Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05129/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05129-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEORGE HAMILTON,

Plaintiff, CV F 04 5129 OWW WMW P

vs. ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT

 WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

THOMAS MOORE, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. This proceeding was referred to this

court by Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

The complaint in this action is in the form of a petition or request pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 27(a) to take the depositions of potential defendants in a lawsuit that Plaintiff

intends to file. Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the California Department of Corrections at High

Desert State Prison, seeks to bring a civil rights action against defendant correctional officials employed

by the Department of Corrections at Corcoran State Prison. Plaintiff seeks to bring an action claiming

a conspiracy to violate his civil rights. 

Plaintiff seeks leave to take the depositions of four individual defendants, and to

propound written interrogatories on these defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

27(a). Plaintiff seeks to perpetuate the testimony of these defendants in order to “prevent further

dishonesty, prejudice and irreparable injuries.” 

Case 1:04-cv-05129-OWW -MJS Document 15 Filed 05/29/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

A plaintiff seeking leave to for prelawsuit depositions pursuant to Rule 27(a) must make

a clear showing why an action could not be first filed and the deposition taken later. See State of

Nevada v. O’Leary, 63 F.3d 932, 936 (9 Cir. 1995). Plaintiff must also set forth in some detail “the

th

substance of the testimony” it seeks to preserve. Id. 

Here, plaintiff offers no factual allegation and makes no showing as to why the

testimony of the defendants should be taken pursuant to Rule 27(a). Plaintiff indicates that he needs to

exhaust his available administrative remedies prior to filing suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). 

Plaintiff correctly notes that he can not bring his claim in this action, even if he has exhausted his

remedies during the pendency of this action. McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198 (9 Cir. 2002). 

th

There are no factual allegations and no showing that any of the named defendants

would be unavailable when Plaintiff files his action. Potential plaintiffs can not use Rule 27 to obtain

unknown information in order to enable them to draft a complaint. That Plaintiff has not exhausted his

administrative remedies is not a ground to grant leave to take prelawsuit depositions in order to

perpetuate testimony. Perpetuation of the testimony that would otherwise be lost is the basis for a Rule

27 request. Plaintiff makes no such showing here.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request is dismissed with leave

to amend. Should Plaintiff desire to file an amended request, he should do so within thirty days of the

date of service of this order. Failure to do so will result in a recommendation that this action be

dismissed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 25, 2007 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05129-OWW -MJS Document 15 Filed 05/29/07 Page 2 of 2