United States District Court for the Central District of California

Central District of California
Ninth Circuit
Judgeships
Posts: 28
Judges: 25
Vacancies: 3
Judges
Chief: Dolly Gee
Active judges: Fernando Aenlle-Rocha, Mónica Ramírez Almadani, Percy Anderson, Jesus Bernal, André Birotte Jr., Stanley Blumenfeld, David Carter, Michelle Williams Court, Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong, Michael Fitzgerald, Sherilyn P. Garnett, Dolly Gee, John William Holcomb, Wesley L. Hsu, Kenly Kiya Kato, Robert Klausner, Fernando Olguin, Mark C. Scarsi, Fred W. Slaughter, Josephine Staton, Sunshine S. Sykes, Hernán D. Vera, John Walter, Stephen Wilson, Otis Wright Senior judges: Valerie Baker Fairbank, Dale Fischer, Terry Hatter, Aaron Kampfe, William Duffy Keller, John A. Kronstadt, Ronald Lew, Consuelo Marshall, Virginia Phillips, Dean Pregerson, James Selna, Christina Snyder, George Wu

The United States District Court for the Central District of California is one of 94 United States district courts. The court serves about seventeen million people in southern and central California, making it the largest federal judicial district by population. The district operates out of courthouses in Santa Ana, Riverside and two locations in Los Angeles. When decisions of the court are appealed, they are appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, based in downtown San Francisco at the James R. Browning Federal Courthouse. Initial appeals are heard in Pasadena at the Richard Chambers Courthouse.

Vacancies

See also: Current federal judicial vacancies

There are three current vacancies on the United States District Court for the Central District of California, out of the court's 28 judicial positions.

Pending nominations

Judge	Appointed By	Assumed Office	Bachelors	Law
Anne Hwang	Joe Biden (D)		Cornell University	University of Southern California, Gould School of Law
Cynthia Valenzuela	Joe Biden (D)
Serena R. Murillo	Joe Biden (D)		University of California, San Deigo	Loyola Law School

Active judges

Article III judges

Judge	Appointed By	Assumed Office	Bachelors	Law
Stephen Wilson	Ronald Reagan (R)	October 17, 1985 -	Lehigh University, 1963	Brooklyn Law School, 1967
David Carter	Bill Clinton (D)	October 22, 1998 -	University of California, Los Angeles, 1967	University of California, Los Angeles School of Law, 1972
John Walter	George W. Bush (R)	May 1, 2002 -	Loyola University of Los Angeles, 1966	Loyola University School of Law, Los Angeles, 1969
Percy Anderson	George W. Bush (R)	May 1, 2002 -	University of California, Los Angeles, 1970	University of California, Los Angeles School of Law, 1975
Robert Klausner	George W. Bush (R)	November 15, 2002 -	University of Notre Dame, 1964	Loyola Law School, 1967
Otis Wright	George W. Bush (R)	April 16, 2007 -	California State University, Los Angeles, 1976	Southwestern School of Law, 1980
Dolly Gee	Barack Obama (D)	January 4, 2010 -	University of California, Los Angeles, 1981	University of California, Los Angeles School of Law, 1984
Josephine Staton	Barack Obama (D)	June 22, 2010 -	William Jewell College, 1983	Harvard Law School, 1986
Michael Fitzgerald	Barack Obama (D)	March 15, 2012 -	Harvard, 1981	University of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law, 1985
Jesus Bernal	Barack Obama (D)	December 12, 2012 -	Yale, 1986	Stanford Law, 1989
Fernando Olguin	Barack Obama (D)	January 16, 2013 -	Harvard, 1985	University of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law, 1989
André Birotte Jr.	Barack Obama (D)	August 8, 2014 -	Tufts University, 1987	Pepperdine University Law School, 1991
John William Holcomb	Donald Trump (R)	September 18, 2020 -	Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1984	Harvard Law School, 1993
Mark C. Scarsi	Donald Trump (R)	September 18, 2020 -	Syracuse University, 1987	Georgetown University Law Center, 1996
Stanley Blumenfeld	Donald Trump (R)	September 18, 2020 -	State University of New York, Binghamton, 1984	University of California, Los Angeles, 1988
Fernando Aenlle-Rocha	Donald Trump (R)	December 22, 2020 -	Princeton University, 1983	University of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law, 1986
Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong	Joe Biden (D)	February 7, 2022 -	Harvard University	Yale Law School
Fred W. Slaughter	Joe Biden (D)	April 19, 2022 -	University of California, Los Angeles	University of California, Los Angeles
Sunshine S. Sykes	Joe Biden (D)	June 14, 2022 -	Stanford University	Stanford Law School
Sherilyn P. Garnett	Joe Biden (D)	June 24, 2022 -	University of California, Riverside	Harvard Law School
Wesley L. Hsu	Joe Biden (D)	May 12, 2023 -	Yale University	Yale University
Hernán D. Vera	Joe Biden (D)	June 15, 2023 -	Stanford University, 1991	UCLA School of Law, 1994
Kenly Kiya Kato	Joe Biden (D)	November 17, 2023 -	UCLA, 1993	Harvard School of Law, 1996
Mónica Ramírez Almadani	Joe Biden (D)	November 21, 2023 -	Harvard University, 2001	Stanford Law School, 2004
Michelle Williams Court	Joe Biden (D)	November 7, 2024 -	Pomona College	Loyola Law School

Active Article III judges by appointing political party

The list below displays the number of active judges by the party of the appointing president. It does not reflect how a judge may rule on specific cases or their own political preferences.

• Democrat appointed: 16
• Republican appointed: 9

Senior judges

Judge	Appointed By	Assumed Office	Bachelors	Law
William Duffy Keller	Ronald Reagan (R)	October 29, 1999 -	University of California, Berkeley, 1956	University of California, Los Angeles School of Law, 1960
Terry Hatter	Jimmy Carter (D)	April 22, 2005 -	Wesleyan University, 1954	University of Chicago Law School, 1960
Consuelo Marshall	Jimmy Carter (D)	October 24, 2005 -	Howard University, 1958	Howard University, 1961
Ronald Lew	Ronald Reagan (R)	September 19, 2006 -	Loyola University, Los Angeles, CA, 1964	Southwestern University School of Law, 1971
Valerie Baker Fairbank	George W. Bush (R)	March 1, 2012 -	University of California, Santa Barbara, 1971	UCLA School of Law
Dean Pregerson	Bill Clinton (D)	January 28, 2016 -	University of California, Los Angeles, 1972	University of California, Davis, 1976
Christina Snyder	Bill Clinton (D)	November 23, 2016 -	Pomona College, 1969	Stanford Law School, 1972
James Selna	George W. Bush (R)	March 3, 2020 -	Stanford University, 1967	Stanford Law School, 1970
Virginia Phillips	Bill Clinton (D)	February 14, 2022 -	University of California, Riverside, 1979	University of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law, 1982
John A. Kronstadt	Barack Obama (D)	April 1, 2022 -	Cornell University, 1973	Yale Law School, 1976
Aaron Kampfe	George W. Bush (R)	November 3, 2023 -
George Wu	George W. Bush (R)	November 3, 2023 -	Pomona College, 1972	University of Chicago Law School, 1975
Dale Fischer	George W. Bush (R)	May 1, 2024 -	University of South Florida, 1977	Harvard Law School, 1980

Senior judges by appointing political party

The list below displays the number of senior judges by the party of the appointing president. It does not reflect how a judge may rule on specific cases or their own political preferences.

• Democrat appointed: 6
• Republican appointed: 6

Magistrate judges

Federal magistrate judges are federal judges who serve in United States district courts, but they are not appointed by the president and they do not serve life terms. Magistrate judges are assigned duties by the district judges in the district in which they serve. They may preside over most phases of federal proceedings, except for criminal felony trials. The specific duties of a magistrate judge vary from district to district, but the responsibilities always include handling matters that would otherwise be on the dockets of the district judges. Full-time magistrate judges serve for renewable terms of eight years. Some federal district courts have part-time magistrate judges, who serve for renewable terms of four years.

Judge	Appointed By	Assumed Office	Bachelors	Law
Alexander F. MacKinnon			University of Michigan,E., 1977	University of Michigan Law School, 1981
Alicia Rosenberg			Wellesley College, 1982	University of California, Los Angeles School of Law, 1985
Alka Sagar			UCLA, 1981	UCLA School of Law, 1984
Douglas F. McCormick			University of California, Irvine, 1991	UCLA School of Law, 1995
Gail J. Standish				UCLA School of Law, 1993
Jacqueline Chooljian			University of California, Los Angeles, 1982	University of Southern California, Gould School of Law, 1986
John Early			University of Notre Dame, 1990	UCLA School of Law, 1993
John McDermott			Ohio Wesleyan University, 1968	Harvard Law School, 1971
Karen Scott			Stanford University	Stanford Law School
Karen Stevenson			University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill	Stanford Law School
Louise A. LaMothe				Stanford School of Law, 1971
Michael Wilner			Dartmouth College, 1988	University of Pennsylvania Law School, 1991
Paul Abrams			University of California, Berkeley, 1979	University of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law, 1983
Rozella Anne Oliver			Harvard University, 1992	Stanford Law School, 1999
Sheri Pym			Williams College, 1989	University of California, Los Angeles School of Law, 1994
Charles F. Eick		January 29, 1988 -	Tulane University, 1975	University of Texas Law, 1978
Jean Rosenbluth		September 23, 2011 -	Barnard College, 1983	University of Southern California, Gould School of Law, 1993
Steve Kim		April 11, 2016 -	University of Oklahoma	Georgetown University Law Center
Shashi Kewalramani		August 10, 2017 -	University of Texas at Austin, 1993	Baylor University School of Law, 1996
Maria Audero		June 11, 2018 -		Southwestern University School of Law
Autumn Spaeth		June 15, 2018 -	University of California, Los Angeles	The University of Southern California
Pedro Castillo		January 24, 2020 -	Stanford University	University of Arizona College of Law
Patricia Donahue	United States District Court for the Central District of California	May 4, 2020 -	Stanford University	University of California, Los Angeles
Margo Rocconi	United States District Court for the Central District of California	March 19, 2021 -	University of California, Santa Barbara	Pepperdine University School of Law

Jurisdiction

The Counties of the Central District of California (click for larger map)

The Central District of California has original jurisdiction over cases filed within its jurisdiction. These cases can include civil and criminal matters that fall under federal law.

There are three court divisions, each covering the following counties:

The Eastern Division, covering Riverside and San Bernardino counties.

The Southern Division, covering Orange County.

The Western Division, covering Los Angeles, Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo and Ventura counties.

Caseloads

This section contains court management statistics dating back to 2010. It was last updated in September 2023. Click [show] below for more information on caseload terms and definitions.

Caseload statistics explanation
Term	Explanation
Cases filed and terminated	The number of civil and criminal lawsuits formally initiated or decided by the court in a calendar year. The chart below reflects the table columns Cases filed and Cases terminated.
Average time from filing to disposition	The average amount of time, in months, from a case's date of filing to date of disposition (acquittal, sentencing, dismissal, etc.). The chart below reflects the table columns Median time (Criminal) and Median time (Civil).
Starting case load	The number of cases pending from the previous calendar year.
Cases filed	The number of civil and criminal lawsuits formally initiated in a calendar year.
Cases terminated	The total number of civil and criminal lawsuits decided by the court in a calendar year.
Remaining cases	The number of civil and criminal cases pending at the end of a given year.
Median time (Criminal)	The average amount of time, in months, from a case's date of filing to the date of disposition. In criminal cases, the date of disposition occurs on the day of sentencing or acquittal/dismissal.
Median time (Civil)	The average amount of time, in months, from a case's date of filing to the date of disposition.
Three-year civil cases	The number and percent of civil cases that were filed more than three years before the end of the given calendar year.
Vacant posts	The number of months during the year an authorized judgeship was vacant.
Trial/Post	The number of trials completed divided by the number of authorized judgeships on the court. Trials include evidentiary trials, hearings on temporary restraining orders, and preliminary injunctions.
Source: United States Courts, "Explanation of the Judicial Caseload Profiles for United States District Courts," accessed September 25, 2018

United States District Court for the Central District of California caseload stats, 2010-2022
Year	Cases Filed	Cases Terminated	Cases Pending	Number of Judgeships	Vacant Judgeship Months	Average Total Filings per Judgeship	Trials Completed per Judgeship	Median time from filing to disposition, criminal	Median time from filing to disposition, civil	Three-year civil cases (#)	Three-year civil cases (%)
2010	17,278	16,719	14,443	28	29	617	13	12	6	825	7
2011	17,149	17,644	12,605	28	21	612	13	11	6	638	6
2012	18,580	18,308	14,238	28	31	664	13	10	5	597	6
2013	16,712	17,361	13,501	28	3	597	14	12	6	610	6
2014	16,540	17,062	12,837	28	9	591	15	14	6	609	6
2015	16,550	16,858	12,474	28	14	591	12	17	5	557	6
2016	16,538	16,435	12,575	28	36	591	12	16	5	550	6
2017	16,250	16,477	12,376	28	63	580	12	13	5	545	6
2018	18,102	16,232	14,273	28	74	647	12	13	5	564	5
2019	18,125	17,648	14,695	28	102	647	10	14	5	597	5
2020	18,207	17,388	15,310	28	108	650	4	17	5	667	6
2021	15,853	17,255	13,879	28	93	566	8	19	5	903	9
2022	15,495	15,881	13,491	28	80	553	9	20	5	975	9
Average	17,029	17,021	13,592	28	51	608	11	15	5	664	6

History

The Central District of California was established by Congress on March 18, 1966. Following this act, ten judicial posts were transferred from the Southern District of California, with the addition of three new judicial posts. Over time, fifteen more judicial posts were added for a total of twenty-eight posts.

Judicial posts

The following table highlights the development of judicial posts for the Central District of California:

Year	Statute	Total Seats
March 18, 1966	80 Stat. 75	13
June 2, 1970	84 Stat. 294	16
October 20, 1978	92 Stat. 1629	17
July 10, 1984	98 Stat. 333	22
December 1, 1990	104 Stat. 5089	27
November 2, 2002	116 Stat. 1758	28

Noteworthy cases

For cases in the Central District of California, see United States Department of Justice-California or Recently Issued Opinions and Orders-Central District of California.

• California's death penalty ruled unconstitutional (2014)      Judge(s):Cormac Carney (Jones v. Chappell, 2:09-cv-02158-CJC)	Click for summary→
On July 16, 2014, Judge Cormac Carney ruled that California's death penalty system violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, and was therefore unconstitutional. He also found that executions following the California system's inherent delays would "serve no retributive or deterrent purpose and [would] be arbitrary." In the underlying case, plaintiff Ernest Dewayne Jones was sentenced to death on April 7, 1995, yet lived on California's Death Row awaiting his eventual execution for almost twenty years. In Jones' case, it took four years for an attorney to be appointed to represent him in his direct appeal to the California Supreme Court in 1999. Four years later, in 2003, that court affirmed Jones' conviction. Jones then applied to the Supreme Court of the United States for certiorari, which was later denied in 2003. Jones' state habeas corpus attorney was appointed in 2000, five years after he was sentenced to death. Two years later, in 2002, his state habeas attorney filed Jones' petition. The California Supreme Court denied that petition six and a half years later, in 2009. In 2010, Jones filed a federal habeas petition, and briefing on the case was completed in January 2014. In April 2014, Jones amended the petition to expand upon his claims of unconstitutional delay in California's administration of its death penalty system. Jones' timeline of events and his allegations of unconstitutional delay are what brought about Judge Carney's finding. In his opinion, Judge Carney noted that California's death penalty system was "so plagued by inordinate and unpredictable delay" that the average review process took about 25 years. Judge Carney further pointed out that more prisoners on California's Death Row died of natural causes while awaiting their execution than were actually executed by the state. Since 1978, just thirteen out of the more than 900 who have lived on Death Row who were sentenced to death were executed. In view of these facts, Judge Carney went on to write: “ For all practical purposes then, a sentence of death in California is a sentence of life imprisonment with the remote possibility of death—a sentence no rational legislature or jury could ever impose. ” Judge Carney concluded his opinion by stating that California's continued delays "resulted in a system that serves no penological purpose," and that "[s]uch a system is unconstitutional." Judge Carney then vacated Jones' death sentence.

• California foie gras ban (2013)      Judge(s):Stephen V. Wilson (Association des Eleveurs de Canards et d’Oies du Quebec v. Harris, D.C. No. 2:12-cv-05735-SVW-RZ)	Click for summary→
Judge Stephen V. Wilson presided over a suit brought by out-of-state producers of foie gras over California’s Bird Feeding bill, which served as a ban on the sale of fattened duck liver. The plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary emergency injunction, arguing that the law was unconstitutionally vague and adversely affected interstate commerce. Judge Wilson denied the motion, ruling that because it was not timely filed, the arguments must be made in court. The plaintiffs appealed to a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, where their arguments were heard by Judges Harry Pregerson, Raymond C. Fisher, and Wiley Daniel. The appeals court affirmed Judge Wilson’s ruling, and remanded the case back to his courtroom. See opinion here: Association des Eleveurs de Canards et d’Oies du Quebec v. Harris

• Toyota lawsuits (2010-2012)      Judge(s):James Selna (In re: Toyota Motor Corp. Unintended Acceleration Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, 8:10-ml-02151-JVS-FMO)	Click for summary→
Judge James Selna was chosen on April 9, 2010, to preside over 200 lawsuits involving the car maker Toyota. A group of twenty-six attorneys sued Toyota for negligence after the company was forced to recall many vehicles due to sudden acceleration problems. In December 2012, a settlement between Toyota and the claimants was announced. While the exact amount was not known, Toyota was said to have paid $1.2 to $1.4 billion directly to car owners, in order to install new brake systems into millions of cars.

• "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy (2010)      Judge(s):Virginia Phillips (Log Cabin Republicans v. United States of America, et al, CV 04-08425-VAP(EX))	Click for summary→
In September 2010, Judge Virginia Phillips ruled that the U.S. military's policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," which outlined the rules regarding homosexuals serving in the armed forces, violated the First and Fifth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. The ruling found in favor of the plaintiffs, stating that the policy restricted soldiers' rights to substantive due process and free speech. However, the policy was not overturned as a result. See opinion here: Log Cabin Republicans v. United States of America

• Bus shutdown case (2010)      Judge(s):George King	Click for summary→
Judge King ordered Tierra Santa, an interstate bus transportation company, to cease its operations on March 6, 2010. This came after the Federal Motor Carrier Administration ordered the company to stop operations after a tragic bus accident on March 5, 2010, in Arizona. According to federal authorities, the bus operator during that accident was operating illegally.

• Erin Andrews stalker case (2010)      Judge(s):Manuel Real (USA v. Barrett, 2:09-mj-02270-DUTY)	Click for summary→
Judge Manuel Real presided in the case of Michael David Barrett, a former insurance executive from Illinois who was accused of stalking ESPN sideline reporter Erin Andrews in Wisconsin, Tennessee, and Ohio. Barrett pleaded guilty as part of a plea agreement, and originally agreed to a twenty-seven-month prison sentence. However, Andrews pleaded to Judge Real that she wanted Barrett locked up for as long as possible. Despite her plea for a longer sentence, the judge sentenced Barrett to twenty-seven months in prison on March 15, 2010.

• Supermarket labor fraud (2010)      Judge(s):Percy Anderson (USA v. McGowan et al, 2:08-cr-01116-PA)	Click for summary→
Judge Percy Anderson sentenced two former supermarket managers to probation for telling locked out employees to use false social security numbers to get re-hired during a grocery strike in 2003 and 2004. The two former zone managers for Ralph's Supermarkets were sentenced on March 22, 2010, to two years of probation. They were convicted of falsifying Internal Revenue Service and Immigration and Naturalization Service documents.

• Medical Capital Holdings (2009)      Judge(s):David Carter (Securities and Exchange Commission v. Medical Capital Holdings Inc et al, 8:09-cv-00818-DOC-RNB)	Click for summary→
On July 20, 2009, Judge David Carter barred Medical Capital Holdings Inc. from selling additional securities in an offering that raised at least $76.9 million. The ruling was in response to a complaint alleging fraud against the company filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Judge Carter also froze the assets of the company and its subsidiaries, and appointed a temporary receiver to oversee the firm. The SEC filed a complaint on July 16, 2009, alleging that the financial services company committed fraud as far back as 2003. The SEC complaint also alleged that the company lied to shareholders over not reporting $1.2 billion in notes outstanding and $992.5 million in notes that went into default.

• California Prop 8 case (2009)      Judge(s):David Carter (Arthur Smelt et al v. United States of America et al, 8:09-cv-00286-DOC-MLG)	Click for summary→
On July 17, 2009, Judge David Carter threw out a lawsuit involving Proposition 8 on a federal constitutional challenge. A homosexual couple sued the State of California claiming the 2008 ballot measure violated the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996. The judge's ruling found the plaintiffs were legally married before the enactment of Proposition 8. Because the California Supreme Court in May of 2009 ruled that their marriage would be upheld, there was no "injury" caused by the measure.

• Green cards (2009)      Judge(s):James Selna	Click for summary→
Judge James Selna presided in a case involving age restrictions on immigration green cards. A group of green card holders sued the federal government, claiming that if children turned age twenty-one while their parents were awaiting a green card, they could have new applications signed on their behalf. However, the judge ruled on October 13, 2009, that if a child turned age twenty-one, they must restart the application process.

• Beat.com case (2009)      Judge(s):John Walter (Capitol Records, LLC et al v. Bluebeat Inc. et al, 2:09-cv-08030-JST -JC)	Click for summary→
Judge John Walter was the presiding judge in a lawsuit involving the music website BlueBeat.com. The judge on November 5, 2009, issued a restraining order on the music website on selling songs from the legendary music group The Beatles. EMI, which held the rights to The Beatles music, alleged the website illegally sold Beatles songs. In March 2011, BlueBeat.com agreed to pay over $1 million to EMI in a settlement.

• MySpace suicide case (2009)      Judge(s):George Wu (USA v. Lori Drew, 2:08-cr-00582-GW-1)	Click for summary→
Judge George Wu was the presiding judge in the case of a Missouri woman who was convicted of computer fraud charges stemming from an Internet hoax that prompted a teenage girl to commit suicide. On July 2, 2009, Judge Wu decided to tentatively acquit Lori Drew, who was convicted in November 2008. The decision reversed a jury's verdict which convicted the woman of computer fraud charges. The case received a lot of national attention and created an uproar on the issue of internet security. On August 28, 2009, Judge Wu officially reversed the conviction of Lori Drew. The judge found that the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act was not applied beyond a reasonable doubt in convicting Drew of a misdemeanor. Wu said that the federal law that governed terms and conditions of visiting a website was "constitutionally vague." Almost three months later, federal prosecutors said they would not appeal Judge Wu's dismissal of charges against Drew.

• Economic espionage case (2009)      Judge(s):Cormac Carney (USA v. Dongfan Chung, 8:08-cr-00024-CJC-1)	Click for summary→
In 2009, Judge Cormac Carney presided over the trial of a Chinese-born engineer who was charged with stealing trade secrets critical to the U.S. space program. Dongfan "Greg" Chung was found guilty on July 14, 2009, of six counts of economic espionage and other charges, including hoarding 300,000 pages of sensitive documents in his home. The charges included that Chung destroyed information about a U.S. space shuttle and a booster rocket. Chung was a space engineer for Boeing, and used to work for Rockwell Automation. During the investigation, federal investigators found papers in Chung's home that included top-secret information about a fueling system for a booster rocket. It was against company policy for Boeing employees to take sensitive documents home. The documents that investigators found were part of Boeing's $50 million investment for the booster rocket system. Chung was the first person convicted under the Economic Espionage Act of 1996. The 1996 law was created to help the government crack down on stolen information from private companies that contracted with the federal government. The law applied to contractors that provided technology services for the U.S. space and military programs.

• Billboards lawsuit (2009)      Judge(s):Audrey Collins (World Wide Rush LLC et al v. Los Angeles City of et al, 2:07-cv-00238-ABC -JWJ)	Click for summary→
Judge Audrey Collins was the presiding judge in a highly charged lawsuit involving World Wide Rush, LLC and the City of Los Angeles. The lawsuit claimed that the City of Los Angeles wrongfully refused permits to approve billboards in the city. The judge disallowed the lawsuit on the basis there was not enough evidence World Wide Rush could prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

• LAPD consent decree case (2009)      Judge(s):Gary Feess	Click for summary→
On July 17, 2009, Judge Gary Feess lifted a decade-long consent decree on the Los Angeles Police Department. The consent decree happened after the Rampart scandal which affected the anti-gang unit of the police force. The scandal was one of a number of incidents that bruised the image of the department during the 1990s. In 1999, a federal judge ordered that the Los Angeles Police Department appoint an independent monitor and comply with 100 reforms including a ban on all racial profiling. After noted improvements as to how the LAPD conducted its operations, the independent monitor asked the judge for an end to the decree. In ending the decree, the judge approved a transition agreement that would move oversight of the department to the Los Angeles Police Commission. The agreement ordered units of the department to report to the police oversight body. Judge Feess told the parties that the court would keep jurisdiction over the agreement.

• Sealed records lawsuit (2009)      Judge(s):Stephen V. Wilson	Click for summary→
On August 4, 2009, the Los Angeles Times and the Associated Press filed a motion asking Judge Stephen V. Wilson to unseal court transcripts in a lawsuit over a Jewish activist who was killed in prison. The motion came after Judge Wilson sealed the records concerning a protective order from the Bureau of Prisons that protected the identity of a prisoner. Judge Wilson closed the civil trial, and only allowed information released to the public after "sensitive information" was removed.

• Medi-Cal injunction (2008-2009)      Judge(s):Christina Snyder (California Medical Association, et al v. Toby Douglas, et al, CV 11-9688 (MANx))	Click for summary→
In August 2008, Judge Christina Snyder issued an original injunction against the California Department of Health Services and the California Legislature. Judge Snyder granted California an injunction on state-mandated cuts of reimbursement rates against Medi-Cal providers. The original lawsuit was filed by Medi-Cal providers after the state legislature approved ten percent cuts of reimbursement rates for Medi-Cal providers in February 2008. The legislation was approved by both houses of the California legislature and was approved by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. The cuts went into effect on July 1, 2008. On August 18, 2008, Judge Snyder granted a partial injunction against the State of California. Judge Snyder blocked the ten percent cut for providers. However, Snyder ruled that managed-care plans and acute-care hospitals not under contract with the State were subject to the ten percent reductions. After the August ruling, David Maxwell-Jolly, who headed Medi-Cal, argued that the injunction should apply only to payments for services provided on or after August 18, the day the judge issued the order. Snyder accepted the arguments of Mr. Maxwell-Jolly, and granted the adjustment which prompted appeals by all parties to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In a separate ruling on February 27, 2009, Snyder issued an injunction against the State of California. Snyder barred the state from imposing a five percent cut in Medi-Cal payments to pharmacies. On July 10, 2009, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed Judge Snyder's decision of withholding reduced reimbursements from July 1 to August 18, 2008. The Ninth Circuit's ruling came amid a serious budget deficit the state faced.

• Withheld medical treatment for detainee (2008)      Judge(s):Dean Pregerson (Castaneda v. The United States of America California et al, 2:07-cv-07241-DDP-JC)	Click for summary→
Judge Dean Pregerson ruled that immigration officials' decision to withhold medical treatment from a detainee was "beyond cruel and unusual." The detainee, Francisco Castaneda, died of penile cancer on February 16, 2008. According to the suit, the government denied the detainee treatment for eleven months, refusing to authorize a biopsy for a growing lesion, despite the urging of numerous medical professionals. Instead, the government gave Castaneda antihistamines, ibuprofen, and extra boxer shorts. The judge characterized the treatment in his ruling as "nothing." Per Los Angeles Times staff writer Henry Weinstein, "Pregerson blasted public health officials' 'attempt to sidestep responsibility for what appear[ed] to be . . . one of the most, if not the most, egregious' violations of the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment that 'the court ha[d] ever encountered.'"

Noteworthy events

Federal Judicial Conference recommendation (2019)

In March 2019, the Federal Judicial Conference (FJC) recommended that nine judgeships be added to the district and one temporary judgeship be made permanent. Based on FJC data, the district handled 627 weighted filings per judgeship from September 2017 to September 2018. Weighted filings are a specific metric used by the federal judiciary that accounts for the different amounts of time judges require to resolve types of civil and criminal cases. The national average in that period for weighted filings per judgeship was 513.

The FJC is the policy-making body for the United States federal courts system. It was first organized as the Conference of Senior Circuit Judges in 1922. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States serves as chair of the conference. The members of the conference are the chief judge of each judicial circuit, the Chief Judge of the Court of International Trade, and a district judge from each regional judicial circuit.

Federal courthouse

Four separate courthouses serve the Central District of California: two in Los Angeles, one in Riverside, and one in Santa Anna.

About United States District Courts

The United States district courts are the general trial courts of the United States federal courts. There are 94 such courts. Both civil and criminal cases are filed in the district court, which is a court of both law and equity.

There is a United States bankruptcy court and a number of bankruptcy judges associated with each United States district court. Each federal judicial district has at least one courthouse, and most districts have more than one.

There is at least one judicial district for each state, and one each for Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia. District courts in three insular areas—the United States Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands—exercise the same jurisdiction as U.S. district courts. Despite their name, these courts are technically not District Courts of the United States. Judges on these territorial courts do not enjoy the protections of Article III of the Constitution, and serve terms of 10 years rather than for life.

There are 677 U.S. District Court judgeships.

The number of federal district judge positions is set by the U.S. Congress in Title 28 of the U.S. Code, Section 133, which authorizes a set number of judge positions, or judgeships, making changes and adjustments in these numbers from time to time.

In order to relieve the pressure of trying the hundreds of thousands of cases brought before the federal district courts each year, many trials are tried by juries, along with a presiding judge.

Appointments by president

The chart below shows the number of district court judges confirmed by the U.S. Senate through November 1 of the fourth year of each president's term in office. At this point in the term, President Bill Clinton had the most district court appointments with 169.

Judges by district

See also: Judicial vacancies in federal courts

The table below displays the number of judges in each district and indicates how many were appointed by presidents from each major political party. It also includes the number of vacancies in a district and how many pending nominations for that district are before the United States Senate. The table can be sorted by clicking the column headers above the line, and you can navigate through the pages by clicking the arrows at the top of the table. It is updated every Monday.

Judicial selection

The district courts are served by Article III federal judges who are appointed for life during "good behavior." They are usually first recommended by senators (or members of the House, occasionally). The President of the United States makes the appointments, which must then be confirmed by the U.S. Senate in accordance with Article III of the United States Constitution.

Step	A Candidacy Proceeds	A Candidacy Halts
1. Recommendation made by Congress Member to the President	President Nominates to Senate Judiciary Committee	President Declines Nomination
2. Senate Judiciary Committee interviews Candidate	Sends candidate to Senate for confirmation	Returns candidate to President, who may re-nominate to Committee
3. Senate votes on candidate confirmation	Candidate becomes federal judge	Candidate does not receive judgeship

Magistrate judges

The district courts are also served by magistrate judges. Congress created the judicial office of federal magistrate in 1968. In 1990, the position title was changed to magistrate judge. The chief judge of each district appoints one or more magistrate judges, who discharge many of the ancillary duties of district judges so judges can handle more trials. There are both full-time and part-time magistrate judge positions, and these positions are assigned to the district courts according to caseload criteria (subject to funding by Congress). A full-time magistrate judge serves a term of eight years; a part-time magistrate judge's term of office is four years.

See also

• United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• District of Alaska
• District of Arizona
• Eastern District of California
• Northern District of California
• Southern District of California
• District of Hawaii
• District of Idaho
• District of Montana
• District of Nevada
• District of Oregon
• Eastern District of Washington
• Western District of Washington
• United States District Court for the District of Guam
• United States District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands

External links

• Search Google News for this topic
• Central District of California, "Official Website"
• United States Attorney's Office, "Central District of California"
• Central District of California, "Opinions and Orders"
• Central District of California, "Judges' Procedures and Schedules"