Raymond Corley Fisher

How Judge Fisher rules, drawn from 28 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Judge Fisher no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.

Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Position
circuit
Status
Retired 2020
Served
1999–2020
Appointed by
Bill Clinton (Democratic)
Commissioned
1999-10-12
Education
University of California, Santa Barbara (B.A., 1961); Stanford Law School (LL.B., 1966)
Signed orders read
28

How Judge Fisher decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

In an immigration filing appeal, Fisher required the agency to recognize its authority to excuse a late notice in rare circumstances before deciding whether an overnight carrier's failure justified relief. The agency could not deny reconsideration on the mistaken premise that its deadline admitted no exception.

“The BIA’s deadline is thus subject to exceptions in ‘rare circumstances,’ even when the notice of appeal does not actually arrive before the deadline.”

In a disability-benefits appeal, Fisher treated step two of the sequential analysis as a narrow screen for groundless claims. The administrative law judge could stop there only when medical evidence clearly established that the claimant had no severe impairment or combination of impairments.

“Step two, then, is ‘a de minimis screening device [used] to dispose of groundless claims,’ Smolen, 80 F.3d at 1290, and an ALJ may find that a claimant lacks a medically severe impairment or combination of impairments only when his conclusion is ‘clearly established by medical evidence.’”

In a cargo-loss appeal, Fisher enforced the through bill of lading's covenant directing the shipper's insurer to pursue the ocean carrier rather than its rail subcontractor. The governing international cargo rules permitted the carrier to assume exclusive liability for subcontractor negligence.

“We therefore hold that the Hague Rules and COGSA permit a carrier to accept exclusive liability for the negligence of its subcontractors.”

Procedural preferences

In a civil-rights limitations dispute involving alleged psychological injury, Fisher allowed amendment because the claimant could plausibly allege that she did not recognize the treatment had injured her until later. Emotional discomfort during purported therapy did not necessarily establish immediate discovery of the injury.

“The district court erred in denying Gregg leave to amend to try to make a plausible showing that it was not until January 2012 that she first became aware of her injuries from her purported treatment in the LTS program.”

Cautions

In a servicemember's double-jeopardy appeal, Fisher distinguished nonjudicial military punishment from a criminal proceeding. Prior nonjudicial punishment therefore did not bar a later court-martial or civilian prosecution for the same conduct.

“But NJP is not considered a criminal proceeding, so imposition and enforcement of NJP bars neither a subsequent court-martial nor a subsequent civilian prosecution for the same offense.”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

United States v. $80,180.00 in U.S. Currency
· 2002-09-19
Appeal (appellants (forfeiture claimants Alexandra Sandoval and Ramon Rios Milanez)) Denied

“We therefore affirm the district court’s application of the pre-CAFRA burden of proof.”

United States v. Banuelos
· 2003-03-10
Appeal (appellant (defendant James Manuel Banuelos)) Granted

“REVERSED and REMANDED.”

Talking Rain Beverage Co. v. South Beach Beverage Co.
· 2003-11-04
Appeal (appellant (trademark holder / plaintiff Talking Rain Beverage Co.)) Denied

“Thus, we conclude that the district court correctly found that Talking Rain's trademark is functional and therefore invalid. The district court correctly granted summary judgment to SoBe on the federal and state law claims.”

United States v. Jorge Grajeda-Ramirez
· 2003-11-12
Appeal (Defendant-Appellant Jorge Grajeda-Ramirez) Denied

“AFFIRMED.”

United States v. Maria Contreras-Salas
· 2004-11-03
Appeal (Defendant-Appellant Maria Contreras-Salas) Granted

“Accordingly, we REVERSE the district court’s imposition of the enhancement, VACATE the sentence and REMAND for resentencing. The mandate shall issue forthwith.”

Kyu O. Oh v. Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General
· 2005-05-02
Petition for review (Petitioner Kyu Oh) Granted

“PETITION GRANTED AND REMANDED.”

United States v. Miguel Lombera-Valdovinos
· 2005-11-30
Appeal (Defendant-Appellant Miguel Lombera-Valdovinos) Granted

“REVERSED and REMANDED.”

Bruce W. Christensen v. Stevedoring Services of America, Inc.
· 2005-12-07
Appeal (Plaintiff-Appellant Bruce W. Christensen) Denied

“AFFIRMED.”

Webb v. Barnhart
· 2005-12-29
Appeal (appellant (disability claimant Mickey C. Webb)) Granted

“REVERSED and REMANDED.”

Raymond A. Roles v. Lee Maddox
· 2006-02-28
Appeal (Plaintiff-Appellant Raymond A. Roles (pro se prisoner)) Denied

“AFFIRMED.”

Singh v. Gonzales
· 2007-07-19
Petition for review (Petitioner Dalip Singh) Granted

“We therefore GRANT the petition for review and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

Leonardo v. Crawford
· 2011-05-13
Appeal (Petitioner-Appellant Jaime Aldos Leonardo, Jr.) Moot / procedural

“The judgment of the district court is vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to dismiss Leonardo’s petition without prejudice.”

A historical record

Judge Fisher no longer hears cases. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.