Richard C. Tallman
How Judge Tallman rules, drawn from 49 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Tallman
Richard C. Tallman is a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Appointed by President William J. Clinton, Judge Tallman received a commission on May 25, 2000. Judge Tallman assumed senior status on March 3, 2018.
Judge Tallman's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Tallman's own (checked October 11, 2026), so the court's local rules and general orders are the place to look (court page ↗).
Standing orders for every case in this court
Orders the court applies to all of its cases, whichever judge has them, as published on the court's website (checked October 11, 2026).
How Judge Tallman decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In United States v. Monghur, Tallman held that Monghur’s coded efforts to conceal a firearm showed an intent to preserve privacy in its container, not waive it.
“Monghur’s efforts to conceal the subject matter based on what he said on the phone demonstrate both an objective and subjective intention to preserve privacy — not to relinquish it.”
In United States v. Salazar, Tallman held that the safety-valve proffer requirement in § 3553(f)(5) had no futility exception.
“We hold that there is no futility exception to the proffer requirement in § 3553(f)(5).”
In Tourgeman v. Nelson & Kennard, Tallman affirmed denial of class statutory damages under the FDCPA because proof of the defendant’s net worth was essential to that award.
“Because the FDCPA makes evidence of the defendant’s net worth essential to an award of class statutory damages, we agree with the district court and affirm.”
In Johnson v. Adgar, Tallman held that an officer was entitled to qualified immunity on a federal excessive-force claim after distinguishing the precedent offered to show the right was clearly established, despite finding a Fourth Amendment violation.
“In sum, we conclude that Officer Adgar did not violate clearly established law because Nelson is materially distinguishable from the situation he confronted.”
Procedural preferences
In Vega v. United States, Tallman declined to extend a Bivens damages remedy to the claims before the panel in light of available alternative remedies.
“In light of the available alternative remedies, we decline to expand Bivens in this context.”
In United States v. Ruckes, Tallman held that evidence from a vehicle search was properly admitted under the inevitable discovery exception after rejecting the government’s principal search theory.
“Therefore, the evidence was properly admitted under the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule.”
In Youngblood’s firearms appeal, he declined to reach an as-applied constitutional challenge because the opening brief did not argue it specifically and distinctly.
“We accordingly hold that Youngblood has waived his as-applied challenge by failing to specifically and distinctly argue it.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“The district court properly denied Marquez's motion to suppress the contraband found during TSA screening.”
“AFFIRMED.”
“Therefore, the evidence was properly admitted under the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule.”
“For the foregoing reasons, we VACATE the conviction and the order denying Monghur's suppression motion and REMAND to the district court for further proceedings.”
“The Washington Supreme Court has now held that the WPLA permits relief in such circumstances, therefore we REVERSE and REMAND to permit Bylsma to amend his Complaint to conform to Washington law.”
“We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm the sentence imposed by the district court.”
“REVERSED AND REMANDED.”
“For that reason, we deny Ezell's motion for certification to file another habeas corpus petition.”
“Since we hold the district court did not abuse its discretion in ruling on the authentication of his voice on the recordings, we affirm Ortiz's conviction.”
“PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.”
“We affirm the judgment of the district court.”
“Prigge's conviction is therefore AFFIRMED.”
Draft for Judge Tallman with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Tallman, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Tallman's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace