

portlanD, or

Santa Fe, nm

auStin, tx

Spokane, Wa hato reY, puerto riCo

louiSville, kY

peoria, il South BenD, in lanSing, mi

penDleton, or

Santa BarBara, Ca WooDlanD hillS, Ca anChorage, ak

Seattle, Wa nome, ak maCon, ga Santa roSa, Ca Baltimore, mD harriSonBurg, va Juneau, ak atlanta, ga memphiS, tn

Chief District Judge 

John M. Roll

DiStriCt oF ariZona

1947 - 2011

The United States District Court for the 

District of Arizona suffered a grievous loss 

with the untimely death of Chief Judge John 

M. Roll, one of six people killed in a mass 

shooting in Tucson on January 8, 2011. In an 

inspiring and largely spontaneous display of 

mourning for Judge Roll and other victims, 

flags were lowered to half-staff at federal 

courthouses and government buildings 

across the nation, including the White House 

and the Supreme Court of the United States. 
26 2011 Annual Report

J

ust days into the new year, the nation was shocked by an act of senseless violence. 

On January 8, 2011, a gunman killed six people and wounded 16 at a shopping 

center in Tucson, Arizona. The tragedy deepened for the federal court family when 

it was learned that Chief District Judge John M. Roll of the United States District 

Court for the District of Arizona was among the dead.

Judge Roll, 63, was attending a community event for U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords of 

Tucson, who was seriously wounded in the attack. He went to thank Rep. Giffords 

for her support of his efforts to seek additional judgeships for the Arizona federal 

court. He was mortally wounded while apparently shielding another person standing 

next to him.

In a spontaneous and largely unorganized expression of grief at the loss of Judge 

Roll and of support for Rep. Giffords, flags were lowered to half-staff at federal 

courthouses and other government buildings across the nation, including the White 

House and the U.S. Supreme Court. A poster showing flags at more than 100 

courthouses (previous page) now hangs in Arizona federal courthouses.

More than 1,700 mourners, many of them colleagues from the federal and state 

benches, attended Judge Roll’s funeral the following week. Memorials continued 

over the course of the year, including a June groundbreaking for a new courthouse 

in Yuma, Arizona, which will be named for Judge Roll. In August, the annual Ninth 

Circuit Judicial Conference opened with a touching tribute to the slain judge.

On January 6, 2012, judges of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona 

convened a special session in the Tucson Music Center to observe the first 

anniversary of Judge Roll’s death. Hundreds of people were present to hear from his 

colleagues. Messages read during the program included one from Chief Judge Alex 

Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

“I can say without qualification that no one worked harder on behalf of the court 

and, by extension, the people of Arizona, than Judge Roll. He was always on the job, 

striving to make things better for his district, for the circuit and for his family and 

community,” Judge Kozinski wrote.

A Grievous and Unexpected Loss
Ninth Circuit Highlights 27

 NINTH circuit

highlights
28 2011 Annual Report

Aseries of retreats organized by the 

Ninth Circuit Standing Committee 

on Federal Public Defenders is helping 

improve the practice of criminal law in federal 

courts of the western states.

Begun in 2010, the retreats bring together 

federal prosecutors and defense counsel, 

leading academic authorities and judges 

for frank discussions on how to improve 

communications and resolve ethical and 

procedural conflicts that arise in litigating 

criminal cases. United States attorneys, federal 

public defenders and community defenders 

from the 15 judicial districts within the circuit 

have participated.

The retreats were conceived by Circuit Judge 

Harry Pregerson, who chairs the committee, as 

a means of getting prosecutors and defenders 

to establish best practices that will help achieve 

equal justice under the law.

 “The feedback we have received from both 

prosecutors and defensive counsel has been 

very positive. They may be adversaries in the 

courtroom, but both sides have the same goal, 

which is to ensure that justice is delivered in a 

fair and timely manner,” Judge Pregerson said.

The first retreat was held in June 2010 in 

Bigfork, Montana. Participants included 

representatives of the U.S. Department of 

Justice and the Office of Defender Services in 

the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, 

private defense counsel and professors from 

the University of Montana School of Law. 

Professor Laurie Levenson of Loyola Law 

School in Los Angeles moderated the program, 

which addressed various topics, including 

discovery and technology, communication, 

ethics, training and supervision, sentencing 

guidelines, fast-track litigation, and rules of 

criminal procedure.

Retreats Bring Together Federal 

Prosecutors, Defenders

A follow-up session held in August 2010 following the Ninth 

Circuit Judicial Conference focused on the importance of 

civility between defenders and prosecutors; the benefits of 

informal communication for purposes of resolving disputes; 

how to navigate e-discovery; and the need for better training 

of attorneys serving on Criminal Justice Act panels, junior 

staff members, and government agents. Laurence Tribe, the 

senior counsel for the DOJ’s Access to Justice Initiative, was 

the guest speaker.

The most recent retreat was held in August 2011, also 

following the circuit conference. Professor Levenson again 

moderated the program, which featured panelists from 

the DOJ, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Drug 

Enforcement Agency, the Bureau of Prisons and the U.S. 

Sentencing Commission. Topics included joint initiatives, 

discovery challenges, witness interviews and investigations, reentry courts, sentencing guidelines, and criminal rules.

These retreats have led to tangible results, including working 

groups of prosecutors and public defenders who have helped 

to implement new criminal discovery procedures, drug courts 

and re-entry programs. The Standing Committee is planning 

a third annual retreat as an add-on program to the 2012 Ninth 

Circuit Judicial Conference.

Pictured from left are Chief District Judge Ann L. Aiken, District 

of Oregon; Kim Beakey, Bureau of Prisons Re-entry Affairs 

Coordinator; and Federal Public Defender, John Gorman, District 

of Guam.
Ninth Circuit Highlights 29

The United States District Court for the 

District of Guam became the first federal 

court in the Ninth Circuit to record video of 

a trial proceeding under a new national pilot program 

to test the effects of cameras in the courtroom.

Chief District Judge Frances Marie 

Tydingco-Gatewood presided over 

the proceeding held October 7, 

2011, in the fourth-floor courtroom 

of the federal courthouse in Hagatna. 

She heard argument over objections 

to a magistrate judge’s report and 

recommendation in a civil case 

involving the federal government and 

a public utility serving the island, the 

Guam Waterworks Authority. 

The court used videoconferencing 

equipment, a digital video recorder 

and three cameras remotely 

controlled by the courtroom 

deputy using a touch screen 

for switching and zooming. A 

digital recording of the hearing 

was subsequently uploaded to an 

Internet website hosted by the 

Administrative Office of the U.S. 

Courts. It can also be accessed 

from the Guam court’s website.

The pilot program was authorized 

by the Judicial Conference of 

the United States in September 

2010 and commenced in July 

2011. Guam is one of three Ninth Circuit courts to 

participate. Also involved are the Northern District 

of California and the Western District of Washington, 

although neither had a case recorded during the year. 

A number of other courts in the circuit indicated 

interest but chose not to participate in the program, 

which requires the courts to produce the recordings, 

rather than allowing camera access to news media and 

other outside entities.

The national pilot is the only effort currently under 

way to bring cameras into federal trial courts. The 

program authorized by the Judicial Council of the 

Ninth Circuit in December 2009 is being held 

abeyance to await the outcome of the national pilot.

Cameras have been allowed in federal appellate 

courts since the early 1990s. The U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, one of two appellate 

courts to regularly allow cameras, has granted news 

media access to more than 330 cases over the years. 

Since 2010, the court also has been videotaping its 

quarterly en banc proceedings and providing a live 

video feed to other federal courthouses to allow 

remote viewing of hearings. 

http://www.uscourts.gov/multimedia/cameras/player.aspx

United States Courts website features recorded proceedings in the U.S. District 

Court for the District of Guam.

New Pilot Program Brings Cameras into 

the Courtroom in Guam
30 2011 Annual Report

The Criminal Justice Act provides for legal 

representation of indigent defendants facing 

criminal charges in federal courts. CJA funding 

is allocated to the federal judiciary each year and courts 

are responsible for overseeing use of these funds, which 

pay for legal counsel and other services necessary for 

adequate representation. A new electronic voucher 

system developed by the United States District Court 

for the District of Nevada is now helping courts more 

closely manage these costs.

Until recently, federal courts made use of a national CJA 

voucher and payment system that relied on “hard copy” 

standardized forms that were often filled out by hand. 

CJA attorneys and service providers (investigators, 

psychiatrists, etc.) had to enter the appropriate hourly 

rates for service and mileage, which can vary over 

time. They or their staffs then performed multiple 

mathematical operations, which often introduced errors 

that had to be resolved by court staff. Finally, the hard 

copy forms were often sent by the mail, which can takes 

days and sometimes results in lost vouchers. 

 The District of Nevada’s CJA e-Voucher program 

simplifies the submission process for attorneys and 

service providers, and the review process for court 

staff. It is an Internet based system that allows 

attorneys and service providers to access electronic 

versions of the CJA vouchers. Data entered provides 

the documentation that the courts need to review the 

vouchers once they are submitted. It also eliminates 

the need for a separate time keeping system.

The e-Voucher system is hard coded so that the hourly 

pay rates and mileage rates are already embedded in the 

forms. The attorneys and service providers merely enter 

the day and time worked and the forms automatically 

calculate the appropriate amount to be paid. This 

removes almost all mathematical errors, significantly 

reducing the time needed to review the voucher. 

Because the vouchers are electronically filed, they are 

received almost immediately by the court, which can 

then confirm receipt through a notice also delivered 

electronically to an attorney or service provider. This 

process removes the possibility of the voucher being lost, 

and substantially reduces the court processing time.

From the court’s perspective, e-Vouchers provide 

tremendous flexibility. Each court can individually 

design the internal workflow that the vouchers will 

follow. This is an important feature because of the 

wide difference in the size of courts, the number of 

vouchers received and the number of staff available 

to review them. The e-Voucher system also produces 

many different kinds of reports, such as the number 

of cases assigned to an attorney and how much cost 

has been incurred, both in terms of dollars and hours 

worked on each representation.

Federal courts within the Ninth Circuit and elsewhere 

have adopted the Nevada approach to CJA payments. 

The e-Voucher system is fully implemented by the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and by district 

courts for Eastern Washington, Idaho, Southern 

California, Eastern California, Puerto Rico and 

Southern Indiana. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals 

and district courts for Western Washington, Northern 

California, Oregon, Alaska, Central Illinois, South 

Dakota and the Virgin Islands are in the process of 

implementing the e-Voucher system.

In addition, the Central District of California has 

implemented an electronic voucher system similar to 

what was developed by the Nevada district court.

Circuit Judge Richard C. Tallman, who chairs the 

Ninth Circuit CJA Oversight Committee, praised the 

districts of Nevada and Central California for leading 

the country into the age of electronic vouchering.

“The web-based system is user friendly, easily accessible 

to judges and voucher reviewers at all court levels, 

and significantly improves the speed, efficiency and 

management of CJA funds,” Judge Tallman said.

“For relatively little cost, the CJA e-Voucher system 

improves court stewardship of taxpayer funds and gets 

counsel paid more quickly. It’s a win-win for everyone 

involved,” he added.

e-Voucher System Helps Courts 

Control Costs
From the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge 

M. Margaret McKeown, the Georgetown Alumni 

Association John Carroll Award for lifetime 

achievement; Judge Sandra Segal Ikuta, public service 

awards from the UCLA School of Law, and the Los 

Angeles lawyers chapter of the Federalist Society; Judge 

Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain, an honorary Doctor of Laws 

from the University of Portland; Judge Kim McLane 

Wardlaw, a public service award from the Los Angeles 

County Bar Foundation; and Judge Pamela Ann Rymer, 

the Stanford (University) Medal for volunteer work.

From the Northern District of California, Chief District 

Judge James Ware, the Ronald M. George Distinguished 

Lecturer Award from Golden Gate University; Senior 

District Judge Samuel Conti, the Ogden Hoffman Award; 

and Magistrate Judges Donna M. Ryu, the National Asian 

Pacific American Bar Association Trailblazer Award, 

and Paul S. Grewal, the South Asian Bar Association of 

Northern California Trailblazer Award.

From the Central District of California, Judge Consuelo 

B. Marshall, an appreciation award from the South Asian 

Bar Association of Southern California; Judge Margaret M. 

Morrow, Los Angeles County Bar Association Founders 

Award; Judge Otis D. Wright II, the California Association 

of Black Lawyers Bernard S. Jefferson Judge of the Year 

Award; Chief Bankruptcy Judge Vincent P. Zurzolo, 

the Central District Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney 

Association Calvin K. Ashland Award; Magistrate Judge 

Arthur M. Nakazato, the Orange County Bar Association 

Lifetime Achievement Award; and Bankruptcy Judge 

Meredith A. Jury, the Southwest Riverside County Bar 

Association Judicial Officer of the Year Award.

From the Western District of Washington, District Judge 

Ricardo S. Martinez, the University of Washington 

Distinguished Alumni Award; and Chief Magistrate 

Judge Karen L. Strombom, the Washington State Bar 

Association William O. Douglas Judicial Service Award.

Elsewhere in the circuit: Senior District Judge Lloyd D. 

George of the District of Nevada, the Nevada AntiDefamation League Jurisprudence Award; Chief District 

Judge Irma E. Gonzalez of the Southern District of 

California, the Distinguished Citizen Award from the 

University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law, 

and the California Women Lawyers Joan Dempsey Klein 

Distinguished Jurist Award ; and Magistrate Judge Larry 

M. Boyle of the District of Idaho, the Idaho State Bar 

Association Distinguished Lawyer Award.

The Honorable James R. Browning, chief 

judge emeritus of the United States Court of 

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, marked his 

50th year on the federal bench in 2011. Nominated by 

President John F. Kennedy, Judge Browning received 

his judicial commission on September 18, 1961. He 

is one of only a few Kennedy nominees still serving on 

the federal bench.

A Montana native, Judge Browning is the only former 

clerk of court of the Supreme Court of the United 

States to join the federal bench. He also held the 

Bible when President Kennedy was sworn into office, 

the last Supreme Court clerk to perform that task at a 

presidential inauguration.

Judge Browning celebrated the milestone privately 

with family and friends. The judge’s half-century of 

service was observed by the University of Montana, 

School of Law, and prompted a personal letter from 

Caroline Kennedy, daughter of the president, who 

wrote to express “my heartfelt appreciation and respect 

for your service to the nation and commitment to the 

rule of law.”

Elevated to chief judge of the Ninth Circuit in July 

1976, Judge Browning served in that capacity for 12 

years, the second longest tenure of any chief judge in 

circuit history. Judge Browning was an active circuit 

judge for 39 years, the longest tenure of any judge in 

Ninth Circuit history.

 The historic 106-year-old Ninth Circuit Court of 

Appeals building in San Francisco was named for 

Judge Browning in 2004. For his many contributions 

toward improving the judicial system, he was awarded 

the Edward J. Devitt Award for Distinguished Service 

to Justice in 1991.

Famed Jurist Marks 50th Year of Service

Ninth Circuit Highlights 31

Judges Receiving Awards in 2011
32 2011 Annual Report

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the Ninth Circuit Office of the Circuit Executive 

welcomed new judges at an orientation held May 12-13, 2011, at the James R. Browning U.S. Courthouse in San 

Francisco. Seated from left are Circuit Judge Mary H. Murguia of Phoenix; Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman, 

Eastern District of California; Bankruptcy Judge Bruce T. Beesley, District of Nevada; District Judge Kimberly J. 

Mueller, Eastern District of California; and Bankruptcy Judge Scott C. Clarkson, Central District of California. 

Middle row, standing from left, are District Judge Marco A. Hernandez, District of Oregon; Magistrate Judge 

Richard L. Puglisi, District of Hawaii; Bankruptcy Judge William J. Lafferty, III, Northern District of California; 

Bankruptcy Judge Wayne E. Johnson, Central District of California; Magistrate Judges Michael R. Wilner 

and Sheri N. Pym, Central District of California. Back row, standing from left, are District Judges Edward J. 

Davila and Lucy H. Koh, Northern District of California; District Judge G. Murray Snow, District of Arizona; 

Bankruptcy Judge Stephen L. Johnson, Northern District of California; Bankruptcy Judge Brian D. Lynch, 

Western District of Washington; Bankruptcy Judge Marc L. Barreca, Western District of Washington; and 

Bankruptcy Judge Mark S. Wallace, Central District of California.

Ninth Circuit Welcomes New Judges
Ninth Circuit Highlights 33

I

llegal immigration and drug 

smuggling across the United States 

border with Mexico account for 

thousands of criminal cases filed each 

year in federal courts. In October, 

federal judges from several courts in the 

Ninth Circuit visited Nogales, Arizona, 

for a firsthand look at one of the most 

active and dangerous border segments.

The judges, members of the Ninth 

Circuit’s Magistrate Judges Executive 

Board, and Courts and Community 

Committee, took a break from meetings 

being held concurrently in Tucson to 

visit the U.S. Border Patrol station in 

Nogales. The group toured station 

facilities then boarded four-wheel-drive 

vehicles for a bumpy hour-long ride.

Nogales is the nation’s largest Border 

Patrol Station, responsible for security 

along a 32-mile stretch of border from 

roughly east of Yuma to the western 

reaches of the Coronado National 

Forest. Agents from the station patrol 

about 1,100 square miles of land that 

extends well north of the border and 

includes not only rough terrain but a 

half-dozen urban areas as well.

The most visible border protection is an 

imposing barrier of steel and concrete 

erected in the last few years to replace 

chainlink fencing. The new barrier 

follows the lay of the land, reaching 

to a height of 30 feet in some areas. 

Permanent and portable lookout towers 

dot the area, which is also subject to 

sophisticated electronic surveillance that 

can pinpoint the location of movement 

on and below ground. Helicopters and 

remotely piloted drones complete the 

security measures.

Judges Get Firsthand Look at 

Border Enforcement

The tour included the portion of the fence that cuts right through 

the two Nogales, separating the smaller U.S. town of 21,000 people 

from the Mexican city of 217,000. Homes and businesses on the 

Mexico side are often clearly visible just a few feet from the structure.

The day’s program ended back in Tucson at the Evo A. DeConcini 

U.S. Courthouse, where the group observed a mass appearance by 

illegal immigrants caught crossing the border, and met with resident 

judges to discuss court operations.

Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck learns about 

border security from U.S. border patrol agent 

in Nogales, Arizona. U.S. border patrol agent 

shows overflow holding cells where illegal 

immigrants caught crossing the border are 

detained.
34 2011 Annual Report

The first Ninth Circuit Criminal 

Handbook, a comprehensive 

guide to criminal precedents and 

procedures in the Ninth Circuit, was 

published in the fall. Co-authored by a 

federal trial judge and a criminal defense 

attorney, the handbook explains the federal 

criminal legal process from arrest to appeal, 

and provides not only applicable Ninth 

Circuit legal precedents but the most recent 

cases in which they were applied. 

The co-authors are United States District 

Judge Larry A. Burns, who sits on the U.S. 

District Court for the Southern District of 

California in San Diego, and criminal defense 

attorney Timothy A. Scott, who has his own 

practice in San Diego and was previously a 

staff attorney with Federal Defenders of San 

Diego, Inc.

To keep current with legal precedents, most 

lawyers read cases as they are published. The 

The U.S. Probation and Pretrial Services offices of 

the Central District of California were honored 

by the City Council of Los Angeles. Representatives 

of the court units were presented with proclamations 

at a ceremony held July 22, 2011, at City Hall 

during National Probation, Parole, and Community 

Supervision Week. They were nominated for the 

honors by District 7 City Council Member Richard 

Alarcón. Pictured are, from left, Eunice Habig, 

treasurer of the Federal Probation and Pretrial Services 

Officers Association; Patricia Foster, supervising 

probation officer in the Central District; Councilman 

Richard Alarcón; and George Walker, chief pretrial 

services officer for the Central District.

L.A. Honors Probation, Pretrial Services Offices

handbook provides an indexed system to keep ongoing track of 

the precedential cases and/or the legal issues involved. It will 

help lawyers quickly pinpoint the particular rule or line of cases 

that applies, and provides a comprehensive and definitive index 

of the most common 

legal issues arising in 

criminal cases.

Criminal handbooks 

have been available in 

other federal circuits for 

a number of years. The 

breadth of Ninth Circuit 

criminal jurisprudence, 

which has the largest 

criminal docket in the 

nation, is thought to have 

discouraged would-be 

authors, until now.

San Diego Judge, Lawyer Produce First 

Ninth Circuit Criminal Handbook

NINTH CIRCUIT

CRIMINAL

HANDBOOK

2011

TIMOTHY A. SCOTT

LARRY A. BURNS

Gold Foil

Red Foil
Ninth Circuit Highlights 35

I

n the Ninth Circuit, members of the federal bar 

actively contribute to the administration of justice. 

Lawyers assist the federal courts in various ways, 

notably as pro bono counsel to unrepresented litigants, 

prisoners and debtors. They also participate in 

community outreach efforts, help organize educational 

programs for the bench and bar, and serve on Ninth 

Circuit committees.

Pro Bono Representation

Pro bono services are provided in most of the circuit’s 15 

judicial districts. District and bankruptcy courts sponsor 

programs, often in collaboration with bar associations, 

law schools and non-profit groups. A number of courts 

have created panels of volunteer attorneys to represent 

plaintiffs in prisoner civil rights cases, which proliferate 

throughout the circuit. Several courts also have set 

up self-help centers staffed by law students or junior 

associates to assist self-represented litigants involved in 

civil matters or bankruptcy proceedings. Lawyers also 

have assisted in preparing extensive written materials on 

legal process and court procedures, which are available to 

self-represented litigants at many courts.

Lawyer Representatives

Appointed by judges of their respective courts, lawyer 

representatives provide input to judicial governance 

groups, engage in community outreach and develop 

educational programs. There are currently 168 lawyer 

representatives working on behalf of the U.S. Court 

of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the 15 federal 

district courts within the circuit.

Lawyer representatives make presentations on current 

legal topics to the circuit’s chief district judges 

and chief bankruptcy judges. They help organize 

conferences in their individual districts, and help 

plan and participate in the annual Ninth Circuit 

Judicial Conference. They also participate in Law 

Day activities and programs that help teachers better 

educate their students about the judiciary.

The Lawyer Representatives Coordinating Committee, 

or LRCC, composed of the chairperson or co-chairs 

of each district delegation, helps coordinate activities. 

The 2011-2012 LRCC officers are attorneys Andrew 

M. Jacobs of Tucson, who serves as chair; Nancy J. 

Koppe of Las Vegas, the chair-elect; and Madeleine C. 

Wanslee of Phoenix, who serves as vice chair.

In 2009, the first group of appellate lawyer 

representatives was appointed by Chief Judge Alex 

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

Circuit. The 18 appellate lawyer representatives and 

four alternates serve three year terms. The group is 

chaired by attorney Bennett Evan Cooper of Phoenix.

Appellate lawyer representatives also were involved 

in organizing a breakout session, focusing on oral 

argument and reply briefs, for the circuit conference. 

They spearheaded a proposal to assign mentors to assist 

attorneys new to immigration practice; made several 

suggestions to improve the court’s public website; and 

reviewed current court practices, offering suggestions 

for improvements.

Circuit Committees

Attorneys serve on a number of committees, 

including the Advisory Board, the Advisory 

Committee on Rules and Internal Operating 

Procedure, the Attorney Admission Fund Advisory 

Committee, the Courts and Community Committee, 

the Information and Technology Committee, the 

Ninth Judicial Circuit Historical Society, and the 

Jury Trial Improvement Committee. 

Courts, Litigants Benefit from 

Federal Bar Support 

Ninth Circuit Lawyer Representatives Coordinating Committee 
36 2011 Annual Report

At the 2011 Ninth Circuit Continuity of 

Operations Planning (COOP) Conference 

held March 21-23 in San Diego, panelists 

and guest speakers focus on topics not for the faint of 

heart: earthquake, tsunami, wild fire, flood, deranged 

gunman and radiological accident or attack. All of 

these disasters, natural and man-made, were discussed 

during at the annual gathering of court staff involved 

in preparing for crisis events and their aftermath.

The conference drew more than 

150 attendees, including judges, 

court unit executives, managers and 

line staff, all of whom have some 

role in COOP development. All 

15 judicial districts in the circuit 

were represented along with the 

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, 

Ninth Circuit Library, and Federal 

Public Defender offices. Also 

participating were representatives 

of the Administrative Office of 

the U.S. Courts and the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency.

The Ninth Circuit Office of the 

Circuit Executive has sponsored the annual event 

since 2007 and this year welcomed assistance from the 

Southern District of California. 

The conference convened just 10 days after a 9.0 

earthquake and resultant tsunami devastated 

the eastern coastline of Japan, killing thousands, 

destroying towns and villages, and heavily damaging 

a nuclear reactor, venting radioactive steam into the 

atmosphere and contaminating groundwater. The 

disaster was on the minds of many in the audience 

when noted geologist Dr. Patrick L. Abbott opened 

the program with a presentation on natural hazards 

and disasters. Dr. Abbott is a professor emeritus at San 

Diego State University, where he developed a popular 

undergraduate course studying natural disasters. 

Abbott said earthquakes are endemic to the Ninth 

Circuit, which claims eight of the top 10 most active 

earthquake states in the nation based on U.S. Geological 

Service data. 

Court security was addressed by Chief District Judge 

Irma E. Gonzalez of the Southern District of California, 

who chairs an 18-member court security committee. 

The U.S. marshal for the district acts as the principal 

coordinator for the group, which also includes the 

chief bankruptcy judge and chief magistrate judge or 

their designees, the clerk of court, chief pretrial and 

chief probation officers, and representatives of the U.S. 

attorney, federal public defender, General Services 

Administration and Federal Protective Services.

District Clerks Lance Wilson of Nevada, Sam 

Hamrick of the Southern District of California and 

Bill McCool of the Western District of Washington 

along with Bankruptcy Clerk Charlene Hiss of 

Oregon and Anthony Castellano, assistant deputy 

chief probation officer for the Northern District 

of California, discussed past events that tested 

COOP and emergency preparedness plans. Those 

included fatal shooting incidents in recent years 

at the courthouses in Seattle and Las Vegas; a pipe 

bomb explosion at the courthouse in San Diego; 

and closure of the courthouses in San Diego and 

Portland due to smoke from wildfires and an 

unusually heavy snowfall.

Judges, Court Staff Gather in San Diego 

for COOP Conference

Pictured above are, from left, district clerks Lance Wilson of the District of Nevada, Sam 

Hamrick of the Southern District of California and Bill McCool of the Western District 

of Washington; Bankruptcy Clerk Charlene Hiss of the District of Oregon; and Anthony 

Castellano, assistant deputy chief probation officer for the Northern District of California. 
Ninth Circuit Highlights 37

Federal courts already make use of sophisticated 

technology to file and manage documents, calendar 

cases and present evidence in the courtroom. Now 

some of that technology is being repackaged to assist jurors as 

they deliberate the outcomes of often complex cases.

Trial exhibits are increasingly being submitted as electronic files. 

At the end of the trial, however, most courts also prepare hard 

copies, including a set for the use of the jury during deliberations. 

Since major civil and criminal trials can generate hundreds, even 

thousands of pages of evidence, producing the hard copy record 

can involve considerable staff time and expense.

Hard copy documents also can be frustrating for jurors. 

Finding a particular exhibit from among thousands of pages 

of documents in stacks of boxes can be difficult. And passing 

the exhibit from juror to juror, slows down discussion.

In the Ninth Circuit, judges in Alaska, Idaho and Washington 

are experimenting with ways to do away with hard copy. Instead, 

the jury is provided with computer access to electronic versions 

of the exhibits, which are displayed on a large video monitor. 

The electronic files are indexed, allowing for rapid access to a 

particular document, and the systems will accommodate still 

images and audio and video recordings.

One system makes use of a laptop computer (stripped of 

all other files and functionality) located in the jury room. 

Technology Aids Jurors 

in Deliberations

Chief District Judge Marsha J. Pechman shows a demo of JEEP system 

to court staff.

Another system developed by the Western 

District of North Carolina provides a terminal 

in the jury room with access to files stored 

elsewhere on the court computer network. 

In 2011, judges of the U.S. District Court for 

the Western District of Washington began 

using a system that goes by the acronym JEEP, 

which stands for “jury electronic evidence 

presentation.” JEEP may be the most advanced 

electronic exhibit display system in use in the 

Ninth Circuit — not in terms of the technology, 

which is fairly basic, but in execution. 

JEEP provides attorneys with step-by-step 

instructions on how to submit and organize 

electronic exhibits using Adobe Acrobat 

software. A laptop computer and 42-inch video 

monitor are used to display the exhibits, and 

court IT staff teach jurors how to use the system.

“We receive exhibits electronically. We display 

them in the courtroom electronically. It’s makes 

no sense to then give jurors a big bundle of paper 

that can only be used by one juror at a time,” said 

Chief District Judge Marsha J. Pechman, who 

encouraged the development of JEEP. 

As important to budget conscious courts, 

putting JEEP together cost nothing. The 

court used old computer hardware and paid no 

development fees.

District Judge James L. Robart, one of Judge 

Pechman’s colleagues in Seattle, thinks systems 

like JEEP are here to stay and will eventually 

be used for all cases, not just document 

intensive ones.

“When you think about the ease of use and cost 

savings, I think the natural progression is that 

this is going to become much more common,” 

said Judge Robart.

Chief District Judge B. Lynn Winmill of the 

U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho 
For the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, 2011 

was the “Year of the iPad.” More than half of 

its judges now use an Apple iPad and more are 

expected to adopt the device soon. Beyond basic e-mail, 

calendaring, and access to Westlaw and other Internet 

resources, iPads are changing the way judges work. 

For each case on an argument calendar, chambers 

staff typically compile a bench book of essential 

documents that might include the docket sheet, 

inventory card, briefs, bench memos, originating 

court records, and important opinions or statutes. 

Bench books can now be created electronically and 

transferred onto the iPad for easy reading, alleviating 

the burden of carrying around a thick folder full 

of paper. These electronic bench books can then 

be annotated and wirelessly synchronized back to 

chambers, allowing work to continue whether at 

home, on the road, or on the bench.

Judges can also use their iPad to remotely connect to 

technology resources in their chambers, allowing them 

to securely access files and applications as if they were 

sitting in front of their computer. 

In 2012, the court intends to use iPads to reduce 

printing and shipping costs and accelerate the 

distribution of information. An iPad application 

designed to track travel expenses also is planned. 

As the court of appeals deploys wireless networking 

in its courtrooms and chambers, judges with iPads 

will be able to communicate directly with courtroom 

deputies, A/V support staff, law clerks, and even each 

other while on the bench. 

iPads have become the technology tool of choice 

for judges while traveling. The device provides 

rapid access to essential information from anywhere, 

improving collaboration among judges and 

coordination with court staff.

Circuit Judges Embrace the iPad in 2011

switched to electronic exhibits for a case in which 

Idaho farmers sued the federal government and a 

chemical manufacturer for billions in losses after 

pesticide sprayed on public land drifted onto their 

fields causing wholesale destruction of crops. The 

four-month trial generated some 11,000 pages of 

documents as evidence. Judge Winmill said securing 

the laptop was his biggest concern.

“It has to be isolated so that you are absolutely sure it 

cannot be used to get outside information,” he said.

District Judge Timothy M. Burgess of the U.S. District 

Court for the District of Alaska will be using the 

Western District of North Carolina system for an 

upcoming trial. The equipment has been installed in 

the jury room of his courtroom in Anchorage. He 

intends to introduce the system to attorneys through 

CLE training.

“We have used digital evidence in our courtrooms for 

some time so it’s a pretty easy transition from that to 

sending it back to the jury,” he said.

Judges were able 

to take part in 

an iPad training 

session during the 

2011 Ninth Circuit 

Judicial Conference.

38 2011 Annual Report
Ninth Circuit Highlights 39

Work Begins on New Jury 

Orientation Video

A production team led by award-wnning director Abby Ginzberg shoots footage at 

the federal courthouse in San Francisco

Production work was begun in 

2011 on a new jury orientation 

video intended for use by federal 

trial courts in the Ninth Circuit. The 

new video will feature remarks by 

retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice 

Sandra Day O’Connor and is being 

produced by Abby Ginzberg, an awardwinning film maker from the San 

Francisco Bay Area.

The project was undertaken by the 

Ninth Circuit Jury Trial Improvement 

Committee, working through the Office 

of the Circuit Executive and using funding 

provided by the circuit and several 

district courts. Preliminary work began 

in March and the project is scheduled for 

completion by mid-2012.

The current jury orientation video was 

made some time ago and does not address 

a number of issues, especially those raised 

by potential juror use of smart phones 

and other electronic devices. 

“We are pleased to have obtained the 

services of an accomplished director who 

is very familiar with the legal system. 

And having Justice O’Connor, who is so 

well known to the public and the voice 

of the judiciary to many people, be a part 

of the video is a great honor,” said U.S. 

District Judge Virginia A. Phillips of the 

Central District of California, who chairs 

the committee.

Justice O’Connor was videotaped in 

April 2011 in the federal courthouse 

that bears her name in Phoenix. Footage 

from the video shoot will be used in 

various segments of the video.

Ginzberg’s production company was to begin shooting additional 

footage in early 2012 at the Philip Burton Federal Building and U.S. 

Courthouse in San Francisco. U.S. District Judge Susan Illston of the 

Northern District of California and Circuit Judge Richard A. Paez 

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

The 15- to 18-minute orientation video is intended to impress on 

prospective jurors the importance of serving on a jury and explain 

the juror selection process from the beginning through voir dire. It 

also will include testimonials from citizens who previously served as 

jurors describing their experiences during the trial and after a verdict 

is delivered.

Ginzberg has been producing videos and films about the legal system 

and judges for more than 25 years. Her documentaries have been 

shown on public television and in law schools around the country. 

Among Ginzberg’s better known works is “Soul of Justice: Thelton 

Henderson’s American Journey,” which profiles the senior district 

judge from the Northern District of California. Her most recent 

film is “Cruz Reynoso: Sowing the Seeds of Justice,” a profile of the 

first Latino to serve as a justice of the California Supreme Court. 

Both films have won a number of awards.
40 2011 Annual Report

one of the nine U.S. regional circuit courts of appeals 

created in 1891. The Ninth Circuit was authorized 

additional seats in 1895, 1929, 1933, 1935, 1937, 1954, 

1968, 1978, 1984 and 2008. 

Over its history, 95 judges have served on the court, 

which currently consists of 25 active judges and 19 

senior judges.

The Northern District of California 

Chapter of the Federal Bar Association 

held its 33rd annual Ninth Circuit 

Luncheon, honoring judges of the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the 

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of 

California. The March 23 event in San Francisco 

drew hundreds of lawyers who regularly practice 

in the federal courts of Northern California. 

Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski 

(pictured left) and Chief District Judge James 

Ware of the U.S. District Court (pictured far 

right) were featured speakers. David H. Fry, 

president of the FBA Northern District of 

California Chapter (center), served as master 

of ceremonies. 

The program focused on Ninth Circuit history 

and the growth of its bench from just one 

seat in 1891 to 29 seats today. Originally 

established by Congress as the U.S. Circuit 

Court for the Districts of California, it became 

Judicial History Highlights Annual Ninth 

Circuit Luncheon in San Francisco

One of the nation’s most senior federal 

public defenders, Barry J. 

Portman of the Northern 

District of California, 

retired at the end of 

2011 after 37 years of 

distinguished service.

Mr. Portman joined the Office of the Federal 

Public Defender for the Northern District of 

California in 1974 and became head of the 

office in 1988. He was reappointed five times 

to four-year terms through the course of his 

employment with the FPD Office. 

Mr. Portman graduated from Fordham 

University and received master’s degrees 

in philosophy and history from St. Louis 

University. He graduated from Georgetown 

University Law School, where he served on the 

law review. He began his legal career with the 

New Orleans Legal Assistance Corporation, 

after which he worked for the Office of the 

Federal Public Defender for the Central District 

of California in Los Angeles in 1971.

Longtime Federal Public Defender Retires

Barry J. Portman, Esq.
Ninth Circuit Highlights 41

Federal courts rely heavily on senior judges to keep 

pace with growing caseloads. Although eligible to 

retire at full pay, senior judges choose to remain the 

bench. They continue working, presiding over cases, hearing 

appeals and serving their court in various other ways.

The United States District Court for the District of 

Oregon recognized its senior and recalled judges for their 

ongoing commitment and service to the federal judiciary 

at a special holiday social hosted by the Oregon Chapter of 

the Federal Bar Association and the United States District 

Court of Oregon Historical Society.

Thirteen judges with a combined 150 years of senior 

service were honored during the event, held December 

5, 2011, at the James O. Hatfield U.S. Courthouse in 

Portland. The program included remarks by Chief 

District Judge Ann L. Aiken and District Judge Anna J. 

Brown, who helped organize the event.

Honorees included Senior Circuit Judges Alfred T. 

Goodwin, Edward Leavy and Otto R. Skopil; Senior 

District Judges Ancer L. Haggerty, Michael R. Hogan, 

Robert E. Jones, Garr M. King, Malcom F. Marsh, Owen 

M. Panner and James A. Redden; retired Bankruptcy 

Judge Henry L. Hess, Jr.; and Recalled Magistrate Judges 

John P. Cooney and John Jelderks.

Most of the judges have continued to work well into their 

retirement years and some still participate in the draw for 

new cases. They participated in 51 trials, including some 

of the district’s most high profile cases. All told, they had a 

combined total of 257 trial hours in fiscal year 2011.

Oregon Honors Senior, Recalled and 

Retired Judges

In a letter read to the audience by Judge Brown, 

Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski called 

senior and recalled judges indispensable to the 

operation of the federal courts.

“We all know the wheels of justice turn slowly, but 

they might well grind to a halt without the help of our 

senior and recalled judges. I thank all of you for your 

ongoing efforts,” the chief judge wrote.
42 2011 Annual Report

Courts Reach Out to Schools, 

Community

Federal courts in the Ninth Circuit are 

encouraged to engage in community 

outreach as a means of improving public 

understanding of and confidence in the judicial 

system. Often working in partnership with the 

federal bar, law schools and local educators, courts 

regularly bring students into the courthouse for 

various activities. Judges and court staff also visit 

schools to make presentations and converse with 

students, and regularly speak to service clubs and 

community groups about judicial matters.

Common community outreach activities include 

mock trial programs in which high school 

or junior high students participate in a trial, 

interacting with judges, attorneys and court staff; 

moot court competitions for students in more 

advanced academic programs; teachers’ institutes 

in which courts provide instruction to teachers 

about the role of the judiciary in government; 

courthouse tours; employment “shadow” days in 

which students learn about working in the courts; 

court proceedings on campus; and financial 

literacy programs.

The Ninth Circuit is the only federal circuit to 

have a circuit committee dedicated to community 

outreach. The Courts and Community 

Committee includes judges, court staff, attorneys 

and journalists. More information about the 

committee and its work is online at 

http://community.ce9.uscourts.gov/.

Top: Students from La Canada High School visited the U.S. Court of 

Appeals in Pasadena in December to watch a court proceeding. Circuit 

Judge Richard A. Paez, pictured in front with the students, spent some 

time answering questions from the students. Middle: Central District 

of California court staff and employees of related agencies hosted the 

Asian-American and Pacific Islander Heritage event held in May 2011. 

Pictured are, from left to right, Chief District Judge Audrey B. Collins, 

U.S. Rep. Judy Chu (California, 32nd District), and District Judge 

Jacqueline H. Nguyen, with four students from Padmalaya School of 

Dance. Below: Eight graders from six Phoenix-area schools participated 

in CourtWorks program hosted by the U.S. District Court for the District 

of Arizona and organized by law students from Sandra Day O’Connor 

College of Law at nearby Arizona State University in October 2011.
Ninth Circuit Highlights 43

boots and bolo ties, with one also donning 

a black cowboy hat. Aside from the 

setting, the proceeding proved routine. 

Afterward, the judge, lawyers for both sides 

and the debtors chatted amiably and posed 

for photographs in the courtroom and in 

front of the weathered wooden gallows 

that stands in a walled courtyard adjoining 

the building.

The Tombstone Courthouse opened in 

1882, while Arizona was still a territory and 

the federal government responsible for law 

enforcement and the courts. It served as 

the seat of government for Cochise County 

until 1931.

A two story, Victorian style structure built 

of distinctive red brick, the courthouse was 

deeded over to the town in 1942, and then 

transferred to the State of Arizona in 1959, 

when it was dedicated as the Tombstone 

Courthouse State Historic Park. The 

second floor courtroom has been faithfully 

restored to look as it would have in the late 

1800s, replete with yellowed portraits of 

Washington and Lincoln on the walls and 

brass cuspidors on the floor of the jury box.

A Phoenix native, Judge Marlar was 

appointed to the Arizona bankruptcy court 

in 1993. He was reappointed to a second 

14-year term in 2007 and became chief 

bankruptcy judge in 2009. He also served 

on the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate 

Panel from 1999 to 2006, and continues to 

serve on the BAP as a judge pro tempore.

An experienced horseman, Judge Marlar 

spends considerable time in the saddle, 

including three days each fall as a trail hand 

driving a herd of horses used by the various 

dude ranches to winter pastures in the high 

country of northern Arizona.

An Old West Venue for Arizona 

Bankruptcy Court

Chief Bankruptcy Judge James 

M. Marlar of the United States 

Bankruptcy Court for District 

of Arizona has the distinction of holding 

court in the year’s most unusual venue. 

Judge Marlar has his chambers in 

Tucson but sits regularly in Phoenix and 

occasionally in Yuma. In May, he set out 

for the Old West town of Tombstone to 

finalize the Chapter 11 bankruptcy of 

a local couple unable to repay multiple 

mortgages. The session was held in the 

historic Tombstone Courthouse, a stone’s 

throw from where the legendary Gunfight 

at the OK Corral took place in 1881.

“It’s a wonderful, historic courthouse 

and I thought, ‘Why not use it for what 

it was originally intended?’ ” said Judge 

Marlar, who is an avid student of Old 

West lore and Arizona history.

There were no objections from the 

attorneys in the case even though 

some of them had to travel down from 

Phoenix. Two of the lawyers even 

dressed the part, appearing in jeans, 

The historic Tombstone 

Courthouse opened in 

1882 and was dedicated 

as a state historic park in 

1959.

Chief Bankruptcy 

Judge James M. Marlar 

holds a hearing inside 

Tombstone Courthouse.
44 2011 Annual Report

The 2011 Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference, 

held August 15-18 in Carlsbad, California, 

drew nearly 650 judges, attorneys, court staff 

and special guests, including Associate Justices Ruth 

Bader Ginsburg and Anthony M. Kennedy of the 

Supreme Court of the United States, and California 

Supreme Court Justice Tani Gorre Cantil-Sakauye.

The conference is held annually pursuant to Section 333 

of Title 28 of the United States Code for “the purpose 

of considering the business of the courts and advising 

means of improving the administration of justice within 

such circuit.” Most of the judges who preside and 

lawyers who practice in the federal courts of the western 

United States participate in the conference.

A Moving Tribute

The opening session began with a tribute to the memory 

of the late Chief District Judge John M. Roll of the 

U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, who 

was among six people killed in a shooting rampage in 

Tucson on January 8, 2011. Offering remarks were 

Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski and Arizona 

District Judge James L. Teilborg. The tribute included 

a slide show of photographs taken of flags lowered 

to half-staff at federal courthouses across the nation 

immediately after the shooting. A book containing the 

photographs also was presented by Judge Kozinski to 

Judge Roll’s widow, Maureen Roll.

Annual Conference Looks to the 

Past, Plans for the Future

Art and the Law

The opening session included a special presentation 

in which Justice Kennedy offered parallels between 

law and the arts. Using images of famous paintings 

accompanied by classical music selections, Justice 

Kennedy pointed out the symbolism to be found 

in landmark legal rulings and important works by 

great painters and composers.

Pictured top: Circuit Judge Sidney R. Thomas, left, Supreme 

Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Circuit Judge Richard 

R. Clifton participate in a reenactment of Bradwell v. Illinois.

Pictured above: Judges and lawyers engage in a discussion 

of issues concerning the administration of justice within the 

Ninth Circuit.
Ninth Circuit Highlights 45

Educational Programs

The conference was organized by a committee of 

judges and attorneys led by Ninth Circuit Judge N. 

Randy Smith, who served as chair, and Bankruptcy 

Judge Laura S. Taylor of the Southern District of 

California, who acted as program chair.

The conference, developed around the theme “Past 

as Prologue: Celebrating Our History, Building Our 

Future,” provided a rich educational program on the law 

and legal profession, the administration of the courts 

and other relevant topics. 

“Federalism in the 21th Century: Balancing States’ 

Rights with Federal Power,” focused on the appropriate 

role of the judiciary in the allocation of power between 

federal and state governments, and offered predictions 

on the where the Supreme Court is headed under 

Chief Judge John G. Roberts, Jr. Panelists included 

Lynn A. Baker, Frederick M. Baron Chair in Law, 

University of Texas, School of Law; David Oedel, 

professor of constitutional law, Mercer University Law 

School; Edward Rubin, professor of law and political 

science, Vanderbilt University; and Erin Ryan, associate 

professor of law, Lewis and Clark Law School. Erwin 

Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California, 

Irvine School of Law, moderated the panel, which was 

introduced by Circuit Judge Milan D. Smith, Jr.

“The Promises and Perils of Neuroscience Evidence 

in the Courtroom,” considered applications of 

neuroscience evidence in court and the risks inherent 

in using such evidence to draw definitive conclusions 

about the complexity of human behavior. Panelists 

included Nita A. Farahany, associate professor of law 

and philosophy, Vanderbilt University; Hank Greely, 

Deane F. and Kate Edelman Johnson Professor of Law, 

Stanford Law School; and Stephen J. Morse, Ferdinand 

Wakeman Hubbell Professor of Law, University of 

Pennsylvania, School of Medicine. Owen D. Jones, 

director, New York Alumni Chancellor’s Chair in 

Law and professor of biological sciences, Vanderbilt 

University, moderated the panel, which was introduced 

by attorney Judith H. Ramseyer.

“Breakfast with the Bench,” a popular conference 

segment bringing together the bench and bar, looked 

at the national pilot program for cameras in the federal 

trial courts, which began in July 2011. Fourteen courts 

are involved in the program, including three in the 

Ninth Circuit. Attorney Debora K. Kristensen, chair of 

the Ninth Circuit Lawyer Representatives Coordinating 

Committee, introduced Chief District Judge Robert 

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

District of Washington. Judge Lasnik led the discussion 

then participants moved to smaller groups to discuss 

other issues concerning the administration of justice 

within the Ninth Circuit.

“Search and Seizure in the 21st Century: Developments 

in the 50 Years Since Mapp v. Ohio,” focused on 

evolving issues and concerns over search and seizure law. 

Panelists included Justice Morris J. Fish, Supreme Court 

of Canada; Jesse H. Choper, Earl Warren Professor of 

Public Law, University of California at Berkeley Law; 

Mythili Raman, principal deputy assistant attorney 

general and chief of staff, Criminal Division, U.S. 

Department of Justice. Gerald F. Uelmen, Santa Clara 

University law professor and director of the Edwin A. 

Heafey Jr. Center for Trial and Appellate Advocacy, 

moderated the panel, which was introduced by attorney 

Joaquin C. Arriola, Jr.

Chief Judge Alex Kozinski welcomes conference attendees and 

remembers Chief District Judge John M. Roll.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held its annual law clerk 

orientation September 21-22, 2011 at the James R. Browning 

United States Courthouse in San Francisco. More than 120 new 

law clerks, many of them recent law school graduates, participated 

in the program. Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy made 

remarks and Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski welcomed 

the new clerks. Also involved in the training sessions were Circuit 

Judge Richard R. Clifton, Circuit and Court of Appeals Executive 

Cathy A. Catterson, Clerk of Court Molly C. Dwyer and other 

court staff.

“The Federal Courts in 2031 – Making the Future 

Happen,” featured a discussion on what the federal courts 

may look like in 20 years and what the courts must do 

to fulfill their mission in the future. Panelists included 

District Judge John R. Tunheim, District of Minnesota; 

Fred Dust, partner, IDEO; Larry Kramer, Richard E. 

Lang Professor and dean, Stanford Law School; Mark J. 

Mills, M.D./J.D., College of Physicians and Surgeons, 

Columbia University; and Judith Resnik, Arthur Liman 

Professor of Law, Yale Law School. Stuart A. Forsyth, 

principal of The Legal Futurist, moderated the panel, 

which was introduced by Chief District Judge B. Lynn 

Winmill of the District of Idaho.

The closing session of the conference featured Supreme 

Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who participated in a 

reenactment of Bradwell v. Illinois,an 1872 case in which 

Myra Bradwell, a married woman, was found qualified 

to practice law but denied admission to the bar by the 

Supreme Court of Illinois. Justice Ginsburg and Ninth 

Circuit Judges Sidney R. Thomas and Richard R. Clifton 

assumed the roles of Supreme Court justices, while Ninth 

Circuit Judge Marsha S. Berzon portrayed Bradwell.

The conference closed with “Forty Years after Reed v. 

Reed: Where Did the Constitutional Law of Gender 

Discrimination Come From, and Where Has It Taken 

Us?” Panelists included Serena Mayeri, associate professor, 

University of Pennsylvania Law School; Ronnee 

Schreiber, associate professor, San Diego State University; 

Betsey Stevenson, chief economist, U.S. Department of 

Labor. Wendy W. Williams, professor of law emerita, 

Georgetown University Law Center, moderated the 

panel, which was introduced by Judge Berzon.

In addition to the general session, the conference 

included various business meetings and smaller 

educational programs, including a review of Supreme 

Court cases in the 2010-2011 term; a look at the 

mortgage crisis and the complicated cases involving pro 

se litigants; and working with electronic devices such as 

iPads, smartphones, laptops and netbooks. 

Ninth Circuit Law Clerks Orientation

46 2011 Annual Report
Judicial Conference Awards Presented and Announced 

Paul F. Eckstein, Esq.

American Inns of Court Professionalism Award

Senior District Judge Ronald M. Whyte of the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of California received the prestigious Ninth Circuit 

Professionalism Award from the American Inns of Court. The award was 

presented by Ninth Circuit Judge Mary M. Schroeder, a former national trustee of 

the organization. The award is given annually to a senior practicing judge or lawyer 

“whose life and practice display sterling character and unquestioned integrity, 

coupled with ongoing dedication to the highest standards of the legal profession.”

Judge Whyte, who maintains chambers in San Jose, is highly regarded for his 

knowledge and application of federal law pertaining to patents, technology and 

intellectual property. He serves on the Dean’s High Tech Advisory Council at 

Santa Clara Law; the Intellectual Property Advisory Board at George Washington 

University Law School; the National Jury Instructions Project; and Northern 

District of California’s Patent Rules and Patent Jury Instructions committees.

 Prior to his appointment to the federal bench in 1992, Judge Whyte had served as 

a judge of the Santa Clara County (California) Superior Court since 1989. Before 

coming onto the bench, he worked from 1971 to 1989 with a Silicon Valley law firm, 

Hoge, Fenton, Jones and Appel, Inc., where he gained substantial trial experience.

Born in Pomona, California, Judge Whyte received his A.B. from Wesleyan 

University in 1964 and his J.D. from the University of Southern California Law 

School in 1967. He served in the Navy, JAG Corps, from 1968 to 1971. 

John P. Frank Award

Attorney Paul F. Eckstein of Phoenix, Arizona, received the John P. Frank 

Award, which recognizes an outstanding lawyer practicing in the federal courts 

of the western United States. Attorney Todd D. True, chair of the Ninth Circuit 

Advisory Board Committee, presented the award. 

Mr. Eckstein is a partner in the Phoenix office of Perkins Coie LLP. He has 

practiced law since 1965, when he joined the Phoenix law firm of Brown & Bain 

upon graduating from Harvard Law School. 

Mr. Eckstein has been widely recognized for his professional accomplishments 

and community service. He is a fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers; 

was elected to the Maricopa County Bar Association Hall of Fame; and received 

significant awards from the Arizona Foundation for Legal Services & Education, the 

Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest, the American Civil Liberties Union 

of Arizona, the Arizona Press Club, the American Jewish Committee and the Jewish 

National Fund. He represented the District of Arizona as a lawyer representative to 

the Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference from 2000 to 2002. 

Senior District Judge 

Ronald M. Whyte

Ninth Circuit Highlights 47
48 2011 Annual Report

Robert F. Peckham Award for Excellence in ADR 

Announced at the conference was the selection of Sujean Park, a staff attorney 

at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, as the recipient 

of the Robert F. Peckham Award for excellence in alternative dispute resolution. 

The award was formally presented by the Ninth Circuit ADR Committee at a 

meeting held October 13, 2011.

Ms. Park joined the Eastern District of California in 2009 as director of ADR 

and pro bono programs. Her efforts have helped her court manage the staggering 

pro se caseload. She has increased the panel of pro bono attorneys from 120 

to 250; organized training opportunities for attorneys willing to provide 

representation; and drafted policies for use of non-appropriated funds for pro 

bono purposes. 

Ms. Park also has worked closely with the University of the Pacific, McGeorge 

School of Law, to develop a mediation clinic in which law students assist 

prisoners in mediating their prisoner civil rights cases.

Ms. Parks holds both a J.D. and an M.B.A. from Pepperdine University. 

She previously worked for the California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation and was in private practice.

ADR Education Award 

Also announced at the conference was the selection of the University of 

Southern California, Gould School of Law, as recipient of the 2011 Ninth 

Circuit ADR Education Award, recognizing institutions which have advanced 

ADR scholarship and research. Already considered a leader in the ADR field, 

Gould School of Law has broadened and expanded its programs and course 

offerings. The ADR program now includes mediation and advanced mediation 

clinics in which students develop skills by mediating cases before the Los 

Angeles Superior Court. USC is also working with the Judicial Arbitration and 

Mediation Services ( JAMS), Inc., in which advanced mediation students are 

paired with JAMS neutrals for shadowing and mentoring. 

Staff Attorney Sujean Park (left) 

pictured with Ninth Circuit 

ADR Committee Chair the Hon. 

Valerie P. Cooke, Magistrate 

Judge, District of Nevada.
Space and Security 49

Space

and security
50 2011 Annual Report

Montana lays claim to the newest federal 

courthouse in the Ninth Circuit. Built 

in one of the “Big Sky” state’s most scenic 

settings, the Missouri River Courthouse overlooks a 

broad stretch of the Missouri River as it winds through 

the city of Great Falls. The stately three-story structure 

stands on the river’s west bank with expansive views 

eastward across the water to the city’s downtown 

business district. The courthouse opened in 2009 and 

serves litigants in northern and central Montana.

Great Falls, the third largest city in Montana with 

a population of some 60,000 people, takes its name 

from the spectacular nearby waterfalls portaged by the 

Lewis and Clark Expedition in 1805-06. It is one of 

five locations in which the U.S. District Court for the 

District of Montana is authorized to hold court. The 

court also sits in Billings, Butte, Helena and Missoula.

The Missouri River Courthouse provides the court 

with 30,000 square feet of useable space. Two 

courtrooms and judicial chambers are located on the 

third floor. The second floor is occupied primarily by 

the U.S. Marshals Service, while clerk’s office staff and 

federal probation officers are located on the first floor.

The architecture of the courthouse is a mix of old and 

new. The design echoes some of the historic structures 

found in the downtown area, including an old railway 

terminal directly across the river. Reminiscent of 

times past, the new courthouse features a corner 

tower structure and makes use of traditional building 

materials, such as brick, contrasting color stone sills, 

and copper-colored roofing. Modern design elements 

include a curtain wall of blue-tinted glazing, meant to 

suggest a waterfall.

 Two other exterior features tie the building to the 

land and its native peoples. Each of the 12 major 

bollards protecting the entrance to the courthouse 

bears a bronze plaque naming one of the 12 rivers in 

Montana that flow directly into the Missouri. And 

a beautiful bronze statue of Sacajawea, the Shoshone 

Indian woman who acted as guide and interpreter for 

explorers Meriwether Lewis and William Clark, stands 

on the grounds outside the Jury Assembly Room, a gift 

from members of the local bar.

Missouri River U.S. Courthouse–A Gem of the Northern Rockies

Top: A view of the district courtroom with rich tones of wood 

and stone illuminated by clerestory window seen near the 

ceiling. 

Bottom: U.S. District Judge Sam Haddon’s chambers 

provide striking views of the Missouri River and 

surrounding country.
Space and Security 51

The $16.4 million project was procured by the 

General Services Administration as a build-to-suit 

leased building with a projected 20-year lease. The 

development team consisted of BC Development 

and Hoefer Wysocki Architects, both of Kansas 

City, Missouri, and Sletten Construction of Great 

Falls. The new courthouse was built on land 

formerly used for a brewery. The site is located 

within a municipal redevelopment district and city 

leaders are hopeful the courthouse will spur other 

development in the area.

Like many federal projects, the Missouri River 

Courthouse was long in coming. For many years, the 

court had occupied the second and third floors of the 

U.S. Post Office building in downtown Great Falls. 

Top: The Missouri River Courthouse’s public entrance is a twostory atrium. The twelve stone markers in front not only provide 

security - they symbolize the 12 rivers in the Montana District 

that drain directly into and from the Missouri River. 

Right: A bronze statue of Sacajawea graces the grounds between 

the courthouse and the river she travelled in the company of 

explorers Lewis and Clark.
52 2011 Annual Report

The need for more space was first recognized 

in a long-range building plan adopted by the 

court in 1991. The need for more security 

became apparent in 2001 following the 

9/11 attacks and the anthrax attacks on 

government buildings in Washington, D.C. 

Conducting court directly above the main 

post office, where packages regularly went 

unscreened, loomed as an uncontrollable and 

unacceptable security concern.

In 2004, then-Chief District Judge Donald W. 

Molloy began a determined effort to obtain 

a new facility in Great Falls, which had the 

highest criminal case filings in the district 

along with the most trials. In presentations 

to key judicial governance committees, he 

pointed out the many deficiencies of the post 

office location, including the absence of a lobby 

for spectators, witness sequestration rooms, 

attorney conference rooms, and secure means 

of transporting prisoners through the building. 

While consistently supported at the circuit 

level, the project was twice derailed at the 

national level before finally winning through in 

2006. A contract was awarded in 2007 and the 

project was finished on time two years later.

Working closely with Judge Molloy on the 

project were District Court Clerk Patrick 

Duffy and space and facilities staff from the 

Ninth Circuit Office of the Circuit Executive.

“This courthouse is a true gem of the 

Northern Rockies. It is a building that 

facilitates the fair administration of justice 

while adding beauty to an already majestic 

land,” Mr. Duffy said.

A view of the first floor lobby as seen from the Clerk’s Office looking 

back toward the entrance. The wall niches to the right now contain a 

rotating display of Montana art temporarily loaned to the court.
Space and Security 53

a coffered barrel vaulted ceiling with decorative plaster cornices 

and hanging light fixtures.

Butte started as a mining camp and became a boom town with 

the rapid growth of copper mining in the area. Incorporated 

in 1879, the town was soon an ethnic melting pot, attracting 

numerous immigrants seeking their fortunes. By the turn of the 

century, it claimed the fourth busiest immigration office in the 

nation. Many of the newcomers subsequently became citizens 

through naturalization ceremonies held in the courthouse.

The building has a colorful past. In 1914, it was used to house 

federal troops after martial law was declared to halt ongoing 

battles between labor unions and mine owners. The government 

intervened because the conflicts had halted production of copper, 

which was deemed to be of vital national interest should the U.S. 

enter into World War I. Ten years later, during the Prohibition 

era, a convicted bootlegger began shooting in the courtroom, 

narrowly missing the presiding judge and leaving a bullet and 

bullet hole in the bench.

 The post office vacated the premises in 1965, leaving the building 

to be used by the court and various federal agencies.

The Butte courthouse was listed in the National Register of Historic 

Places as an individual structure in 1979, and as a part of the Butte 

National Historic Landmark District in 1966. It was named in 

2002 for former Montana U.S. Senator Mike Mansfield.

Montana also boasts one of 

the oldest courthouses in 

the Ninth Circuit, the Mike 

Mansfield Federal Building and U.S. 

Courthouse in Butte, about 150 miles 

southwest of Great Falls. The building 

now houses the U.S. Bankruptcy Court 

for the District of Montana.

The Butte courthouse was dedicated 

on December 8, 1904, eight months 

before the opening of the grander 

Ninth Circuit headquarters building 

in San Francisco. James Knox Taylor, 

supervising architect of the U.S. Treasury 

Department, designed both the Butte and 

San Francisco courthouses, which display 

a Beaux Arts Classical design that blends 

Greek and Roman architectures along with 

Renaissance ideas. Both courthouses also 

served for many years as post offices and 

remain among the most important public 

structures in their communities.

Situated in what was once the core of 

Butte’s bustling business district and very 

close to working mines at the time, the 

original courthouse was a three-story, 

U-shaped structure built with a steel frame 

and concrete foundation and clad in granite, 

red brick and terra cotta. An addition 

completed in 1933 more than doubled the 

building’s useable space to almost 40,000 

square feet and included a two-story 

interior light court. 

The western facade of the courthouse 

features a projecting pavilion and granite 

steps. The most impressive space inside is 

the two-story courtroom, which dominates 

the second and third floors and features a 

hand-carved bench, marble floor and wall 

trim, oak woodwork, arching windows and 

Mansfield Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse
54 2011 Annual Report

S

pecial guests, judges and staff 

of the United States District 

Court for the District of 

Arizona gathered June 28, 2011, 

to break ground for a new federal 

courthouse in Yuma. The Senate 

approved naming the new courthouse 

the John M. Roll U.S. Courthouse in 

honor of Arizona’s late chief district 

judge, who was killed in the Tucson 

shooting rampage on January 8, 2011.

Funding for the $33.4 million project 

was made possible by the American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act 

of 2009. The new courthouse 

will include two courtrooms and 

chambers for two magistrate judges, 

district and bankruptcy clerks’ offices, 

U.S. Probation and Pretrial Services 

offices, and the U.S. Marshals Service 

office. Construction is expected to be 

completed in 2013.

Pictured from left to right are Jeff Neely, Regional Commissioner, Pacific Rim 

Region, GSA; Ron Barber from the Office of U.S. Representative Gabrielle 

Giffords; Magistrate Judge Jay R. Irwin, District of Arizona; Chief District 

Judge Roslyn O. Silver, District of Arizona; Robert Roll, son of the late Chief 

District Judge John M. Roll; Congressman Raul M. Grijalva, U.S. House of 

Representatives; and Mayor Alan L. Krieger, City of Yuma.

Ground Broken for Yuma Courthouse

John M. Roll 

U.S. Courthouse

Yuma, Arizona

Gross Square Footage: 

56,791

Design/Build Team:

Sundt Construction & Ehrlich 

Architects

Occupancy Date: 

June 2013
Space and Security 55

Courthouses Under Construction

Bakersfield U.S. Courthouse

Gross Square Footage: 

33,400

Design/Build Team:

Gilbane Construction Inc. 

& NBBJ (Seattle)

Occupancy Date: 

June 2012

Billings U.S. Courthouse

Gross Square Footage:

128,742

Design/Build Team:

MA Mortenson 

Construction & NBBJ 

(Seattle)

Occupancy Date: 

August 2012
56 2011 Annual Report

Courthouses Under Construction continued

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

ENTRY LOBBY 

PAVILION 

San Diego U.S. Courthouse 

Gross Square Footage: 

466,886

Architects:

Richard Meier & Partners 

(Los Angeles)

General Contractor:

Hensel Phelps

Occupancy Date:

February 2013

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

Gross Square Footage: 

862,269

Architects: 

Gensler and Associates

General Contractor:

Swinerton

Completion Date:

Courthouse (Phase I) 2014

Federal Building (Phase II) 2017
The Work of the Courts 57

the work

of the courts
58 2011 Annual Report

The United States Court of Appeals for the 

Ninth Circuit reported a slight increase in 

new filings and, for the second consecutive 

year, a significant reduction in pending caseload.

New appeals numbered 12,141 in fiscal year 2011, up 

1.3 percent from the prior year. The Ninth Circuit 

remained the nation’s busiest appellate court with 

22 percent of all new appeals nationally. Appellate 

filings nationwide numbered 55,126, down 1.5 

percent overall and by as much as 7.7 percent among 

the individual circuits. Only the Second, Ninth and 

Tenth circuits reported increased filings.

The court continued to dispose of more appeals 

than it received, terminating 13,025 cases in FY 

2011. While terminations were down 2.4 percent 

from the prior year, judges and court staff were 

able to reduce the court’s pending caseload by 5.9 

percent to 14,041 cases. The court had reduced its 

pending caseload by 8.2 percent in the prior year.

Immigration matters and appeals brought by 

inmates in state or federal prisons within the circuit 

predominated the court’s docket numerically, 

while more than half of all appeals were brought by 

litigants who were not represented by a lawyer.

 Breakdown of New Appeals

District courts, which serve as trial courts in the 

federal judicial system, generated 8,035 appeals, 

or 66.2 percent of the court’s FY 2011 new filings. 

Larger district courts produced greater numbers 

of appeals. The Central District of California, 

the busiest court in the circuit, generated 2,241 

appeals, up 4.5 percent from prior year. The 

Eastern District of California had the next largest 

number of appeals with 1,250, up 15 percent.

Of the appeals of district court decisions, 6,411 

were civil appeals and 1,624 were criminal 

appeals. On the civil side, the U.S. government 

was a plaintiff or defendant in 1,124 cases, or 17.5 

percent of the total. Prisoner petitions involving 

Court of Appeals Remains the Nation’s Busiest

habeas corpus, capital habeas corpus, civil rights, prison 

conditions and other matters numbered 3,108. On the 

criminal side, 480 appeals were for drug offenses, 436 for 

illegal immigration, 207 for property offenses, 134 for 

offenses involving firearms and explosives, 106 for sex 

offenses and 93 for violent offenses.

Appeals of agency decisions numbered 3,130, down 5.9 

percent from the prior year. Within this category are 

appeals of decisions by the Board of Immigration Appeals. 

BIA appeals numbered 2,963, down 6.5 percent. The 

court had almost 47 percent of the total BIA appeals filed 

nationally in FY 2011, more than any other circuit.

Original proceedings commenced in FY 2011 numbered 

797 with the bulk involving second or successive habeas 

corpus petitions, 511, and mandamus appeals, 257.

Terminations and Pending Cases

The court terminated 13,025 cases in FY 2011, down 2.4 

percent from the prior year. Of the total, 6,517 cases were 

terminated on the merits, 1,800 after oral argument and 

4,717 after submission on the briefs. Merit terminations 

included 1,119 criminal cases and 2,178 administrative 

agency appeals. Another 6,027 cases were terminated 

on procedural grounds by judges and court staff, down 

7.5 percent. The remaining 481 cases were closed via 

consolidation. Judicial panels produced 741 published 

and 5,776 unpublished opinions in merits terminations.

Among 6,517 cases terminated on the merits, 4,980 

were affirmed or enforced, while 1,537 were dismissed, 

reversed, remanded or disposed of by other means. The 

court’s overall reversal rate was 11.8 percent, compared 

to a national average of 8.9 percent. By category, reversal 

Caseload Measure

2010

Total

2011

Total

Change

2010-2011

Filings 11,982 12,141 1.3%

Terminations 13,340 13,025 -2.4%

1

Pending Cases 14,925 14,041 -5.9%

1

2010 pending cases revised

Appellate Caseload Profile, 2010-2011
The Work of the Courts 59

Median Time Intervals in Months for Merit Terminiations of Appeals

2010-2011 3

 Number of Months

 Ninth Circuit National 

By Stage of Appeal 2010 2011 2010 2011

1

From Filing of Notice of Appeal or Docket Date to Filing of Appellee’s Last Brief 6.6 8.7 5.5 6.2

From Filing of Appellee’s Last Brief to Oral Argument or Submission on Brief 9.9 8.2 4.4 4.4

From Oral Argument to Last Opinion or Final Order 1.3 1.5 2.1 2.2

From Submission on Brief to Last Opinion or Final Order 0.5 0.3 0.6 0.6

1

From Filing of Notice of Appeal or Docket Date to Last Opinion or Final Order 16.4 17.4 11.7 11.0

From Filing in Lower Court to Last Opinion or Final Order in Appeals Court 36.4 36.0 30.3 29.3

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

1

Docket date is used when computing median time interval for original proceedings and appeals from administrative agencies.

Type of Appeal

2010

Filings

2011

Filings

Change

2010-11

% of 

Circuit

Total

2010

Terminations

2011

Terminations

Change

2010-11

1

2010

Pending

2011

Pending

Change

2010-11

Civil

U.S. Prisoner

Petitions 428 492 15.0% 4.1% 457 503 10.1% 490 479 -5.3%

Private Prisoner

Petitions 2,877 3,108 8.0% 25.6% 2,669 3,202 20.0% 3,410 3,316 -3.3%

Other U.S. Civil 661 632 -4.4% 5.2% 691 608 -12.0% 696 720 1.8%

Other Private 

Civil 2,138 2,179 1.9% 17.9% 2,216 2,135 -3.7% 2,228 2,272 0.3%

Criminal 1,655 1,624 -1.9% 13.4% 1,712 1,598 -6.7% 1,785 1,811 0.9%

Other

Bankruptcy 159 179 12.6% 1.5% 172 149 -13.4% 166 196 14.0%

Administrative 

Appeals 3,325 3,130 -5.9% 25.8% 4,651 4,033 -13.3% 6,015 5,112 -16.6%

Original

Proceedings 739 797 7.8% 6.6% 772 797 3.2% 135 135 -1.5%

Circuit Total 11,982 12,141 1.3% 13,340 13,025 -2.4% 14,925 14,041 -5.9%

National 

Appellate Total 55,992 55,126 -1.5% 59,526 57,357 -3.6% 46,351 43,633 -5.9%

Ninth Circuit 

as % of 

National Total 21.4% 22.0% -0.6% 22.4% 22.7% -0.3% 32.7% 32.2% -0.5%

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

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

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

1

2010 Pending cases revised.

Filings, Terminations and Pending Cases by Appeal Type, 2010-2011
60 2011 Annual Report

4

District

Appeals

Total % of Total

Alaska 96 0.8%

Arizona 815 6.7%

C. Calif. 2,241 18.5%

E. Calif. 1,250 10.3%

N. Calif. 914 7.5%

S. Calif. 528 4.3%

Guam 15 0.2%

Hawaii 119 1.0%

Idaho 132 1.1%

Montana 218 1.8%

Nevada 647 5.3%

Northern Mariana Islands 9 0.1%

Oregon 412 3.4%

E. Wash. 153 1.3%

W. Wash. 486 4.0%

Bankruptcy 179 1.5%

Administrative Agencies, Total 3,130 25.8%

 IRS 55 0.5%

 National Labor Relations Board 30 0.2%

 BIA 2,963 24.4%

 Other Administrative Agencies 82 0.7%

Original Proceedings 797 10.3%

Circuit Total 12,141

Note: Totals includes reopened and remanded appeals 

as well as original appeals. Administrative agency cases 

previously reported as immigration service (INS) are shown 

under Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) and U.S. Tax 

Court is shown under IRS.

Source of Appeals and Original 

Proceedings Commenced, 2011

rates ranged from 4.3 percent for administrative appeals 

to 21.2 percent in civil matters involving the government.

The court’s pending caseload was reduced to 14,041 in 

FY 2011, down from 14,925 the previous year. Of the 

total, 8,259 cases, or 59 percent, had been pending less 

than one year.

Median Time Intervals

Median time intervals, which measure how long it takes 

for cases decided on the merits to proceed through the 

appellate process, increased in FY 2011. The median 

time interval from filing of a notice of appeal to final 

disposition of a case was 17.4 months, up from 16.4 

months the previous year. Briefing accounts for 8.7 

months of this time. The median time interval from 

the filing of a case in a lower court to final appellate 

disposition was 36 months, down from 36.4 months the 

year before.

The national median time intervals in FY 2011 were 

11 months from notice of appeal to final disposition 

by a circuit court of appeals, and 29.3 months from the 

filing of a case in a lower court to final disposition by a 

circuit court.

Once an appeal was fully briefed, Ninth Circuit judges 

decided cases fairly quickly. In FY 2011, the median 

time interval was 1.5 months for a case in which 

oral arguments were heard, and .3 months for a case 

submitted on briefs. 

Pro Se Filings and Terminations

Pro se appeals involve at least one party who is not 

represented by counsel. In FY 2011, pro se appeals 

numbered 6,253, up 6.7 percent from the prior year. Pro 

se litigants accounted for 52 percent of all appeals opened 

during the year. Prisoner petitions, 2,691, and agency 

appeals, 1,194, made up 62 percent of pro se appeals. The 

majority of pro se appeals, 4,359 cases, involved decisions 

of the district courts of the circuit.

The court terminated 6,367 pro se appeals in FY 2011, 

down 0.8 percent. Of that number, 3,822 were closed on 

procedural grounds, while 2,545 were terminated 

on the merits either after oral argument or 

submission on the briefs.

En Banc Cases

En banc courts, which consist of 11 judges rather 

than three, are used to resolve intra-circuit conflicts 

or other legal questions of exceptional importance. 

In FY 2011, en banc courts were convened quarterly 
The Work of the Courts 61

5 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals En banc Ballots, 2007-2011

Year

Petitions Filed for

Rehearing En banc

En banc

Ballots 

Sent

Grants of Rehearing

En banc Following 

A Vote

Denials of Rehearing 

En banc Following 

A Vote

2011 826 1 28 13 14

2010 1,002 58 24 34

2009 1,014 36 14 22

2008 1,208 31 19 12

2007 1,339 47 22 25

and considered 18 cases. For 

the year, the court received 826 

petitions seeking en banc review 

of which 13 were granted. En 

banc decisions reached by the 

court in FY 2011 numbered 23, 

19 after oral argument and 4 after 

submission on the briefs.

Death Penalty Cases

The court ended the year with 

115 pending death penalty 

cases from six states. Arizona 

and California had 56 and 40 

pending cases, respectively. Nine 

of the pending death penalty 

cases originated in Nevada, five 

in Idaho, four in Washington 

and one in Oregon. Within 

the circuit, another 809 death 

penalty cases are pending before 

state supreme courts and federal 

trial courts. Since 1976, there 

have been 65 executions by states 

within the circuit.

Contributions by Active, Senior and Visiting Judges

The court ended FY2011 with 25 active circuit judges and 20 senior 

circuit judges. During the year, active circuit judges participated in 65.6 

percent of all cases terminated on the merits, up 4.9 percent from the 

prior year. Senior circuit judges participated in 28.5 percent of the cases, 

while visiting judges helped decide 6 percent. Over the course of the year, 

114 circuit and district judges, both active and senior, sat with the court 

by designation. 

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

and motions panels and various administrative court committees.
62 2011 Annual Report

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Judges

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Judges in Order of Seniority and Chambers 

Alex Kozinski Pasadena

James R. Browning San Francisco

Alfred T. Goodwin Pasadena

J. Clifford Wallace San Diego

Procter Hug, Jr. Reno

Otto R. Skopil Portland

Mary M. Schroeder Phoenix

Betty Binns Fletcher Seattle

Jerome Farris Seattle

Harry Pregerson Woodland Hills

Arthur L. Alarcón Los Angeles

Dorothy W. Nelson Pasadena

William C. Canby, Jr. Phoenix 5

Robert Boochever Pasadena

Stephen Reinhardt Los Angeles

Robert R. Beezer Seattle 1

Cynthia Holcomb Hall Pasadena

John T. Noonan, Jr. San Francisco 2

David R. Thompson San Diego

Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain Portland

Edward Leavy Portland

Stephen S. Trott Boise

Ferdinand F. Fernandez Pasadena 4

Pamela Ann Rymer Pasadena 3

Thomas G. Nelson Boise

Andrew J. Kleinfeld Fairbanks

Michael Daly Hawkins Phoenix

A. Wallace Tashima Pasadena

Sidney R. Thomas Billings

Barry G. Silverman Phoenix

Susan P. Graber Portland

M. Margaret McKeown San Diego

Kim McLane Wardlaw Pasadena

William A. Fletcher San Francisco

Raymond C. Fisher Pasadena

Ronald M. Gould Seattle

Richard A. Paez Pasadena

Marsha S. Berzon San Francisco

Richard C. Tallman Seattle

Johnnie B. Rawlinson Las Vegas

Richard R. Clifton Honolulu

Jay S. Bybee Las Vegas

Consuelo M. Callahan Sacramento

Carlos T. Bea San Francisco

Milan D. Smith, Jr. El Segundo

Sandra S. Ikuta Pasadena

N. Randy Smith Pocatello

Mary H. Murguia Phoenix

1

Deceased February 26, 2011

2

Deceased February 19, 2011

3

Deceased May 4, 2011

4

Deceased September 21, 2011

5

Deceased October 9, 2011
The Work of the Courts 63

6 U.S. District Courts - Total Criminal and Civil Cases 

Filed, Terminated and Pending, 2010-2011

Caseload Measure

2010

Total

2011

Total

1

Change 

2010-2011

Civil Filings 44,148 46,373 5.0%

Criminal Filings 19,395 21,740 12.1%

Total Filings 63,543 68,113 7.2%

Civil Terminations 44,047 46,968 6.6%

Criminal Terminations 19,699 21,936 11.4%

Total Terminations 63,746 68,904 8.1%

2

Pending Civil Cases 40,540 39,947 -1.5%

2

Pending Criminal Cases 16,219 16,023 -1.2%

2

Total Pending Cases 56,759 55,970 -1.4%

2

Civil Case Termination Index 

(in months) 11.0 10.2 -7.5%

2

Criminal Case Termination 

Index 

(in months) 9.9 8.8 -11.4%

2

Overall Case Termination Index 10.5 9.8 -7.1%

Median Months (from filing to 

disposition) Civil Cases 7.3 7.1 -2.7%

Median Months (from filing to 

disposition) Criminal Defendants 5.2 5.1 -1.9%

Median Months National Total 

(from filing to disposition) 

Civil Cases 7.6 7.3 -3.9%

Median Months National Total 

(from filing to disposition) 

Criminal Defendants 6.3 6.4 1.6%

Note: Pending totals exclude each case in which the defendant has been a fugitive since 

before Oct. 1, 2009. However, no case with multiple defendants has been excluded 

unless all defendants in the case have been fugitives since before Oct. 1, 2009. This table 

includes all felony and Class A misdemeanor cases, but includes only those petty offense 

cases that have been assigned to district judges. Median time intervals computed only 

for 10 or more cases and only for 10 or more defendants. This table includes defendants 

in all felony and Class A misdemeanor cases, but includes only those petty offense 

defendants whose cases have been assigned to district judges. Median time intervals 

computed from the date case was filed to the date the defendant was either found not 

1

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

period. guilty or was sentenced.

2

Revised.

United States district courts serve as 

trial courts in the federal judicial 

system. In fiscal year 2011, the 15 

district courts of the Ninth Circuit received 

68,113 criminal and civil filings, up 7.2 percent 

from the prior year. The Ninth Circuit had 

18.5 percent of the 367,692 district court 

filings nationally, which were up 1.8 percent.

Criminal Filings, Terminations and 

Pending Cases

Criminal matters constituted 31.9 percent 

of the total district court filings in the Ninth 

Circuit. District courts reported 21,740 

criminal filings in FY 2011, up 12.1 percent 

from FY2010. Increases were reported in 

nearly all categories of criminal cases.

Illegal immigration continues to generate 

the most new criminal cases. In FY 2011, 

immigration offenses were up 12.5 percent 

with 10,091 new cases, amounting to 46.4 of 

the total criminal filings in the circuit. The 

most common immigration offense, improper 

reentry by an alien, rose 16.5 percent with 

8,546 total cases.

Drug offenses constituted 36.2 percent 

of the criminal caseload in the circuit. 

District courts reported 4,865 new drug 

offense cases, up 33.6 percent in FY 2011. 

Marijuana was involved in 48 percent 

of all drug offenses. Marijuana offenses 

numbered 2,309, up 38.5 percent from FY 

2010. All other drug offenses numbered 

2,556, up 29.5 percent.

Increases also were reported in firearms and 

explosives offenses, 857, up 5.5 percent; sex 

offenses, 596, up 23 percent; assault, 271, 

up 12 percent; justice system offenses, 158, 

up 5.3 percent; and general offenses, 464, 

up 33 percent.

Workload Rises in Federal Trial 

Courts of the Ninth Circuit
64 2011 Annual Report

Ninth Circuit District Courts - Types of Criminal Cases Commenced, by Major Offense 

and District (Excluding Transfers), 2010-2011 7

AK AZ

C. 

Calif.

E. 

Calif.

N. 

Calif.

S. 

Calif. GU HI ID MT NMI NV OR

E. 

Wash.

W. 

Wash.

2010

Total

2011

Total

Change

2010-11

Violent 

Offenses

Homicide 1 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 0 1 2 0 4 47 43 -8.5%

Robbery 7 11 24 7 10 23 0 7 1 2 0 20 36 1 5 169 154 -8.9%

Assault 2 115 13 6 4 23 1 7 5 48 0 15 13 4 15 242 271 12.0%

Other 1 8 10 0 1 4 0 3 3 14 1 10 1 13 2 72 71 -1.4%

Property

Offenses

Burglary, 

Larceny & Theft 3 56 57 66 14 3 22 39 2 8 0 20 38 9 116 485 453 -6.6%

Embezzlement 3 10 10 7 5 2 0 5 3 8 0 5 5 4 13 90 80 -11.1%

Fraud 16 1,382 251 81 126 262 15 37 16 24 9 61 49 17 73 2,580 2,419 -6.2%

Forgery & 

Counterfeiting 1 3 30 7 10 4 0 9 2 4 1 5 3 7 7 99 93 -6.1%

Other 0 4 4 1 3 2 0 0 1 4 0 7 3 2 16 37 47 27.0%

Drug Offenses

Marijuana 1 1,611 16 66 7 533 0 5 2 6 0 7 12 6 37 1,667 2,309 38.5%

All Other Drugs 53 344 189 106 118 1,163 24 86 38 92 1 99 106 55 82 1,974 2,556 29.5%

Firearms and

Explosives 

Offenses 33 150 65 87 92 2 6 13 30 47 0 100 98 61 73 812 857 5.5%

Sex Offenses 6 83 53 81 22 80 2 10 25 73 2 56 47 24 32 485 596 22.9%

Justice System 

Offenses 1 44 9 15 16 19 1 0 4 5 0 7 17 7 13 150 158 5.3%

Immigration

Offenses

Improper Alien 

Reentry 5 4,532 462 317 245 2,428 0 9 89 16 0 117 138 141 47 7,338 8,546 16.5%

Other 0 318 25 1 4 977 4 5 6 1 6 5 95 37 61 1,635 1,545 -5.5%

General 

Offenses 6 18 39 16 14 27 2 260 5 24 1 9 9 1 33 349 464 33.0%

Regulatory 

Offenses 16 100 47 27 29 49 5 25 4 16 2 6 13 5 23 440 367 -16.6%

Traffic Offenses 2 3 0 4 54 0 2 288 0 2 0 1 0 0 263 651 619 -4.9%

All Offenses 

Total 157 8,821 1,304 895 774 5,601 84 808 237 399 23 551 685 394 915 19,322 21,648 12.0%

Note: This table includes all felony and Class A misdemeanor cases but includes only those petty offense cases that have 

been assigned to district judges.
The Work of the Courts 65

8 U.S. District Courts: Weighted and Unweighted Filings Per Authorized Judgeship, 2010-2011

Weighted Filings Per Judgeship Unweighted Filings Per Judgeship

District

Authorized

Judgeships Civil Criminal

Supervision

Hearings

2010

Weighted

Total

2011

Weighted

Total

Change

2010-2011 Civil Criminal

Supervision

Hearings

2011

Total

Alaska 3 120 74 0.26 184 194 5.4% 99 77 1.67 177

Arizona 13 290 506 18.72 653 815 24.8% 279 797 133.38 1,210

C. Calif. 28 585 65 4.59 602 655 8.8% 526 73 32.25 631

E. Calif. 6 916 174 8.42 1,122 1,098 -2.1% 903 215 60.17 1,178

N. Calif. 14 567 59 5.04 593 631 6.4% 453 73 34.50 561

S. Calif. 13 252 312 17.08 530 581 9.6% 215 501 120.85 837

Hawaii 4 259 98 5.48 302 362 19.9% 201 225 37.75 463

Idaho 2 374 138 4.29 574 516 -10.1% 305 160 29.50 494

Montana 3 197 156 9.09 320 362 13.1% 186 160 59.00 405

Nevada 7 477 93 5.11 603 575 -4.6% 419 102 32.71 554

Oregon 6 385 111 9.41 515 505 -1.9% 364 136 67.00 567

E. Wash. 4 198 100 16.51 287 312 8.7% 200 125 117.50 442

W. Wash. 7 540 98 5.47 580 643 10.9% 456 161 37.00 654

Circuit 

Total 110 5,160 1,984 109.47 6,865 7,249 5.6% 4,606 2,805 763.28 8,173

Circuit 

Mean

*** 397 153 8.42 528 558 5.6% 354 216 58.71 629

Circuit 

Median

*** 374 100 5.48 574 575 0.2% 305 160 37.75 561

National 

Mean

*** 355 118 5.30 444 478 7.7% 333 148 35.36 516

National 

Total

673 386 118 5.26 490 509 3.9% 354 152 35.51 542

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

cases arising by reopening, remand, or transfer to the district by the order of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. This table includes defendants in all felony and Class A misdemeanor cases, but includes only those petty offense defendants whose cases have been assigned to district judges. 

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

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

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

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

The districts of Arizona and Southern California once 

again had the largest criminal caseloads stemming 

from drug smuggling and illegal immigration into the 

U.S. from Mexico. The District of Arizona reported 

8,834 criminal filings, up 29.2 percent from the prior 

year. The Arizona court had 22 percent of all drug 

offense filings in the Ninth Circuit and ranked first 

in the nation in drug offenses. The Southern District 

of California reported 5,633 criminal cases, up 14.3 

percent. The districts of Guam, Hawaii, Montana, and 

Oregon also reported increases in criminal filings.

Criminal case filings decreased in the Central District 

of California, 1,314, down 8 percent; the Western 

District of Washington, 923, down 19 percent; the 

Eastern District of California, 897, down 9.7 percent; 
66 2011 Annual Report

the Northern District of California, 778, down 7.3 

percent; the District of Nevada, 555, down 20.3 

percent; the Eastern District of Washington, 394, 

down 1.3 percent; the District of Idaho, 237, down 

14.1 percent; the District of Alaska, 159, down 4.2 

percent; and the District of Northern Mariana Islands, 

24, down, 44.2 percent.

The district courts of the Ninth Circuit terminated 

21,936 criminal cases in fiscal year 2011, up 11.4 

percent the prior fiscal year. Pending criminal cases 

numbered 16,023, down 1.2 percent.

Civil Filings, Terminations and Pending Cases

New civil filings in the district courts of the circuit 

numbered 46,373, up 5 percent from FY 2010. The 

circuit accounted for 16 percent of the 289,252 civil 

filings in the district courts nationally. Civil filings 

increased nationally by 2.2 percent over the previous 

fiscal year.

Private civil cases numbered 37,861 and accounted 

for 81.6 percent of the total civil filings in FY 2011. 

Prisoner petitions were most numerous, totaling 9,882 

or 26.1 percent of all new private civil cases. The U.S. 

government acted as a plaintiff in 2,093 cases and as a 

defendant in 6,419 cases, accounting for 18.4 percent of 

the new civil filings.

Other major categories of new private civil filings were 

civil rights, 5,709 cases or 15.1 percent; contracts, 

4,349 cases or 11.5 percent; real property suits, 3,568 

cases or 9.4 percent; intellectual property suits, 2,765 

or 7.3 percent; labor suits, 2,548 cases or 6.7 percent; 

and other personal injury, 1,838 or 4.9 percent.

U.S. civil cases or civil cases in which the government 

was a party numbered 8,512. Social security cases were 

most numerous, 2,972 cases or 34.9 percent of the 

total. Other major categories were prisoner petitions 

1,688 cases or 19.8 percent, and contracts, 1,062 cases 

or 12.5 percent.

Ten district courts reported increased civil filings 

in fiscal year 2011 including the Central District of 

California, which had the largest civil caseload in the 

circuit and second in the nation with 15,257 filings, up 

10.2 percent from the year before. Other districts with 

increased civil filings include the districts of Arizona, 

Northern California, Southern California, Guam, 

Hawaii, Montana, Nevada, Eastern Washington, and 

Western Washington.

Civil filings declined in the districts of Alaska, 

Eastern California, Idaho, the Northern Mariana 

Islands, and Oregon. 

Civil case terminations in the Ninth Circuit numbered 

46,968, up 6.6 percent from 44,047 in fiscal year 2010. 

Pending civil cases totaled 39,947, down 1.5 percent.

Case Processing Times 

Case processing times in the district courts of the 

Ninth Circuit improved in fiscal year 2011. The Case 

Termination Index, which computes how long it 

would take to clear the pending caseload if the current 

termination rate continued was 9.8 months in 

FY 2011, down from 10.5 months the previous year.

The median time from filing to disposition for civil 

cases in the Ninth Circuit was down to 7.1 months 

from 7.3 months the prior fiscal year. The national 

median time for civil cases decreased to 7.3 months in 

FY 2011 compared with 7.6 months the year before.

For criminal cases, the median time from filing to 

disposition in the Ninth Circuit was 5.1 months 

compared to 5.2 months in FY 2010. The national 

median time was 6.4 months, slightly up from 6.4 

months the prior fiscal year.
The Work of the Courts 67

9

Caseload Measure 2010 2011

Change

2010-2011

Filings

 Business Chapter 7 10,680 9,275 -13.2%

 Business Chapter 11 2,762 2,415 -12.6%

 Business Chapter 12 126 129 2.4%

 Business Chapter 13 988 887 -10.2%

 Nonbusiness Chapter 7 299,231 281,847 -5.8%

 Nonbusiness Chapter 11 926 1,007 8.7%

 Nonbusiness Chapter 13 84,621 86,639 2.4%

 Circuit Total 399,334 382,199 -4.3%

Terminations 361,652 379,722 5.0%

1

Pending Cases 301,760 304,247 0.8%

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

(nonbusiness) debt as that incurred by an individual primarily for a 

personal, family, or household purpose. If the debtor is a corporation or 

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

the nature of the debt is business. These figures include the following 

cases not reflected elsewhere:

Fiscal Year 2010

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

(Chapter 9 = 1); Hawaii (Chapter 15 = 1); Idaho (Chapter 9 = 1); Western 

Wash. (Chapter 15 = 1)

Fiscal Year 2011

Arizona (Chapter 15 = 1); Central Calif. (Chapter 15 = 3); Northern Calif. 

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

Due to differences among districts in reporting intra-district transfers, 

the total provided above for cases pending on September 30, 2011

may not equal the number obtained by adding totals for cases pending at 

the end of the prior period plus cases filed during the current period, then 

subtracting cases terminated during the current period.

1

2010 pending cases revised

Business and Nonbusiness Bankruptcy Cases 

Commenced, by Chapter of the U.S. Bankruptcy 

Code, 2010-2011

After increasing steadily over the last four years, 

bankruptcy filings dipped in fiscal year 2010. 

Bankruptcy courts in the Ninth Circuit reported 

382,210 new cases, down 4.3 percent from the prior fiscal 

year. Nationwide, new bankruptcy filings declined 8.1 

percent to 1,467,221 cases.

Bankruptcy Filings Down in 2011

Within the Ninth Circuit, the downturn was 

widespread with 14 of 15 bankruptcy courts 

reporting fewer bankruptcy filings. Only the 

Central District of California, which takes 

in the Los Angeles metropolitan area, saw its 

caseload increase in FY 2011. The Central 

District was once again the busiest bankruptcy 

court in the nation with 139,882 new cases, up 

0.9 percent from FY 2010.

Other large bankruptcy courts in the circuit 

also reported significant decreases. The Eastern 

District of California, which takes in the 

Sacramento, Fresno and the Central Valley, 

had 51,481 new cases, down 5.3 percent. The 

District of Arizona reported 39,148 new cases, 

down 7.3 percent. Filings decreased by 5.1 

percent to 36,663 in the Northern District of 

California, which includes the San Francisco Bay 

Area; by 1.1 percent to 26,389 in the Western 

District of Washington, which takes in Seattle 

and Tacoma; by 14.4 percent to 26,239 cases in 

Nevada; and by 5.2 percent to 22,285 cases in 

the Southern District of California in San Diego.

In the Ninth Circuit, Chapter 7 filings were 

most numerous, accounting for 76 percent 

of the total. Chapter 13 filings amounted to 

almost 23 percent of the circuit total with 

Chapters 11 and 12 making up the remainder. 

Nonbusiness filings involving individual 

debtors accounted for almost 97 percent of all 

new cases.

Terminations and Pending Cases

Bankruptcy courts nationally terminated 

1,461,896 cases, down 2.3 percent, with 10 

circuits reporting fewer cases closed. The 

Ninth Circuit was one of two circuits to 

report an increase with 379,722 terminations, 

up 5 percent from the prior fiscal year. The 

Central District of California led the way 

numerically with 144,486 cases terminated, 

up 10. 3 percent, while the District of Arizona 
68 2011 Annual Report

encouraged the bankruptcy bar to provide pro bono

representation for some cases. 

Bankruptcy courts in the Ninth Circuit reported the 

highest percentage of pro se filings in the nation. In 

FY 2011, 15.5 percent of all Chapter 7 filings in the 

circuit were by self-represented litigants. The highest 

percentages of Chapter 7 pro se filings were 22.8 

percent in the District of Arizona and 21.3 percent 

in the Central District of California. Also reporting 

sizeable pro se filings were the Eastern and Northern 

districts of California, 15.1 percent and 10.9 percent, 

respectively; Hawaii, 10.4 percent; and Nevada, 10.3 

percent. Total bankruptcy cases filed by pro se debtors 

in the Ninth Circuit numbered 71,128, up 6 percent 

from fiscal year 2010.

Appointments, Transitions

In 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth 

Circuit appointed ten new bankruptcy judges: Bruce 

T. Beesley, appointed to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court 

for the District of Nevada; Scott C. Clarkson, Mark 

S. Wallace, Wayne E. Johnson, Sandra R. Klein, Neil 

W. Bason, and Julia Wagner Brand appointed to 

the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District 

of California; Timothy W. Dore, appointed to the 

U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of 

Washington; William J. Lafferty, III, appointed to the 

U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of 

California; and Thomas M. Renn, appointed to the 

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

Three bankruptcy courts saw a change of leadership 

in 2011. Elevated to chief bankruptcy judge were 

Paul B. Snyder of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the 

Western District of Washington; Alan Jaroslovsky of 

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

California; and Peter H. Carroll of the U.S. Bankruptcy 

Court for the Central District of California.

Ninth Circuit bankruptcy courts also rely on recalled 

bankruptcy judges who are appointed on a temporary 

basis with the approval of the Judicial Council of the 

Ninth Circuit. In 2011, 13 recalled bankruptcy judges 

served in nine districts.

had the greatest percentage increase, up 17.7 percent 

to 36,704 cases. Five districts reported fewer 

terminations led by Nevada, which reported 28,149 

cases closed, down 17.1 percent.

Pending caseloads at the end of the fiscal year varied 

among bankruptcy courts in the Ninth Circuit. The 

Central District of California saw its pending caseload 

decrease by 5.7 percent to 76,558 cases. The District 

of Nevada reported a 6.2 percent decrease to 29,114. 

Pending caseloads were up in the Eastern, Northern 

and Southern districts of California and the districts of 

Arizona and Western Washington. In the Ninth Circuit 

as a whole, the pending caseload rose by 0.8 percent.

Pro Se Bankruptcy Filings

Bankruptcy filings by people not represented by 

legal counsel pose special challenges to courts. These 

pro se litigants are unfamiliar with bankruptcy law 

and court procedures, requiring more assistance by 

court staff. A number of courts in the Ninth Circuit 

have established self-help centers for pro se filers and 

10

District

2010

Total

 2011

Total

Change

2010-2011

Alaska 1,132 1,019 -10.0%

Arizona 42,216 39,148 -7.3%

C. Calif. 138,585 139,882 0.9%

E. Calif. 54,389 51,481 -5.3%

N. Calif. 38,632 36,663 -5.1%

S. Calif. 23,509 22,285 -5.2%

Guam 211 146 -30.8%

Hawaii 3,862 3,566 -7.7%

Idaho 8,392 7,912 -5.7%

Montana 3,167 2,705 -14.6%

Nevada 30,637 26,239 -14.4%

N. Mariana Is. 9 4 -55.6%

Oregon 20,460 18,281 -10.7%

E. Wash 7,471 6,490 -13.1%

W. Wash. 26,671 26,389 -1.1%

Circuit Total 399,343 382,210 -4.3%

Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Courts

2010-2011
The Work of the Courts 69

New Bankruptcy Appeal Filings, 2011

District

Bankruptcy 

Appellate Panel 1District Court Total

Alaska 0 2 2

Arizona 80 57 137

C. Calif. 243 157 400

E. Calif. 64 34 98

N. Calif. 46 49 95

S. Calif. 39 27 66

Hawaii 14 10 24

Idaho 13 3 16

Montana 9 7 16

Nevada 33 29 62

Oregon 14 10 24

E. Wash. 5 4 9

W. Wash. 34 28 62

Totals 594 (59%) 417 (41%) 1,011

1

The numbers for bankruptcy appeals to the district courts are 

taken directly from a statistical caseload table prepared by the 

Administrative Office of the United States Courts (“AOUSC Table 

B-23”). The numbers for bankruptcy appeals to the BAP are 

calculated based on data from AOUSC Table B-23 and on data 

from the BAP’s CM/ECF docketing system. The district court 

numbers include all appeals in which a timely election was made 

to have the appeal heard in the district court (both appellant and 

appellee elections). The BAP numbers exclude all such appeals.

The Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel 

(BAP) operates under the authority of the 

Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit. It is 

authorized seven bankruptcy judges, who serve sevenyear terms and may be reappointed to an additional 

three-year term. The panel convenes nine times 

per year at the Richard H. Chambers United States 

Courthouse in Pasadena, California.

Due to reduced workload, one seat on the BAP has 

been left vacant since 2003. Although new filings 

have increased substantially each of the past three 

fiscal years, the BAP continues to operate with six 

judges to lower costs. In their appellate capacity, 

BAP judges are precluded from hearing matters 

arising from their own districts.

All district courts within the Ninth Circuit have issued 

general orders providing for the automatic referral 

of bankruptcy appeals to the BAP for disposition. 

However, if any party files a timely election to have the 

appeal heard by a district court, the appeal is transferred 

according to the consent rule.

Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Sees Increase 

in Filings, Terminations

11

The Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel consists of, seated 

from left, Bankruptcy Judges Randall L. Dunn of the District of 

Oregon, Jim D. Pappas of the District of Idaho (chair of the BAP), 

Meredith A. Jury of the Central District of California; and standing 

from left, Bankruptcy Judges Eileen W. Hollowell of the District of 

Arizona, Bruce A. Markell of the District of Nevada, and Chief 

Bankruptcy Judge Ralph B. Kirscher of the District of Montana.

New Filings

For fiscal year 2011, new appeals filed numbered 1,011, 

an increase of 29 percent over fiscal year 2010. Total 

filings increased for the third straight year and were 

double the all-time low filings recorded in 2008. The 

BAP handled 59 percent of all FY 2011 bankruptcy 

appeals, and the district courts handled 41 percent. 

Historically, the BAP has handled between 49 percent 

and 60 percent of all bankruptcy appeals. 

Dispositions

The BAP disposed of 567 appeals in FY 2011, an 

increase of 38 percent over FY 2010. Of those, 158 

appeals were merits terminations. Oral argument 

was held in 143 appeals, and 15 appeals were 

submitted on briefs. Of the merits decisions, 29 
70 2011 Annual Report

were published opinions. The reversal rate was 11 

percent. The median time for an appeal decided on 

the merits was 8.8 months. Of the remaining 409 

closed cases, 4 were terminated by consolidation; 

109 were transferred to the district courts after 

appellee elections or in the interest of justice; and 

296 were terminated on procedural grounds, such 

as for lack of prosecution, lack of jurisdiction, or 

voluntary dismissal. The BAP ended fiscal year 

2011 with 335 appeals pending, a 50 percent 

increase over fiscal year 2010.

Appeals to the Ninth Circuit

Bankruptcy decisions by either the BAP or a district 

court may be appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court 

of Appeals for second-level appellate review. In fiscal 

year 2011, 178 second-level appeals were filed. Of 

these, 78 were appeals from decisions by the BAP and 

100 were from decisions by the district courts. Thus, 

of the 567 appeals that were disposed of by the BAP, 

roughly 86 percent were fully resolved, with only 

about 14 percent seeking second-level review.

BAP Use of Pro Tem Judges

The BAP continued to use bankruptcy judges 

from throughout the Ninth Circuit on a pro tem

basis to assist with its growing caseload. In fiscal 

year 2011, the BAP used 13 pro tem appointments, 

including seven newly appointed bankruptcy 

judges to assist with oral arguments and merits 

decisions. The BAP reached out to many of the 

Ninth Circuit’s newly appointed bankruptcy 

judges to provide them the opportunity to review 

trial work from the appellate perspective.

Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appeal Filings, 2002-2011 12

Year

Appeals 

Totals

Raw Appeals

Received by 1

BAP

Net Appeals 2

BAP

Net Appeals

District 3Court

Election 

4

Rate

% of Appeals 

Heard by BAP

CY 2002 904 673 527 377 42% 58%

CY 2003 818 649 417 401 49% 51%

CY 2004 869 646 473 396 46% 54%

CY 2005 764 521 420 344 45% 55%

CY 2006 735 477 374 361 49% 51%

CY 2007 658 479 379 279 42% 58%

CY 2008 542 348 265 277 51% 49%

CY 2009 656 421 332 324 49% 51%

FY 2010 783 481 396 387 49% 54%

FY 2011 1,011 698 594 417 41% 59%

1

Number of new appellate filings received and 

opened as new case files at the BAP Clerk’s 

Office. This figure includes some appeals where 

an appellee files an election and the appeal 

thereafter is transferred to district court. (Where 

a timely election is made by an appellant, the 

bankruptcy court generally bypasses the BAP and 

refers the appeal directly to the district court.)

2

The number of raw bankruptcy appeals received 

by BAP, less the number of appeals transferred 

from BAP to district court by election or other 

transfer.

3

Includes the number of all bankruptcy appeals 

received by district court, either referred directly 

from the bankruptcy court or transferred from 

the BAP.

4

Percentage of bankruptcy appeals where one or 

more parties timely elected to have their appeal 

heard in district court.
The Work of the Courts 71

Magistrate judges make invaluable 

contributions to the work of the federal 

trial courts. They assist district judges in 

a wide range of judicial matters, including presiding 

over preliminary proceedings, trial jurisdiction cases, 

civil consent cases, reviewing prisoner petitions and 

other duties related to criminal and civil matters.

In fiscal year 2011, 100 full-time and 10 part-time 

magistrate judges along with 20 recalled magistrate 

judges served in Ninth Circuit courts. They disposed 

of a combined 259,209 judicial matters during the 

year, up 12.4 percent from FY 2010. Increases were 

reported in 26 out of 34 categories of dispositions.

Preliminary proceedings remain the largest category 

numerically with 109,715 cases, up 18.3 percent 

in FY2011. These proceedings included initial 

appearances, arraignments, detention hearings 

and warrants for searches and arrests. Within 

the category, the largest increase numerically was 

arraignments at 22,991, up 19.7 percent from the 

prior fiscal year.

Additional duties related to criminal matters 

numbered 53,530, up 26 percent. This category 

includes pretrial motions and conferences, taking of 

guilty pleas, hearings on probation revocation and 

supervised release, and evidentiary hearings. Pretrial 

conferences rose to 21,425, up 26.7 percent.

Additional duties related to civil matters decreased 

to 26, 807 dispositions, down 2.7 percent. Motions, 

pretrial conferences and settlement conferences made 

up the bulk of this work.

Trial jurisdiction cases, which include Class A 

misdemeanors and petty offenses, decreased to 39,114, 

down 7.6 percent. Petty offenses numbered 36,523, 

down 7.4 percent. Class A misdemeanors numbered 

2,591, down 10.3 percent.

Civil consent cases, in which a magistrate judge 

presides at the consent of the parties, increased by 22 

percent to 4,508. The great majority of cases were 

disposed of without trial. 

Prisoner petitions numbered 8,069, an increase of 

25.9 percent in fiscal year 2011. State habeas and civil 

rights petitions made up the bulk of this work.

New Magistrate Judges and Governance

Eleven new full-time magistrate judges were sworn 

into office in 2011. They were Jacqueline Scott 

Corley and Nathanael M. Cousins of the Northern 

District of California; Carolyn K. Delaney and 

Barbara A. McAuliffe of the Eastern District of 

California; Sheri N. Pym, Jean P. Rosenbluth, 

and Michael R. Wilner of the Central District of 

California; Mitchell D. Dembin of the Southern 

District of California; Richard Puglisi of the 

District of Hawaii; and Cam Ferenbach and Carl W. 

Hoffman, Jr., of the District of Nevada. 

Magistrate Judge David K. Duncan of the District of 

Arizona is chair of the Magistrate Judges Executive 

Board and serves as an official observer at meetings of 

the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit. Appointed 

to the board in 2011 were Magistrate Judges James 

P. Hutton of the Eastern District of Washington, 

Richard Puglisi of the District of Hawaii, and Chief 

Magistrate Judge Suzanne H. Segal of the Central 

District of California.

Members of the Magistrate Judges Executive Board 

met with new magistrate judges in conjunction with 

the circuit’s New Judges Orientation, May 11-12, 

2011 at the James R. Browning U.S. Courthouse in 

San Francisco. Discussion focused on search warrant 

issues, recusals, financial conflicts of interest, and the 

role of magistrate judges. 

Educational Programs

At the 2011 Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference, the 

Magistrate Judges Education Committee organized 

a panel discussion of how the subprime mortgage 

market collapse occurred, its worldwide implications, 

and impacts on court caseloads. Talcott J. 

Franklin, founder of Talcott Franklin P.C., made 

an introductory presentation. Panelists included 

Magistrate Judge Kevin S. C. Chang of the District 

Magistrate Judges See Workload 

Increase Again 
72 2011 Annual Report

of Hawaii; Denise P. Brennan, senior 

counsel, Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, 

Inc.; and Walter H. Hackett, III, 

managing attorney, Inland County Legal 

Services. Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler 

of the Southern District of California 

served as moderator.

1

Before 2000, category included contested motions 

only. Beginning in 2000, uncontested motions were 

added.

2

Before 2000, category did not include status 

conferences. Beginning in 2000, status conferences 

were added.

3

Category includes mental competency hearings, 

motion hearings, and writs.

4

Category includes fee applications, summary jury 

trials, and motion hearings. Beginning in 2006, 

early neutral evaluations were added.

5

Category includes material witness hearings and 

attorney appointment hearings.

6

Before 2000, this category included seizure/

inspection warrants and orders of entry; 

judgement debtor exams; extradition hearings; 

contempt proceedings; Criminal Justice Act 

fee applications; naturalization proceedings; 

grand/other jury returns; civil and criminal IRS 

enforcement proceedings; calendar calls; and voir 

dire. Beginning in 2000, civil and criminal other 

jury matters and international prisoner transfer 

proceedings were added. Due to a reporting 

problem, CJA fee applications, a component of 

Miscellaneous Matters are estimated at their 2009 

level.

Matters Disposed of by Ninth Circuit 

Magistrate Judges, 2010-2011 13

Activity

2010

Total

2011

Total

Change

2010-2011

Total Matters 230,638 259,209 12.4%

Preliminary Proceedings 92,780 109,715 18.3%

 Search Warrants 9,681 11,684 20.7%

 Arrest Warrants 7,057 7,833 11.0%

 Summonses 1,181 1,279 8.3%

 Initial Appearances 25,318 28,381 12.1%

 Preliminary Examinations 7,418 10,050 35.5%

 Arraignments 19,208 22,991 19.7%

 Detention Hearings 13,917 17,390 25.0%

 Bail Reviews/Nebbia Hearings 1,875 2,082 11.0%

 5

Other 7,125 8,025 12.6%

Trial Jurisdiction Cases 42,343 39,114 -7.6%

 Class A Misdemeanors 2,890 2,591 -10.3%

 Petty Offenses 39,453 36,523 -7.4%

Civil Consent Cases 3,695 4,508 22.0%

 Without Trial 3,642 4,454 22.3%

 Jury Trial 41 44 7.3%

 Nonjury Trial 12 10 -16.7%

Additional Duties

 Criminal 42,500 53,530 26.0%

 1 Motions 636(b)(1)(A) 12,109 14,866 22.8%

 Motions 636(b)(1)(B) 293 342 16.7%

 Evidentiary Proceedings 160 221 38.1%

 2

Pretrial Conferences 16,915 21,425 26.7%

 Probation Revocation and

 Supervised Release Hearings 1,032 1,139 10.4%

 Guilty Plea Proceedings 10,440 13,581 30.1%

 3

Other 1,551 1,956 26.1%

 Civil 27,554 26,807 -2.7%

 Settlement Conferences 2,833 2,670 -5.8%

 2

Other Pretrial Conferences 4,296 5,058 17.7%

 1 Motions 636(b)(1)(A) 14,983 13,434 -10.3%

 Motions 636(b)(1)(B) 1,559 1,925 23.5%

 Evidentiary Proceedings 78 98 25.6%

 Social Security 522 518 -0.8%

 Special Master References 7 8 14.3%

 4

Other 3,276 3,096 -5.5%

 Prisoner Petitions 6,410 8,069 25.9%

 State Habeas 3,543 4,359 23.0%

 Federal Habeas 364 472 29.7%

 Civil Rights 2,468 3,204 29.8%

 Evidentiary Proceedings 35 34 -2.9%

6

Miscellaneous Matters 15,356 17,466 13.7%
The Work of the Courts 73

Funded by the Defender Services 

Division of the Administrative 

Office of the United States 

Courts, federal public defenders 

and community defenders are at 

work in judicial districts across the 

nation, providing professional legal 

representation for indigent defendants 

accused of committing federal crimes.

In the Ninth Circuit, federal and community 

defenders saw their caseload rise in fiscal year 2011 

with the biggest numerical increases reported in the 

districts of Arizona and Southern California. Circuitwide, defenders reported 33,929 new cases, up 7.1 

percent. Nationwide, new cases numbered 122,813 

cases, up 4 percent.

Federal defenders in the District of Arizona, one of 

two border courts in the circuit, led all offices with 

12,724 new cases opened in FY 2011, up 21.4 percent 

from the prior fiscal year. Of Arizona’s new cases, 

11,666 or 91.6 percent of the total were criminal in 

nature, many of them involving immigration and drug 

offenses. In the Southern District of California, the 

other border court, federal defenders reported 7,934 

Cases 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Change

2010-2011

Opened 28,676 29,700 30,552 31,691 33,929 7.1%

Closed 28,253 29,233 29,316 31,508 33,733 7.1%

Pending 8,880 9,340 10,580 10,753 10,950 1.8%

14 Federal Defender Organizations: 

Cases Opened, Closed and Pending, 2007-2011

Federal Defenders Meet Challenge 

of Growing Caseload

District

Opened

2010

Opened

2011

Change

2010-2011

Closed

2010

Closed

2011

Change

2010-2011

Pending

2011

Alaska 296 366 23.6% 292 347 18.8% 126

Arizona 10,481 12,724 21.4% 10,419 12,510 20.1% 1,502

C. Calif. 3,436 3,299 -4.0% 3,587 3,387 -5.6% 1,304

E. Calif. 2,102 1,806 -14.1% 2,003 2,051 2.4% 864

N. Calif. 1,147 1,198 4.4% 1,165 1,196 2.7% 502

1

S. Calif. 7,259 7,934 9.3% 6,836 7,538 10.3% 3,325

Guam 115 123 7.0% 118 113 -4.2% 82

Hawaii 514 568 10.5% 458 603 31.7% 490

1

Idaho 302 306 1.3% 319 313 -1.9% 129

1

Montana 562 620 10.3% 609 594 -2.5% 248

Nevada 1,043 1,131 8.4% 1,146 1,099 -4.1% 739

Oregon 1,554 1,458 -6.2% 1,587 1,505 -5.2% 870

1

E. Wash. 847 861 1.7% 793 868 9.5% 337

W. Wash. 2,033 1,535 -24.5% 2,176 1,609 -26.1% 432

Circuit Total 31,691 33,929 7.1% 31,508 33,733 7.1% 10,950

National Total 118,094 122,813 4.0% 119,118 120,932 1.5% 46,052

Circuit Total as % 

of National Total 26.8% 27.6% 0.8% 26.5% 27.9% 1.4% 23.8%

1

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

court-directed prisoner and witness representations, bail/pre-sentencing, and probation and parole revocation hearings. Eastern 

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

Federal Defender Organizations: Summary of Representations by District, 2010-2011 15
74 2011 Annual Report

new cases, up 9.3 percent. Of the Southern District 

of California’s new cases, 3,262 or 41 percent were 

criminal in nature, many of them also involving 

illegal immigration.

Increases also were reported in the District of 

Nevada, 1,131 new cases, up 8.4 percent; the District 

of Alaska, 366 new cases, up 23.6 percent; the 

District of Montana, 620 cases, up 10.3 percent; the 

Northern District of California, 1,198 cases, up 4.4 

percent; the District of Hawaii, 568 cases, up 10.5 

percent; the Eastern District of Washington, 861 

cases, up 1.7 percent; and the District of Idaho, 306 

cases, up 1.3 percent.

Despite the increasing workload, federal and 

community defenders in the Ninth Circuit closed 

33,733 cases in fiscal year 2011, up 7.1 percent from 

the prior fiscal year. Their pending caseload decreased 

to 10,950 cases from 10,753 in FY 2010.

Congress created the Office of the Federal Public 

Defender to fulfill the constitutional requirement that 

indigents charged with federal crimes be provided with 

no-cost, professional legal representation. Congress 

funds public defender and community defender 

offices through the Defender Services Division of the 

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.

Community defender organizations are non-profit 

legal service organizations staffed by non-government 

employees, while public defender offices are federal 

agencies staffed by federal judiciary employees. Both 

types of organizations are staffed with experienced 

federal criminal law practitioners who provide a 

consistently high level of representation. In addition 

to criminal defense and appeals, public defenders 

are assigned to court-directed prisoner and witness 

representations, bail/pre-sentencing, and probation 

and parole revocation hearings.

By statute, judges of a court of appeals select and 

appoint federal public defenders to four-year 

terms. The court makes its initial appointment 

after a nationwide recruitment and the use of a local 

screening committee. A federal public defender may 

be reappointed if the court concludes that he or she is 

performing in a highly satisfactory manner based upon 

a broad survey and performance evaluation process.

In 2011, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 

appointed one new federal public defender, Rene L. 

Valladares for the District of Nevada, and reappointed 

four others: Richard Curtner in the District of Alaska; 

Jon M. Sands in the District of Arizona; Steven T. Wax 

in the District of Oregon; and Peter C. Wolff in the 

District of Hawaii. Their reappointments are effective 

in 2011.
The Work of the Courts 75

United States probation officers prepare presentence 

reports on convicted defendants and supervise 

offenders who have been placed on probation, 

supervised release, parole or conditional release. In the Ninth 

Circuit, some 900 probation officers are performing these duties 

in various settings, from courthouses in major cities to one-person 

offices in rural areas.

Presentence reports assist a judge in sentencing convicted 

defendants. Probation officers investigate the offense conduct 

and the defendant’s personal background and history. They 

identify applicable guidelines and policy statements, and calculate 

the defendant’s offense level and criminal history category. They 

report the resulting sentencing range, identifying factors relevant 

to the appropriate sentence. 

In the area of supervision, probation officers monitor persons 

who are released to the community after serving prison sentences. 

They assist supervised individuals by directing them to services 

including substance abuse and mental health treatment, medical 

care, employment assistance, literacy and training programs, and 

cognitive-behavioral treatment therapies to foster long-term 

positive changes to reduce recidivism. 

Presentence Reports

Standard guideline presentence reports are generally prepared 

in felony and Class A misdemeanor cases for which the U.S. 

Sentencing Commission has promulgated guidelines. In the 

Ninth Circuit, probation officers prepared 19,374 such reports 

in FY 2011, up 16 percent. Non-guideline presentence reports, 

prepared for crimes in which the USSC has not promulgated 

guidelines, were up 139.5 percent from 81 to 194 in FY 2011. 

Supplemental reports completed to the U.S. Bureau of Prisons for 

defendants who did not receive presentence reports were down 

by 53.4 percent from 1,006 to 469 in FY 2011.

Ninth Circuit Federal Probation System:

Persons Under Post-Conviction Supervision

2010-2011

16

Persons Under Supervision 2010 2011 Change 2010-2011

From Courts 4,070 4,058 -0.3%

From Institutions 16,976 17,327 2.1%

Total 21,046 21,385 1.6%

Probation Officers See Small 

Upturn in Supervision Caseload

Offenders Under Supervision

Persons under supervision in the Ninth 

Circuit numbered 21,385 in FY 2011, up 1.6 

percent from 21,046 the prior year. The circuit 

accounted for 16.5 percent of the national 

total of 129,780 persons under supervision.

Among those under supervision, 4,058 were 

on probation, while 17,114 were on supervised 

release. Another 180 persons were on parole 

and 33 in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons. 

In the Ninth Circuit, the Central District 

of California had the most persons under 

supervision with 5,587 cases, up 2.1 percent. 

Also reporting percentage increases were the 

districts of Alaska, Arizona, Northern District 

of California, Idaho, Montana, Eastern 

Washington and Western Washington.

Reporting fewer persons under supervision 

were the districts of Eastern California, 

Southern California, Guam, Hawaii, Nevada, 

Northern Mariana Islands, and Oregon.

Drug offenders remain the largest group of 

persons under supervision both in the Ninth 

Circuit and nationwide. In FY 2011, drug 

offenders under supervision in the circuit 

totaled 8,887, up 2.5 percent. Drug cases 

accounted for 41.6 percent of persons under 

supervision in the Ninth Circuit.

Revocations and Early Terminations

Ninth Circuit cases which were revoked 

and closed after post-conviction supervision 

numbered 3,639, up 4.5 percent. Of the 

revocations, 245 were from probation 

sentences and 3,379 were from supervised 

release terms. The Ninth Circuit had 23.4 

percent of the 15,561 cases revoked nationally. 

Since 2002, the Committee on Criminal Law 

of the Judicial Conference of the United States 

has encouraged officers to identify offenders 
76 2011 Annual Report

From Courts Referred by Institutions

District Probation1

 Supervised

Release Parole2 BOP Custody3

Persons Under 

Supervision, 

2010

Persons Under 

Supervision, 

2011

Change

2010-2011

Alaska 85 217 1 7 304 310 2.0%

Arizona 702 2,814 15 5 3,293 3,536 7.4%

C. Calif. 1,028 4,515 44 0 5,474 5,587 2.1%

E. Calif. 265 1,361 18 0 1,669 1,644 -1.5%

N. Calif. 510 1,215 26 1 1,686 1,752 3.9%

S. Calif. 270 2,086 18 0 2,379 2,374 -0.2%

Guam 53 93 2 5 168 153 -8.9%

Hawaii 84 665 1 0 779 750 -3.7%

Idaho 100 344 4 0 438 448 2.3%

Montana 101 565 3 3 646 672 4.0%

Nevada 286 805 7 1 1,141 1,099 -3.7%

N. Mariana Is. 10 29 0 2 57 41 -28.1%

Oregon 236 780 19 9 1,060 1,044 -1.5%

E. Wash 58 449 3 0 498 510 2.4%

W. Wash. 270 1,176 19 0 1,454 1,465 0.8%

Circuit Total 4,058 17,114 180 33 21,046 21,385 1.6%

1

Includes judge and magistrate judge probation

2

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

3

BOP (Bureau of Prisons)

17 Ninth Circuit Federal Probation System:

Persons Under Post-Conviction Supervision by District, 2010-2011

who qualify for early termination. 

When conditions of supervision 

have been met and the offender 

does not pose a foreseeable risk 

to the public or an individual, the 

probation officer may request the 

sentencing judge to consider early 

termination. Ninth Circuit cases 

terminated early numbered 1,128.

Evidence-Based Practices

Federal pretrial services and 

probation services officers seek 

to reduce recidivism by using 

“evidence-based practices” to make 

informed decisions about the 

supervision risks defendants may 

pose. The Post Conviction Risk 

Assessment (PCRA) is designed to 

improve post-conviction supervision 

by providing information 

which directs strategic resource 

allocation—directing attention 

and services to the highest risk 

offenders. By the end of 2011, 

more than 3,500 probation officers 

nationwide had completed PCRA 

training and certification, and 

administered and completed more 

than 50,000 assessments.

The Administrative Office of the U.S. 

Courts (AO) and Federal Judicial 

Center (FJC) are also studying the 

efficacy of Federal Reentry Court 

programs in reducing recidivism. 

The FJC designed a multi-year 

randomized experimental study 

following a reentry court program 

developed by the AO. The Central 

District of California is one of the five 

districts participating in this study.

Transitions 

In 2011, three new chief probation 

officers were appointed: James 

G. Patelis for the District of 

Montana; Jeffrey S. Thomason, for 

the District of Idaho; and David 

J. Sultzbaugh for the Southern 

District of California.
The Work of the Courts 77

I

n the Ninth Circuit, 164 United States pretrial services 

officers contributed to the fair administration of justice, 

protected their communities, and sought to bring about 

positive, long-term change to individuals under supervision.

Pretrial services officers investigate defendants charged with federal 

crimes, recommend to the court whether to release or detain 

them, and supervise those who are released to the community 

while awaiting trial. While the defendant is presumed innocent 

until proven guilty, pretrial services officers must balance this 

presumption with the reality that some persons – if not detained 

before their trial–are likely to flee or to pose a danger to the 

community or to certain persons through criminal activity. 

Pretrial services officers also conduct investigations and 

prepare written reports about a candidate’s suitability for 

the U.S. Attorney’s Office Pretrial Diversion Program. They 

are responsible for supervision of divertees who are deemed 

appropriate and accepted into the program. 

Pretrial services offices in the Ninth Circuit again ranked first 

nationally in new cases activated. In fiscal year 2011, case 

activations numbered 39,343, up 11 percent from 2010. The 

Ninth Circuit accounted for 35 percent of new case activations 

nationally, which totaled 112,969, up 2.2 percent.

The District of Arizona had the highest number of case 

activations in the nation with 21,899 new cases opened, up 18.9 

percent from 2010. Pretrial services officers there interviewed 

1,942 defendants, up 9 percent, and wrote 21,782 pre-bail 

reports, up 19 percent from the prior year.

Case activations also increased in the Southern District of 

California with 7,963 cases, up 9 percent; the Central District 

of California with 2,487 cases, up 1 percent; the District of 

18 Pretrial Services Cases Activated in 

Ninth Circuit Courts, 2010-2011

Caseload Measure 2010 2011 Change 2010-11

1

Reports 34,435 38,403 11.5%

Interviews 9,438 10,328 9.4%

Cases Activated 35,457 39,343 11.0%

1 Includes prebail reports with and without recommendations, and includes 

types of reports categorized in previous periods as “other reports.”

Workload Rises for Ninth Circuit Pretrial 

Services Officers 

Montana with 450 cases, up 13.4 percent; the 

District of Hawaii with 342 cases, up 21.7 

percent; the District of Alaska with 249 cases, 

up 29.7 percent; and the District of Guam 

with 98 cases, up 18.1 percent.

Case activations were down 4.9 percent in the 

Western District of Washington with 1,170 

cases; 4.6 in the Eastern District of California, 

with 1,119 cases; 4.4 percent in the Northern 

District of California with 1,056 cases; 11.8 

percent in the District of Nevada with 843 

cases; 9.7 percent in the District of Oregon with 

801 cases; 4.9 percent in the Eastern District 

of Washington with 486 cases; 12.1 percent in 

the District of Idaho with 348 cases; and 41.8 

percent in the Disrict of the Northern Mariana 

Islands with 32 cases.

Pretrial Bail Interviews, Supervised 

Defendants

Pretrial services officers conducted 10,328 

pretrial bail interviews, up 9.4 percent from 

FY2010. Pre-bail written reports increased 

by 11.5 percent to 38,403, while post-bail 

reports were down by 7.3 percent to 573. 

Officers made recommendations to the 

court in 96.4 percent of cases in which 

interviews were conducted. Detention was 

recommended in 81 percent of all cases in 

2011, up from 79 percent the prior year. In 

comparison, offices of the U.S. attorneys in 

the circuit made recommendations in 96.1 

percent of cases, and recommended detention 

in 78.1 percent of cases, up from 73.6 percent 

in 2010. Excluding immigration cases, 

detention was recommended in 59.9 percent 

of all other cases, compared to 63.6 percent 

by offices of the U.S. attorneys. 

Released defendants under supervision by 

pretrial services officers numbered 5,929 in 

FY2011, up 9.8 percent. Of these, 4,592 
78 2011 Annual Report

were released on standard supervision, up 7.3 percent; 

1,125 supervised for another district or circuit, up 14.7 

percent; and 212 on pretrial diversion, up 54.7 percent.

Nonappearance and Re-Arrest Rates 

The rate of bail revocations due to nonappearance 

and/or re-arrest of supervised defendants remained 

constant at .5 percent in 2011. The 15 district courts 

of the Ninth Circuit revoked the bail of 94 defendants 

who absconded from supervision.

Violations

Of 12,303 defendants released in FY2011, 1,457 

had violations reported to the court, including 85 

felony violations, 107 misdemeanor violations, 40 for 

other violations, and 61 for failure to appear. Technical 

violations, including positive urine tests for illegal 

substances, violation of electronic monitoring conditions, 

possession of contraband, and failure to report to officer, 

accounted for the remaining 1,362 violations.

Evidence-Based Practices

Federal courts use a Pretrial Services Risk Assessment 

(PTRA) tool to inform decisions about the 

supervision risks defendants may pose. Begun in 

2011, PTRA training is almost fully implemented 

nationally with 1,914 pretrial services and probation 

officers trained. Of those, 1,802 were certified 

to use PTRA and completed 29,810 pretrial risk 

assessments, as of December 15, 2011.

Defendant Contact Written Reports

District Interviewed

1

Not

 Inteviewed 2

Prebail Postbail

No 

Reports 

Made

Total Cases

Activated 

2010

Total Cases

Activated

2011

Change

2010-11

Alaska 83 166 244 0 5 192 249 29.7%

Arizona 1,942 19,957 21,782 88 29 18,424 21,899 18.9%

C. Calif. 1,514 973 2,456 21 10 2,462 2,487 1.0%

E. Calif. 439 680 1,057 26 36 1,173 1,119 -4.6%

N. Calif. 443 613 765 288 3 1,105 1,056 -4.4%

S. Calif. 3,765 4,198 7,865 57 41 7,305 7,963 9.0%

Guam 75 23 91 1 6 83 98 18.1%

Hawaii 277 65 335 2 5 281 342 21.7%

Idaho 76 272 332 4 12 396 348 -12.1%

Montana 248 202 434 13 3 397 450 13.4%

Nevada 514 329 829 8 6 956 843 -11.8%

N. Mariana Is. 32 0 32 0 0 55 32 -41.8%

Oregon 318 483 794 0 7 887 801 -9.7%

E. Wash 131 355 288 3 195 511 486 -4.9%

W. Wash. 471 699 1,099 62 9 1,230 1,170 -4.9%

Circuit Total 10,328 29,015 38,403 573 367 35,457 39,343 11.0%

National Total 60,567 52,402 101,294 3,233 3,291 110,547 112,969 2.2%

Circuit % of 

National 17.1% 55.4% 37.9% 17.7% 11.2% 32.1% 34.8% 2.8%

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

1

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

in which defendants were interviewed in other districts. 2Includes prebail reports with and without recommendations, and includes 

types of reports categorized in previous periods as “other reports.”

19 Pretrial Workload, 2010-2011
The Work of the Courts 79

Juror Utilization, 2010-2011 20

Juror Utilization

Petit Juror Utilization Rate

Percent Not Selected or Challenged1

District

 Grand Juries 

Empaneled, 

2010

Petit Juries 

Selected, 

2011 2010 2011

Change

2010-2011

Alaska 2 15 42.8 26.4 -16.4

Arizona 11 103 36.1 39.2 3.1

C. Calif. 36 177 56.0 50.8 -5.2

E. Calif. 11 76 51.8 43.5 -8.3

N. Calif. 8 69 39.4 35.5 -3.9

S. Calif. 8 112 47.8 41.9 -5.9

Guam 2 7 58.6 43.6 -15.0

Hawaii 3 12 37.9 40.3 2.4

Idaho 6 24 36.8 26.7 -10.1

Montana 3 27 33.7 28.7 -5.0

Nevada 5 43 37.6 46.6 9.0

N. Mariana 

Is. 2 4 51.6 43.0 -8.6

Oregon 11 37 30.4 31.2 0.8

E. Wash. 3 27 33.6 26.3 -7.3

W. Wash. 4 55 34.0 29.7 -4.3

Circuit 

Total 115 788 *** ***

Circuit 

Average 14 99 41.9 36.9 -5.0

National 

Total 799 5,565 *** ***

National 

Average 8 59 38.7 37.7 -1.0

Note: This table includes data on jury selection days only. Data on juror service after 

the selection day are not included.

1

Includes jurors who completed pre-screening questionnaires or were in the courtroom 

during the conducting of voir dire but were not selected or challenged. Also includes 

jurors, not selected or challenged, who were not called to the courtroom or otherwise 

did not participate in the actual voir dire.
80 2011 Annual Report

Court Interpreters

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

2010

Total

2011 

Total

Change 

2010-11

Arabic 1 4 8 16 32 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 121 78 -35.5%

Armenian 0 2 173 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 9 209 199 -4.8%

Cantonese 0 0 57 210 151 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 3 0 13 510 440 -13.7%

Farsi 0 0 47 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 50 2.0%

Japanese 0 0 14 0 0 2 0 6 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 23 24 4.3%

Korean 4 0 105 5 45 14 32 19 0 0 5 0 1 0 22 251 252 0.4%

Mandarin 2 15 108 15 90 6 17 1 0 0 3 0 3 0 14 386 274 -29.0%

Navajo 

(Certified) 0 112 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 162 112 -30.9%

Navajo 

(Non-Certified) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 -100.0%

Russian 0 2 9 53 8 4 0 0 1 0 10 0 12 0 8 79 107 35.4%

Sign

(American) 0 2 5 5 3 14 0 0 0 5 2 0 1 0 1 45 38 -15.6%

Sign 

(Mexican) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%

Spanish 

Staff 125 55,323 1,785 1,138 742 22,763 0 0 0 0 279 0 587 0 0 97,326 82,742 -15.0%

Spanish 

(Certified) 3 21,193 3,111 1,701 2,020 719 0 26 140 1 253 0 790 878 877 21,465 31,712 47.7%

Spanish 

(Non-Certified) 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 64 457 101 173 0 101 70 21 1,193 1,001 -16.1%

Tagalog 0 0 19 1 4 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 78 41 -47.4%

Vietnamese 1 0 90 10 99 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 11 85 368 312 -15.2%

All Others 0 410 135 142 58 126 10 20 1 3 27 0 6 18 92 1,348 1,048 -22.3%

Total 136 77,077 5,666 3,307 3,252 23,681 63 142 599 110 760 0 1,506 977 1,154 123,616 118,430 -4.2%

21 Interpreter Usage by District Courts, 2011
The Work of the Courts 81

District Caseloads

AK Alaska

CAS Southern California

AZ Arizona

GU Guam

CAC Central California

HI Hawaii

CAE Eastern California

ID Idaho

CAN Northern California

MT Montana

NV Nevada

NMI N. Mariana Islands

OR Oregon

WAE Eastern Washington

WAW Western Washington

Districts Comprising the Ninth Circuit

AK

AZ

CAC

CAE

CAN

CAS

GU

HI

ID

MT

NV

NMI

OR

WAE

WAW
82 2011 Annual Report

Caseload Measure

 

2010 2011

Change

2010-2011

Per Judgeship 

Unweighted 2011

District Court

 Filings 10,596 12,596 18.9% 969

 Terminations 9,934 12,497 25.8% 961

 1

Pending 6,489 6,612 1.9% 509

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 42,216 39,148 -7.3% 5,593

 Terminations 31,175 36,704 17.7% 5,243

 1

Pending 42,964 45,407 5.7% 6,487

District of Arizona AZ

Authorized Judgeships

 2

District 13

 Bankruptcy 7

 Magistrate

 Full-time 14

 Part-time 1

Authorized places of holding court:

3

Bullhead City, Flagstaff, 3Kingman 

Phoenix, Prescott, Tucson, Yuma 

1 2010 total pending cases revised. 

2 Includes one authorized temporary judgeship.

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

Caseload Measure

 

2010 2011

Change

2010-2011

Per Judgeship 

Unweighted 2011

District Court

 Filings 15,279 16,571 8.5% 592

 Terminations 15,243 16,523 8.4% 590

 1

Pending 12,652 12,700 0.4% 454

Bankruptcy Court

 2

Filings 138,585 139,882 0.9% 5,828

 Terminations 131,030 144,486 10.3% 6,020

 1

Pending 81,164 76,558 -5.7% 3,190

Central District of California CAC

Authorized Judgeships

 3

District 28

 4

Bankruptcy 24

 Magistrate

 Full-time 24

 Part-time 1

Authorized places of holding court: 

Los Angeles, Riverside, 4

San Fernando 

Valley, Santa Ana, 4

Santa Barbara

1 2010 total pending cases revised.

2 Includes one authorized temporary judgeship.

3 Includes three authorized temporary judgeships.

4

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

Authorized Judgeships

 District 3

 Bankruptcy 2

 Magistrate

 Full-time 2

 Part-time 4

Caseload Measure 2010 2011

Change

2010-2011

Per Judgeship 

Unweighted 2011

District Court

 Filings 516 460 -10.9% 153

 Terminations 541 504 -6.8% 168

 1

Pending 544 660 21.3% 220

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 1,132 1,019 -10.0% 510

 Terminations 1,086 1,107 1.9% 554

 1

Pending 1,186 1,098 -7.4% 549

1

2010 total pending cases revised.

District of Alaska

Authorized places of holding court:

Anchorage, Fairbanks, Juneau, 

Ketchikan, Nome

AK
The Work of the Courts 83

Caseload Measure

 

2010 2011

Change

2010-2011

Per Judgeship 

Unweighted 2011

District Court

 Filings 8,059 8,887 10.3% 684

 Terminations 8,692 8,802 1.3% 677

 1

Pending 5,770 5,855 1.5% 450

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 23,509 22,285 -5.2% 5,571

 Terminations 21,205 21,345 0.7% 5,336

 1

Pending 13,088 14,027 7.2% 3,507

Authorized Judgeships

 District 13

 Bankruptcy 4

 Magistrate

 Full-time 11

 Part-time 0

Authorized Judgeships

 District 14

 Bankruptcy 9

 Magistrate

 Full-time 11

 Part-time 0

Caseload Measure

 

2010 2011

Change

2010-2011

Per Judgeship 

Unweighted 2011

District Court

 Filings 6,835 6,496 -5.0% 1,083

 Terminations 6,332 7,105 12.2% 1,184

 1

Pending 8,987 8,379 -6.8% 1,397

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 54,389 51,481 -5.3% 7,354

 Terminations 47,143 50,038 6.1% 7,148

 1

Pending 34,651 36,092 4.2% 5,156

Caseload Measure

 

2010 2011

Change

2010-2011

Per Judgeship 

Unweighted 2011

District Court

 Filings 6,931 7,369 6.3% 526

 Terminations 8,191 7,951 -2.9% 568

 1

Pending 7,341 6,759 -7.9% 483

Bankruptcy Court

 2

Filings 38,632 36,663 -5.1% 4,074

 Terminations 34,176 33,998 -0.5% 3,778

 1

Pending 34,122 36,786 7.8% 4,087

CAN

CAS

Northern District of California

1 2010 total pending cases revised.

2 Includes one authorized temporary judgeship.

Eastern District of California

1 2010 total pending cases revised.

2 2010 total bankruptcy filings revised.

1 2010 total pending cases revised.

2 El Centro applies only to the district court.

Southern District of California

Authorized Judgeships

 District 6

 2

Bankruptcy 7

 Magistrate

 Full-time 12

 Part-time 0

Authorized places of holding court: 

Bakersfield, Fresno, Redding, 

Sacramento, South Lake Tahoe, 

Yosemite

Authorized places of holding court: 

Eureka, Oakland, Salinas, San Francisco, 

San Jose, Santa Rosa

Authorized places of holding court: 

2

El Centro, San Diego

CAE
84 2011 Annual Report

Authorized Judgeships

 3

District 4

 Bankruptcy 1

 Magistrate

 Full-time 3

 Part-time 1

Caseload Measure

 

2010 2011

Change

2010-2011

Per Judgeship 

Unweighted 2011

District Court

 Filings 1,293 1,634 26.4% 409

 Terminations 1,344 1,612 19.9% 403

 1

Pending 1,174 1,196 1.9% 299

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 3,862 3,566 -7.7% 3,566

 Terminations 3,290 3,290 0.0% 3,290

 2

Pending 2,646 2,922 10.4% 2,922

Authorized places of holding court:

Honolulu

1 2010 total district court pending cases revised.

2 2010 total bankruptcy pending cases revised.

3 Includes one temporary judgeship.

HI District of Hawaii

Authorized Judgeships

 District 2

 Bankruptcy 2

 Magistrate

 Full-time 2

 Part-time 0

Caseload Measure

 

2010 2011

Change

2010-2011

Per Judgeship 

Unweighted 2011

District Court

 Filings 986 869 -11.9% 435

 Terminations 916 891 -2.7% 446

 1

Pending 1,008 986 -2.2% 493

Bankruptcy Court

 2

Filings 8,392 7,912 -5.7% 3,956

 Terminations 7,261 8,034 10.6% 4,017

 3

Pending 7,439 7,318 -1.6% 3,659

Authorized places of holding court: 

Boise, Coeur d’Alene, Moscow, 

Pocatello, 4

Twin Falls

1 2010 total district court pending cases revised.

2 2010 total bankruptcy filings revised.

3 2010 total bankruptcy pending cases revised.

4 Twin Falls applies only to the bankruptcy court.

District of Idaho ID

Authorized Judgeships

 District 1

 Bankruptcy 0

 Magistrate

 Full-time 1

 Part-time 0

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

1

 2010 total pending cases revised.

Authorized places of holding court:

Hagatna

District of Guam

Caseload Measure

 

2010 2011

Change

2010-2011

Per Judgeship 

Unweighted 2011

District Court

 Filings 105 127 21.0% 127

 Terminations 98 114 16.3% 114

 1

Pending 126 139 10.3% 139

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 211 146 -30.8% 385

 Terminations 218 168 -22.9% 271

 1

Pending 166 144 -13.3% 327

District of Guam GU
The Work of the Courts 85

Authorized Judgeships

 District 7

 2

Bankruptcy 4

 Magistrate

 Full-time 7

 Part-time 0

Caseload Measure

 

2010 2011

Change

2010-2011

Per Judgeship 

Unweighted 2011

District Court

 Filings 3,787 3,658 -3.4% 523

 Terminations 3,492 3,592 2.9% 513

 1

Pending 3,946 4,013 1.7% 573

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 30,637 26,239 -14.4% 6,560

 Terminations 33,960 28,149 -17.1% 7,037

 1

Pending 31,023 29,114 -6.2% 7,279

1 2010 total pending cases revised.

2 Includes one authorized temporary judgeship.

Authorized places of holding court:

Carson City, Elko, Ely, Las Vegas, 

Lovelock, Reno

District of Nevada

Authorized Judgeships

 District 1

 Bankruptcy 0

 Magistrate

 Full-time 0

 Part-time 0

Caseload Measure

 

2010 2011

Change

2010-2011

Per Judgeship 

Unweighted 2011

District Court

 Filings 74 51 -31.1% 51

 Terminations 64 33 -48.4% 33

 1

Pending 96 114 18.8% 114

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 9 4 -55.6% 0

 Terminations 7 1 -85.7% 0

 Pending 28 31 10.7% 1

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

1

2010 total district court pending cases revised.

Authorized places of holding court: 

Saipan

District of Northern Mariana Islands

Authorized Judgeships

 District 3

 Bankruptcy 1

 Magistrate

 Full-time 3

 Part-time 1

Caseload Measure

 

2010 2011

Change

2010-2011

Per Judgeship 

Unweighted 2011

District Court

 Filings 854 970 13.6% 323

 Terminations 1,028 896 -12.8% 299

 1

Pending 749 823 9.9% 274

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 3,167 2,705 -14.6% 2,705

 Terminations 2,656 2,686 1.1% 2,686

 1

Pending 3,602 3,621 0.5% 3,621

1

 2010 total pending cases revised.

Authorized places of holding court:

Billings, Butte, Great Falls, Helena, 

Missoula

MT District of Montana

NMI

NV
86 2011 Annual Report

Authorized Judgeships

 District 7

 Bankruptcy 5

 Magistrate

 Full-time 5

 Part-time 2

Authorized Judgeships

 District 4

 Bankruptcy 2

 Magistrate

 Full-time 2

 Part-time 0

Authorized Judgeships

 District 6

 Bankruptcy 5

 Magistrate

 Full-time 6

 Part-time 1

Caseload Measure

 

2010 2011

Change

2010-2011

Per Judgeship 

Unweighted 2011

District Court

 Filings 4,067 4,219 3.7% 603

 Terminations 3,946 4,156 5.3% 594

 1

Pending 3,613 3,676 1.7% 525

Bankruptcy Court

 2

Filings 26,671 26,389 -1.1% 5,278

 Terminations 23,158 25,479 10.0% 5,096

 1

Pending 23,663 24,575 3.9% 4,915

Caseload Measure

 

2010 2011

Change

2010-2011

Per Judgeship 

Unweighted 2011

District Court

 Filings 1,143 1,256 9.9% 314

 Terminations 1,022 1,146 12.1% 287

 1

Pending 991 1,101 11.1% 275

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 7,471 6,490 -13.1% 3,245

 Terminations 7,313 6,395 -12.6% 3,198

 Pending 6,015 6,110 1.6% 3,055

Caseload Measure

 

2010 2011

Change

2010-2011

Per Judgeship 

Unweighted 2011

District Court

 Filings 3,018 2,950 -2.3% 492

 Terminations 2,903 3,082 6.2% 514

 1

Pending 3,089 2,957 -4.3% 493

Bankruptcy Court

 Filings 20,460 18,281 -10.7% 3,656

 Terminations 17,974 17,842 -0.7% 3,568

 1

Pending 20,003 20,444 2.2% 4,089

District of Oregon

Authorized places of holding court:

2

Bend, 2Coos Bay, Coquille, Eugene, 

Klamath Falls, Medford, Pendleton, 

Portland, 2

Redmond, 2Roseburg, 2Salem

1 2010 total pending cases revised.

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

Authorized places of holding court:

2

Richland, Spokane, 2Walla Walla, 

Yakima

1

 2010 total pending cases revised.

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

Authorized places of holding court: 

Bellingham, Seattle, Tacoma, 

Vancouver

1

 2010 total pending cases revised.

Western District of Washington

WAE Eastern District of Washington

WAW

OR
The background image on the front and rear inside covers is an 1814 map (copied from an 1804 original) of 

Lewis and Clark’s track, across the western portion of North America from the Mississippi to the Pacific Ocean, 

published in the “History of the Expedition under the Command of Captains Lewis and Clark,” (1814). Library 

of Congress, Geography and Map Division. 
Office of the Circuit Executive

Cathy A. Catterson, Circuit & Court of Appeals Executive

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

Ph: (415) 355-8900, Fax: (415) 355-8901

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov