Statement to
The Commission on Structural Alternatives for
the Federal Courts of Appeals
Washington, DC 20544

Submitted by

Chris Goelz
8836 SE 60th Street
Mercer Island, WA 98040

Deciding if and how to re-draw the map of the federal appellate courts is a daunting task. The Commission must consider a host of structural, administrative, political and historical factors.

The debate over circuit borders masks the more fundamental issue, which is that the geographic courts of appeals have too many cases to decide. Limits exist to the number of cases that can be processed effectively through a three tier court system. No matter what its recommendation regarding circuit configuration is, I believe it is important for the Commission to highlight this issue.

The circumscription of federal jurisdiction would obviously help create a manageable caseload at all levels of the court system. My understanding is that Congress as a whole is not sensitive to impact on the system of the unfettered expansion of federal jurisdiction. I believe that the Commission should use this opportunity to educate the President and Congress on the importance of formulating and maintaining a workable vision of federal court jurisdiction.

There are also steps that could be taken to relieve the caseload of the courts of appeals independent of the broader jurisdictional issues. Although I have specific suggestions, they are simply examples of what I am sure are scores of ways in which the litigation process can be rethought to help ease the strain on the courts of appeals.

My first suggestion is that all interlocutory review be by writ. Interlocutory appeals tend to disrupt the smooth flow of the case and, at the same time, to be too slow to provide optimum relief for the appellant. Writ practice, with some modest tinkering, is a more appropriate vehicle for interlocutory review.

My second suggestion is that Congress move more appellate jurisdiction into specialized courts of appeals. For example, I believe that the benefits of centralizing review of social security, immigration and tax cases, might outweigh the disadvantages. In our era of near instantaneous communications, the cost/benefit analysis of centralizing review needs to be redone.

My third suggestion is that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure be amended to provide an explicit mechanism for parties to waive their appeal rights before a district court decision is rendered. Parties might willingly opt for a litigation process without appeal to save time and money. Also, parties who want the dispute definitively resolved by a local judge would have that option. I could imagine something analogous to the rule allowing for the waiver of the right to jury trial.

Finally, I believe that some serious, creative thought needs to go into the question of how the federal courts handle disputes involving pro se litigants. I do not believe that the current approach serves any of the relevant constituencies well. Perhaps the Commission could suggest that another commission be put together to explore this issue.

I wish the Commission the best of luck with its charge. I await with interest the results of its efforts.