Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00317/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00317-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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

27

28

-1- 12cv0317

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORY DOWNS, IV, Civil No. 12cv0317-DMS (NLS)

Petitioner, ORDER: 

(1) DENYING APPLICATION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS;

(2) DENYING MOTION TO

CORRECT THE DOCKET; AND

(3) DISMISSING PETITION 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

v.

DOMINGO URIBE, JR, Warden, et al.,

Respondents

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has submitted a “Rule 27 Petition” which

has been docketed as a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, along

with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. Nos. 1-2.) Petitioner seeks to take the

deposition of two Deputy California Attorneys General in order to determine why his conviction

has not been overturned, and to determine why no court has been informed that exculpatory

material within the meaning of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), has been withheld from

him. (Pet. at 3.) Petitioner has also filed a Motion to Correct the Docket in which he reiterates

that he is bringing a “Rule 27 Petition” and not a habeas petition, and requests the docket be

corrected. (Doc. No. 3.)

For the following reasons, it is clear that Petitioner has not satisfied the requirements for

initiating a Rule 27 action, and that the instant action is properly construed as a federal habeas

Case 3:12-cv-00317-DMS-NLS Document 4 Filed 02/24/12 Page 1 of 5
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

27

28

-2- 12cv0317

petition. Nevertheless, it is clear that the instant Petition is subject to dismissal irrespective of

its form of action. Thus, the Court denies Petitioner’s motion to correct the docket, denies his

motion to proceed in forma pauperis as moot, and dismisses the Petition without leave to amend

but without prejudice to Petitioner to present his claims in a habeas petition after he has secured

permission from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to file a second or successive petition. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 27 provides that:

A person who wants to perpetuate testimony about any matter cognizable in a

United States court may file a verified petition in the district court for the district

where any expected adverse party resides. The petition must ask for an order

authorizing the petitioner to depose the named persons in order to perpetuate their

testimony. The petition must be titled in the petitioner’s name and must show:

(A) that the petitioner expects to be a party to an action cognizable

in a United States court but cannot presently bring it or cause it to

be brought;

(B) the subject matter of the expected action and the petitioner’s

interest;

(C) the facts that the petitioner wants to establish by the proposed

testimony and the reasons to perpetuate it;

(D) the names or a description of the person whom the petitioner

expects to be adverse parties and their addresses, so far as known;

and

(E) the name, address, and expected substance of the testimony of

each deponent.

Fed.R.Civ.P. 27(a)(1) (West 2011).

Petitioner is seeking to take the depositions of two Deputy California Attorneys General,

but has not indicated that either resides in the Southern District of California, and has not

indicated why he needs to perpetuate their testimony. Moreover, Petitioner has not identified

the subject matter of his expected action, and has not explained why he is unable to bring an

action at this time. In any case, Rule 27 is designed for prospective defendants who wish to

preserve testimony, not plaintiffs. See Martin v. Reynolds Metals Corp., 297 F.2d 49, 55 (9th

Cir. 1961) (“Abuse of the rule by potential plaintiffs, who might try to use it as a means of

discovery to enable them to draw a complaint . . . seems to be avoided by the requirement of

Rule 27 that the party seeking the deposition be unable to bring the suit or cause it to be brought.

Case 3:12-cv-00317-DMS-NLS Document 4 Filed 02/24/12 Page 2 of 5
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

27

28

-3- 12cv0317

The position of one who expects to be made a defendant is different, and we think that such a

defendant should be, and is, entitled to use the Rule, upon a proper showing, to preserve

important testimony that might otherwise be lost.”); see also Nevada v. O’Leary, 63 F.3d 932,

935-36 (9th Cir. 1995) (holding that Rule 27 is not appropriate where “the petitioner seeks

discovery of unknown information that the petitioner hopes will assist it in the future when the

petitioner applies for judicial relief”). Therefore, the Court denies Petitioner’s request to

construe this action as a Rule 27 Petition.

Moreover, even if Petitioner could utilize the Rule 27 procedure and cure these defects,

it is clear that he is attempting to pursue claims which he has or could have presented in other

actions he has filed seeking the same Brady material. (See Pet. at 45, stating that Petitioner is

seeking to utilize Rule 27 to address a due process violation arising from the failure to provide

him with the same Brady material which was the subject of his prior federal habeas action in

So.Dist.Ca.Civil Case No. 10cv2029-H (MDD).) On September 21, 2010, Petitioner filed a

federal habeas petition in this Court in which he claimed that the Board of Prison Terms had

entered into a stipulation with the Sacramento District Attorney to turn over Brady material to

be used at Petitioner’s parole hearing, but the material was not turned over. (See Pet. filed

9/21/10 [ECF No. 1] at 9 in So.Dist.Ca.Civil Case No.10cv2029-H (MDD).) This Court granted

Respondent’s motion to dismiss that petition as second or successive on the basis that Petitioner

had previously raised his due process claim in the Eastern District in Downs v. Cal. Bd. or Prison

Terms, No. 09cv0715-GSA (HC) (E.D.Cal., filed April 22, 2009). (See Order filed 4/27/11

[ECF No. 55] in So.Dist.Ca.Civil Case No. 10cv2029-H (MDD).) This Court also found that

because the Sacramento District Attorney did not possess the material sought, there was no case

or controversy, and that in any case Petitioner had not alleged a due process violation regarding

his parole procedures under Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 859, 862 (2011)

(holding that a California prisoner has “received adequate process when he was allowed an

opportunity to be heard and was provided a statement of the reasons why parole was denied”).

(Id. at 6-7.) The Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal after denying a Certificate of Appealability.

(See Order filed 7/7/11 [ECF No. 62] in So.Dist.Ca.Civil Case No. 10cv2029-H (MDD).)

Case 3:12-cv-00317-DMS-NLS Document 4 Filed 02/24/12 Page 3 of 5
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

27

28

1

 Petitioner has recently had another federal habeas petition, in which he alleged that the California

Attorney General withheld Brady material from him, dismissed for failure to state a cognizable federal claim.

See Order filed 2/21/12 [Doc. No. 3] in So.Dist.Ca.Civil Case No. 12cv0231-BTM (WVG). Petitioner has also

had a Rule 27 Petition dismissed without prejudice to file it in So.Dist.Ca.Civil Case No. 10cv2029-H (MDD).

See Order filed 5/9/11 [Doc. No. 3] in So.Dist.Ca.Civil Case No. 11cv0737-BTM (BGS). 

2 The Court need not determine whether Petitioner can utilize Rule 27 to circumvent the requirement

of obtaining permission from the Ninth Circuit to file a second or successive habeas petition because, as discussed

above, he has not satisfied the criteria for filing a Rule 27 Petition. See e.g. White v. Lambert, 370 F.3d 1002

(9th Cir. 2004) (holding that § 2254 is the only basis for a habeas petition brought by a person “in custody

pursuant to a state court judgment.”); United States v. Valdez-Pacheco, 237 F.3d 1077, 1079 (9th Cir. 2001)

(common law writs survive “only to the extent they fill ‘gaps’ in the current systems of postconviction relief.”).

Accordingly, even to the extent the “anticipated” action will be an action challenging the results of a future parole

hearing at which Petitioner will not be able to present the withheld Brady material, an action which could

arguably present claims which were not adjudicated in the previous actions and would therefore arguably not be

second or successive to his prior actions (see e.g. Hill v. Alaska, 297 F.3d 895, 899 (9th Cir. 2002)), the Court

declines to permit Petitioner to proceed under Rule 27 because, for the reasons set forth above, he has not and

cannot satisfy the requirements of Rule 27. See Campbell v. Blodgett, 982 F.2d 1356, 1358 (9th Cir. 1993)

(holding that use of Rule 27, similar to discretionary discovery in habeas cases, is committed to the sound

discretion of the district court).

-4- 12cv0317

Petitioner contends in this action (see Pet. at 3) that he intends to file a motion for relief from

judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59 and 60 in this Court in that case.1

The instant Petition, to the extent it alleges a due process violation arising from the failure

to turn over the Brady material, is also second or successive to the prior petition. See Cooper

v. Calderon, 274 F.3d 1270, 1273 (9th Cir. 2001) (“Generally, a new petition is ‘second or

successive’ if it raises claims that were or could have been adjudicated on their merits in an

earlier petition.”) Thus, to the extent the instant Petition presents a federal due process claim

cognizable on federal habeas, the Court is precluded from considering it absent a demonstration

by Petitioner that he has received permission from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to proceed

with a second or successive petition.2

 See 28 U.S.C.A. § 2244(b)(3)(A) (“before a second or

successive application permitted by this section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall

move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider

the petition). 

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s Motion to proceed in forma

pauperis as moot, DENIES the Motion to correct the docket, and DISMISSES the Petition. The

dismissal is without leave to amend but without prejudice to Petitioner to file a new Petition for

Case 3:12-cv-00317-DMS-NLS Document 4 Filed 02/24/12 Page 4 of 5
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

27

28

-5- 12cv0317

a writ of habeas corpus, which will be given a new civil case number, after obtaining permission

from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to file a second or successive petition. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 24, 2012

HON. DANA M. SABRAW

United States District Judge

Case 3:12-cv-00317-DMS-NLS Document 4 Filed 02/24/12 Page 5 of 5