One might guess the federal court with the most burdensome caseload is based in a city like New York, Chicago or Miami. Many would be surprised to learn that this unenviable distinction belongs to our own Eastern District of California, with its main courthouses in Sacramento and Fresno. The impact of this tremendous caseload is felt not only by the judges and staff members who serve the district, but more importantly by the public – the litigants who turn to the federal court expecting timely and efficient resolution of their disputes.

There are only two solutions to this problem.

The first would be to reduce the number of cases filed in the court. This is not a feasible alternative. Federal judges cannot decide they are too busy to hear a certain type of case and prohibit those from being filed. Our system of justice guarantees every person their day in court, assuming they have an appropriate dispute for federal court consideration. Judges must consider all cases, regardless of their present workload. Quite simply, federal judges cannot influence the size of a court's caseload.

The second solution would be to increase the number of judges serving the district. Our district was created in March 1966 and given three judges. Congress added three more in 1978. Since that time, the number of cases filed in our district has more than tripled. A temporary judgeship was added in 1990, but that position expired in November 2004. Today there are six full-time authorized judgeships to cover 87,000 square miles, roughly 55 percent of California's land mass. Further intensifying the congestion in our court is the fact that one of those positions has been vacant since January. We await congressional action.

Only Congress can create new judgeships. The statistical analysis used by the judiciary's national policy-making body, the Judicial Conference of the United States, shows that the Eastern District's current caseload is at a level that qualifies it for five new judges. We need them now.

We appreciate the long-standing support this court has received from Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer and the state's Congressional delegation. They are aware of our workload demands and are trying to get us relief. I would be remiss if I did not note that we are not the only court in the country that needs more judgeships. An omnibus judgeship bill has not been enacted in nearly 20 years. Recently introduced legislation, S. 1653 – the Federal Judgeship Act of 2009 – which would add 63 new judgeships to the courts of appeals and district courts throughout the country, is pending in the House and Senate. I am compelled to speak out about the court I know best, because the workload demands in the Eastern District of California are so acute.

For all federal district courts, the annual average of weighted filings per authorized judgeship is 471 for the 12-month period ending June 30. This number is not an arbitrary measurement of judicial work. It takes into account the complexity of a case and the time that must be devoted to handling it. In the Eastern District of California, the weighted case filing per authorized judge for this time frame is 1,095, far more than twice the national average. Despite the fact that our judges are among the busiest in the nation, 1,041 cases per judge were resolved throughout the year. By stark contrast, the national average stands at 503 case terminations per judge.

The judges and staff of this district work hard and put in long hours, often through lunch, into the evenings and on weekends. It is not unusual to forgo vacations just to keep from falling further behind. Our senior district judges, including one in his 80s, carry heavy caseloads. Any of our senior judges could choose to leave the court tomorrow. Should this occur, the court's ability to serve the public effectively would be seriously jeopardized. I'm not at all sure how we would manage without them. They can't be replaced. Even with assistance from judges outside the district who volunteered in January to help us reduce our pending caseload, the backlog has nearly returned to previous levels.

The cases being filed simply exceed the number of cases we are able to resolve, despite our best efforts. Case backlog results in costly delays in litigation and is directly attributable to an inadequate number of judgeships in the Eastern District.

I am concerned by the signs of fatigue and frustration in our judges. They worry about the path our district is on and, with no relief in sight, know they cannot keep up this pace indefinitely. Yet they are acutely aware it is the citizens of our district who suffer most when the administration of justice is delayed.

We will continue to press for the passage of a judgeship bill with every means possible at our disposal. In the meantime, we want the public to know that we will continue in our efforts to work smart, to work productively and to provide a level of service the residents of this district deserve.