Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-00024/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-00024-1/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

BERNARD L. SMITH,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-12-0024 GGH P

vs.

CALIFORNIA STATE PRISON -

SACRAMENTO, et al.

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se who seeks relief pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. On April 11, 2011, the court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend

because it improperly sought to raise multiple, unrelated claims against multiple, unrelated

defendants. See Doc. No. 7, citing George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007).

Pending before the court is plaintiff’s Motion, made pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 27(a)(1), “Deposition Before Action or Pending Appeal.” Generally, this rule

authorizes a party to file a verified petition asking for an order to depose a named person in order

to perpetuate the subject’s testimony. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 27(a)(1). The petition must be filed in

the district where any expected adverse party resides, and must be served on the adverse party. 

Id. In addition, the petition must be titled in the petitioner’s name and must show: (1) 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; (2) the subject matter of the expected action and the

Case 2:12-cv-00024-MCE-AC Document 8 Filed 04/26/12 Page 1 of 3
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

 According to the motion, plaintiff has cases pending in the Central and Eastern Districts 1

of California. Plaintiff does not identify the Western district to which he is referring, or why he

would need this motion filed in that unidentified district.

2

petitioner’s interest; (3) the facts that the petitioner wants to establish by the proposed testimony

and the reasons to perpetuate it; (4) the names or a description of the persons whom the petitioner

expects to be adverse parties and their addresses, so far as known; and (5) the name, address, and

expected substance of each deponent. See id.

The current motion does not satisfy the Rule’s standards, since it does not, among

other things, identify the names, addresses, and expected substance of each deponent. Moreover,

plaintiff brings the motion in an already-pending action, one which this court has already

determined is not currently cognizable. Instead, the plaintiff alleges that he was recently denied

access to the law library, and that prison officials are frustrating his attempts to exhaust his

administrative remedies. He accordingly seeks: (1) monetary damages; and (2) injunctive relief:

(a) that the “District Courts call prison officials to order them to open the law library as

required,” (b) that an unidentified person “allow prison grievances on the closure of the law

library to go through,” (c) that “....this motion be filed in all three districts: Central, Eastern, and

Western Dist.,” (d) that the court appoint a “probus et legalis homo,” whom plaintiff defines as a 1

true and legal man; (e) that the magistrate judge conduct a telephone interview with the plaintiff;

and (f) that plaintiff be provided with a filed copy of the motion.

In other words, plaintiff is seeking to add additional claims to his pending

complaints. As noted above, this court has already dismissed plaintiff’s complaint with leave to

amend because plaintiff improperly sought to raise multiple, unrelated claims and defendants in a

single case. The court will not now authorize plaintiff to add yet another unrelated cause of

action based on events which took place after the now-dismissed complaint was filed, especially

where plaintiff seeks to make these additions, not through a motion to amend his complaint, but

through a facially deficient Rule 27 motion.

Case 2:12-cv-00024-MCE-AC Document 8 Filed 04/26/12 Page 2 of 3
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

 Petitioner has also filed a “Inmate/Parolee Appeal”, pursuant to “Federal Rule of Civil 2

Procedure 405(b).” Doc. No. 6. The court notes at the outset that there is no such Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure. It is not clear how plaintiff means the court to treat the appeal form, in which

plaintiff complains of being unable to call Wells Fargo Bank collect. See id. For the reasons

given above, the court will not allow plaintiff to tack on to his complaint a cause of action

against any prison official regarding plaintiff’s inability to call Wells Fargo Bank. Moreover,

because plaintiff’s motion specifically refers to taking depositions under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 27(a), the court will not address whether this inmate appeal is an “appeal” for the

purposes of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 27(b). 

3

Moreover, the court will not authorize any depositions to perpetuate testimony

where plaintiff has failed to provide even the most basic information required by the Rule, such

as the name of any proposed deponent, or the reasons why plaintiff cannot currently bring an

action against prison officials for failure to provide access to the law library. Cf., e.g., In re

Petition by Ingenuity 13, LLC, 2012 WL 968080 (E.D. Cal. March 21, 2012) (pre-suit discovery

to enable petitioner to determine whether a cause of action exists, and, if so, against whom it

should be initiated, is not the proper purpose of a Rule 27 petition). Plaintiff has failed to

establish any basis for granting a petition under Rule 27.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s “Motion: FRCP 27(a)(1)

Deposition Before Action or Pending Appeal” is denied.2

DATED: April 25, 2012

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

GGH:rb

smit0024.depositions

Case 2:12-cv-00024-MCE-AC Document 8 Filed 04/26/12 Page 3 of 3