Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01521/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01521-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)

---

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 - 06cv1521

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID LUCAS,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 06-CV-1521 H

(CAB)

ORDER DENYING

PETITION AS

PROCEDURALLY

IMPROPER AND DENYING

MOTION AS MOOT

vs.

JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL,

NAVAL CRIMINAL

INVESTIGATIVE SERVICES, and

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY,

Respondents.

Petitioner, David Lucas, filed a pro se petition against the Judge Advocate

General, Naval Criminal Investigative Services, and the Department of the Navy

seeking the results of a DNA test allegedly performed by the Navy in 1989. (Doc. No.

1.) Petitioner alleges that he believes the results are needed for his claim of actual

innocence relating to his conviction in the U.S. Navy. (Id.) Petitioner has also filed a

motion requesting the Court to construe his petition as seeking preaction discovery

rather than habeas corpus relief. (Doc. No. 5.)

Having reviewed the petition and the relevant portions of the record, the Court

DENIES Petitioner’s petition without prejudice as procedurally improper. (Doc. No.

1.) Petitioner has not directed the Court to any authority stating why this Court, rather

than a military or administrative agency, has jurisdiction to adjudicate a discovery

Case 3:06-cv-01521-H-CAB Document 6 Filed 12/15/06 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

27

28

- 2 - 06cv1521

dispute relating to a military proceeding. Further, Petitioner has not provided any

authority indicating that discovery under Rule 27 would be appropriate given the

procedural posture of this case. “Rule 27 is not a substitute for discovery. It is

available in special circumstances to preserve testimony which could otherwise be lost.”

Ash v. Cort, 512 F.2d 909, 912 (3d Cir. 1975). Rule 27 should not be used as a

mechanism to draft a complaint or to conduct a presuit investigation. See generally 8

Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller, & Richard L. Marcus, Fed’l Practice &

Procedure Civ. 2d, § 2071 (2006); see also In re Chester County Elec., Inc., 208 F.R.D.

545, 547 (E.D. Penn. 2002). 

Finally, the Court construed Petitioner’s petition as a habeas corpus petition. The

Court emphasizes that it is not ruling on the merits of any habeas petition. The Court

DENIES Petitioner’s motion as moot. (Doc. No. 5.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 15, 2006

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Copies To:

David Lucas

180728/3-55

100 Warrior Lane

Bessemer, AL 35023

U.S. Attorney’s Office

Civil Division

880 Front Street

San Diego, CA 92101

Case 3:06-cv-01521-H-CAB Document 6 Filed 12/15/06 Page 2 of 2