REPORT OF THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT

REGARDING A JUDICIAL EMERGENCY

IN THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Submitted to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3174(d)(1)

April 9, 2020

On March 13, 2020, Chief District Judge Virginia A. Phillips declared a 

judicial emergency in the Central District of California under 18 U.S.C. § 3174(e). 

She reported that under the emergency declarations of national, state, and local 

governments, as well as recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control 

and Prevention to convene groups of no more than 10 people, the Court is unable 

to obtain an adequate spectrum of trial and grand jurors. The suggested physical 

distancing measures required to protect public safety diminishes the availability of 

counsel, witnesses, parties, the public, Probation and Pretrial Services, and Court 

staff to be present in the courtroom. Chief Judge Phillips sought the Ninth Circuit 

Judicial Council’s approval in declaring an emergency that would extend the time 

limits of the Speedy Trial Act (STA) for bringing accused criminal defendants to 

trial. This type of request has been approved on four occasions, with circuit 

Judicial Councils approving judicial emergencies under 18 U.S.C. § 3174(e) since 

the STA was enacted.

With the immediate and pending national and local state of emergencies, 

Chief District Judge Virginia A. Phillips was compelled to declare a judicial 

emergency under 18 U.S.C. § 3174(e). This judicial emergency period 

commenced on March 13, 2020, and will end on April 13, 2020. After gathering 

additional data, the Judicial Council found no reasonable remedy, thus agreed to 

declare a judicial emergency and suspend the STA time limits required by 18 

U.S.C. 3161(c) in the District for one year. The continued judicial emergency will

commence on April 13, 2020, and will conclude on April 13, 2021.

Under 18 U.S.C. § 3174(d), the Judicial Council hereby submits to the 

Administrative Office of the United States Courts the Central District of 

California’s application for a declaration of a judicial emergency and a written 

report stating in detail the reasons for granting the application. 
Report of the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit Regarding a 

 Judicial Emergency in the Central District of California 

April 9, 2020

Page 2

I. National, State, and County State of Emergencies – Public Safety

On March 13, 2020, the President of the United States issued a proclamation 

declaring a National Emergency in response to the COVID-19 (Coronavirus 

Disease) pandemic. The Governor of the State of California declared a 

Proclamation of a State of Emergency to exist in California on March 4, 2020. 

Health Officers from Los Angeles, Riverside, Orange, San Bernardino, Santa 

Barbara, San Luis Obispo, and Ventura Counties subsequently issued local 

emergency orders and proclamations related to public gatherings.

On March 27, 2020, the Judicial Conference of the United States, acting 

pursuant to the authority granted it under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and 

Economic Security Act (“CARES Act”), specifically found that “emergency 

conditions due to the national emergency declared by the President under the 

National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. § 1601, et seq.) with respect to the 

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) have materially affected and will

materially affect the functioning of the federal courts generally.”

The World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic on 

March 11, 2020. In their continuing guidance, the Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention (CDC) and other public health authorities have suggested the public 

avoid social gatherings in groups of more than 10 people and practice physical 

distancing (within about six feet) between individuals to potentially slow the 

spread of COVID-19. The virus is thought to spread mainly from person-to-person 

contact, and no vaccine currently exists. 

No information is currently available to determine when the CDC may 

retract its recommendations regarding limited group gatherings and physical 

distancing. By limiting person-to-person contact, the public may “flatten” the 

epidemic curve of the COVID-19 outbreak.

II. A Judicial Emergency Exists in the Central District of California

A. 18 U.S.C. § 3174: The Judicial Emergency Provision

According to 18 U.S.C. § 3174(a), upon application by the district, a judicial 

council “shall evaluate the capabilities of the district, the availability of visiting 
Report of the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit Regarding a 

 Judicial Emergency in the Central District of California 

April 9, 2020

Page 3

judges from within and without the circuit, and make any recommendations it 

deems appropriate to alleviate calendar congestion resulting from the lack of 

resources.” If a judicial council finds no reasonably available remedy, it may 

declare a judicial emergency and suspend the 70-day time limit for a period up to 

one year, instead allowing up to 180 days before a trial must commence. See

18 U.S.C. § 3174(b). The time limits to try detained persons “who are being 

detained solely because they are awaiting trial” are not affected by the emergency 

provision. Id. If the time limits are not suspended, the sanction for not bringing a 

defendant to trial within 70 days of the filing of the indictment is a dismissal of the 

indictment. See 18 U.S.C. § 3162(a)(2).

The statute does not specify what qualifies as an emergency or what factors 

to assess before determining that there is “no reasonably available remedy.” In the 

legislative history of the STA, many members of Congress commented on the 

importance of a court’s resources to be able to comply with the Act’s time limits, 

and the ability to suspend time limits if a court could not meet those requirements.

See 120 Cong. Rec. 41,733, 41,755 (1974).

Congress did not intend that a district court demonstrate its inability to 

comply with the STA by dismissing criminal cases and releasing would-be 

convicted criminals into society. See H.R. Rep. No. 93-1508 at 80-82, reprinted in 

1974 U.S.C.C.A.N. 7401. In fact, the emergency provision has been used 

previously on four occasions to avoid imminent criminal dismissals as a sanction 

for non-compliance. See United States v. Bilsky, 664 F.2d 613,619-20 (6th Cir. 

1981) (Sixth Circuit suspended time limits for one year in the Western District of 

Tennessee shortly after the STA became effective in 1980); United States v. 

Rodriguez-Restrepo, 680 F.2d 920, 921 at n.1 (2d Cir. 1982) (Second Circuit 

approved emergency for the Eastern District of New York, noting the district’s 

“burgeoning caseload and calendar congestion.”); the Ninth Circuit approved a 

declaration of emergency pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3174(b) for the District of 

Arizona on February 24, 2011, and the Southern District of California on April 2, 

2020.

In addition to the statutory judicial emergency, as outlined above, the 

Central District of California also has a “judicial emergency” as defined by 

Judicial Conference policy. A vacancy on a district court is considered an 

“emergency” if the court’s “weighted filings” exceed 600 per judgeship. The 
Report of the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit Regarding a 

 Judicial Emergency in the Central District of California 

April 9, 2020

Page 4

Central District of California’s weighted filings, 692 per judgeship (61 percent

above the Conference standard), are high enough to be deemed an emergency. The 

District is authorized 27 permanent judgeships, one temporary judgeship, and has 

10 vacancies, the oldest of which has remained unfilled since 2014. The adjusted 

weighted filing per judge is 1,076. All vacancies are categorized as judicial 

emergencies. There are eight nominees pending, but due to the COVID-19 

pandemic, the status of confirmation hearing dates remains uncertain. Seven active 

district judges are eligible to take senior status or retire immediately.

B. The Central District of California’s Application

Chief Judge Phillips’ application dated April 6, 2020, outlines the measures 

the Court is taking to maintain the public’s safety while trying to remain in 

compliance with applicable statutes and mandated deadlines. The CDC 

recommendations regarding gatherings of 10 or fewer people make essential tasks 

such as convening the grand jury, holding civil and criminal jury trials, and 

criminal proceedings including sentencings, initial appearances, etc., unattainable.

III. Reasons for Granting the Central District of California’s Application

A. Weighted Caseload 

The Central District of California currently ranks 3rd in the Ninth Circuit and 

12th nationally in weighted filings, with 692 weighted filings per judgeship for the 

12-month period ending December 31, 2019. Considering the 10 judicial 

vacancies, the adjusted weighted filings per judge is 1,076. Overall, the total civil 

and criminal filings in the District reached 16,890 in 2019.
Report of the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit Regarding a 

 Judicial Emergency in the Central District of California 

April 9, 2020

Page 5

12 Month Period Ending December 31, 2019

Numerical 

Standing

US

Numerical 

Standing 

Circuit

Action per 

Judgeship

Filings

Total 647 21 5

Civil 564 12 3

Criminal Felony 53 82 12

Supervised Release 30 55 12

Pending Cases 525 40 7

Weighted Filings 692 12 3

Terminations 630 19 4

Trials Completed 10 77 11

The district judges are required under the STA to give priority to criminal 

cases. The District has not received any additional permanent or temporary 

judgeships since 1990.

B. Limitations of In-Person Appearances

Pursuant to the authority granted under the CARES Act and the Judicial 

Conference of the United States, along with previous authority granted by the 

Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the District has been

exploring the use of audio and video capabilities for required in-person hearings 

such as initial appearances. Many detention centers are not capable of handling 

audio or video appearances. The welfare of the court, federal public defenders, 

CJA attorneys, U.S. Marshals Service, and defendants are placed at risk each time 

parties congregate in person for hearings and defendants are transported to and 

from the courthouse. Until a remedy is made available, the Court cannot feasibly 

sustain compliance with STA deadlines given the high number of criminal 

defendants processed daily while concurrently practicing small gathering and 

physical distancing guidelines.

C. Increased Criminal Filings from the U.S. Attorney’s Office

Over the past couple of years, the number of criminal cases the U.S. 

Attorney’s Office (USAO) has filed rose substantially over previous totals, and the 

USAO expects continued increased productivity from their assistant U.S. attorneys 
Report of the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit Regarding a 

 Judicial Emergency in the Central District of California 

April 9, 2020

Page 6

(AUSAs). The number of AUSAs in the Central District is at an all-time high, as 

the USAO will soon have approximately 220 AUSAs to prosecute criminal cases.

The USAO has more than doubled the size of its Riverside branch. The Eastern 

Division, which handles cases from San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, has 

only one district judge, which is insufficient to cover the number of criminal cases 

filed there. Overflow cases are assigned to the district judges in Los Angeles and,

pre-COVID-19, the AUSAs had to travel over 120 miles roundtrip to appear at 

those hearings. 

D. Judicial Vacancies 

The District is authorized 27 permanent judgeships, one temporary 

judgeship, and has 10 vacancies, the oldest of which has remained unfilled since 

2014. All are categorized as judicial emergencies. There are eight nominees 

pending, but due to the COVID-19 pandemic the status of confirmation hearing 

dates remains uncertain. Seven active district judges are eligible to take senior 

status or retire immediately.

Twenty-four full-time, one part-time, and two recalled magistrate judges are 

leveraged to manage the District’s congested court. In the recent 2021 Biennial 

Survey of Judgeship Needs, the District has requested 15 additional judgeships and 

the conversion of its one temporary judgeship to permanent status. Since 2011, the 

District has requested anywhere from 8 to 13 additional judgeships. 

E. Limited Courtroom Availability

Chief Judge Phillips has reported that the District is currently operating 

under limited capacity during the COVID-19 pandemic. Only limited hearings are 

being conducted, and there are constraints on the use of video and teleconference 

resources. The District has limited access to its local detention centers and jails. 

These facilities have limited resources for video and telephonic conferences, and 

defendants must be transferred to the closest courthouse for conferencing. Given 

the sheer number of hearings, there are not enough telephone and video resources 

to accommodate all 52 district and magistrate judges who need to use the 

equipment at any given time. 
Report of the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit Regarding a 

 Judicial Emergency in the Central District of California 

April 9, 2020

Page 7

The District also needs to minimize the exposure in courtroom spaces and 

accommodate the necessary daily sanitizing by the General Services 

Administration (GSA) staff. Under pandemic protocols, GSA is required to follow 

separate disinfection procedures to meet California Department of Public Health 

and Cal/OSHA guidelines to contain and control harmful exposures from aerosol 

transmissible pathogens requiring droplet precautions, including COVID-19. 

IV. Proposal for Alleviating Congestion

A. Visiting Judges

The District is unable to seek designations for visiting judges due to the 

COVID-19 pandemic. While travel restrictions may be mitigated by utilizing 

telephone or video hearings where possible, the judiciary is impacted on a national 

level by the public safety guidelines recommending gatherings of less than 10 

persons and physical distancing of at least six feet.

B. Declaration from CDC Regarding Public Gatherings

The backlog of cases caused by the restriction on public safety mandates can 

only start to be alleviated once the CDC lifts its guidance regarding travelassociated risks and congregate settings and physical distancing and the Court is 

able to determine that it is once again safe to resume its operations as usual. The 

one-year extension will allow the court the necessary time to process the backlog 

as well as manage the influx of new cases once it is deemed once again safe for 

members of the public to congregate.

C. Resumption of Normal Courtroom Operations

Until the CDC lifts restrictions on the size of public gatherings and there is 

consensus that it is once again safe to return the court to its high level of operations 

in all courtrooms, the District is required to conduct court proceedings in as 

minimal court spaces as possible. 
Report of the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit Regarding a 

 Judicial Emergency in the Central District of California 

April 9, 2020

Page 8

V. Conclusion

The Central District of California (along with all of the other districts across 

the Circuit) and the Ninth Circuit Judicial Council are exploring every alternative 

to prioritize essential hearings and keep court operations moving as quickly as 

possible while maintaining the welfare of the public. However, the emergency 

situation in the Central District of California has required the District and the 

Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit to invoke the provisions of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3174(c) to extend the STA time periods for bringing defendants to trials.

Submitted by the Judicial Council 

of the Ninth Circuit:

Sidney R. Thomas, Chief Circuit Judge

Jay S. Bybee, Senior Circuit Judge

Sandra S. Ikuta, Circuit Judge

N. Randy Smith, Senior Circuit Judge

Mary H. Murguia, Circuit Judge

Morgan Christen, Circuit Judge

Phyllis J. Hamilton, Chief District Judge

Ricardo S. Martinez, Chief District Judge

Virginia A. Phillips, Chief District Judge

Michael J. Seabright, Chief District Judge

Ronald S.W. Lew, Senior District Judge