Barnett v. Sims et al

Filing 4

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 MOTION to perpetuate testimony filed by Matthew W. Barnett. Objections to R&R due by 11/27/2009. Signed by Honorable James R. Marschewski on November 9, 2009. (rw)

DISTRICT COURT I}I THE I.]NITEDSIA"TES OF WESTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS F O R TSMITHDIVISION MAT T H E WW. BARNETT
PLAINTIFF

M i s c . N o . " O?- qL FS
R A C H E L J . SIMS; FRANK ATKINSON ; SHERIF'F' a n d GAYLA JACKSON

DEFENDANTS

B E P O R T A}{D RECOMMENDATION OI'THR MAGISTRATE JUDCE M a t t h e w W. Bamett (hereinaftu Bamett) filed this motion to perpetu te testimonyunder t h e provisionsof Rule 27 o{'the FederalRulcs of Civil Prooedure.Hc also asksto be allowcd to pursuant to Rule 33 of thc Federal Rules of Civil s u b m i t interrogatoriosto the def'endants Procedure. Bncksround B a m c t t indioates expectsto be the plaintiff in a casebrought undcr 42 U.S.C. $ 1983, he H e asscltshe is presontlyunableto bring thc casein a moaninglul lbrm and consistentwith thc pleadirrg requirements g 1983. of f l a m e t t nraintainsthat thc first day he was incarcerated the Sebastian in County Adult D e t e f l t i o nCcntcr$372wasillegally takenftomhim. He maintainsthemoneywasinitially, withoLrt h i s pemrission, placcd in his comrnissary account. The moncy was thon, without any hearingor o t h e r fbrm ofDue Prooess, taken and appliedto his fines and costs. A l t h o u g hBamett statss hasheeninfbrmcdthattJre he moneywaslakanpursuant a verbal to c o u l order,he asserts thoreis no tecotd ofthc verbalcourl ottler on thc docketsheet.At this timc, he actedindividually or B a m e t t $tates is rurableto "dctcrminedefinitely whether"thc defendants
-l-

AO7?A ( R e v .8/82)

that defendants no legal authority had hc to Furtherhe states desires establish a sco-conspirators. t o takehis monsyor keephis money. Bamettmaintains factswill assisthinr in properlynaming the p a r t i c sand dcterminewhetherthete are otherpartieswho shouldbe named. Discussion testirnony beforoanactioni$ filed. for to l L u l e27(a)govemsrequosts depositions porpotuate L h x l e rRulo 27(a)(l), the petitionermust title the petition in his narneand establish: ( A ) that thc pctitioncr expectsto be a patty to an actiorrcognizahle in a Uflited S t a t e scourl but cannot presentlybring it or causeit to be brought;

( B ) the subjeot interest; actionandthe petitioner's matterofthe expected and ( (l ) the lhctsthatthepetitioner testirnony wants establish theproposed to by rcasons perpetuate to it; thc (D ) thenames a description to ofthe persons whomthc pctitioncrcxpccts bc or partiesarrdtheit addres$es, far asknowu;and advcrse so (E )thenamc, addrcss, expected and testiftonyofeachdepo enl. substaflce o{'the

F e dR. Civ.P.27(aX1XA-E). .
R u l c 27(a)(l ) flray nr)t be usoil asa lioensefor oonductinggeneraldiscoveryprior to the 644 F.2d 3 86, 388 (Sth Cir. l98l). i n s l i t u t i o Tofa oivil action. ,9ee r Acands,Int'.. e.g.,,Sftdrev. l n s t e a d ,discoveryundcr Rulc 27(a)(l ) shouldbe allowed only when the petitioner demonstrates e.g.,Mdrtin v. a prcscntinability to hring any action at the time the petition is presented. S'ee in R e , y n o l t l s , 2 9 7 49, 55 (9th Cir. 1961).Rule27 applics situations which "lbrtrneteason to F.2d o r anothcr,testimonymight be lost to a prospectivelitigant unlesstaken irnrnediately."Petition F.R.D.89,91(S.D.N.Y.1943). o f Ferluu.f,3

-2-

AO72A (Rev.8/82)

to C l e a rl y ,this is not orreof tho$esituations.BarncttInerelyseeks tlo earlygeneral lre He in underRule 27 iur#or by theuseof intenogatorics. doesnot argue discovery this case he maintains will bc ableto at will notbc ablcto obtainthis discovery a latertime. He rnerely of now instead later. This would be truein helretdtdft his complaintif hc hasthis discovcry virtuallyeveryoase. Conclusion to testintony undcrRule27 and/or I therefore reoommend themotionto perpetrate that actionbc beforethe actionis filed be deniedand this miscellaneous submitintenogatories closcd. in B f l r n e t thflsten dflysfrom receiptof this report and recommendntion whichto pursuant to 28 U.S.C.$ 636(b[l ). The failure to lile timely f i l e written objections ohiection s may result in waiver of the right to appeal questionsof f[ct' Bsrnett is

to rnustheboth timelyandspecific triggerdenovoreviewby the reminded that obJections district tourt, I )A T E D this ? ctay Novemher 2009. of

MAGISTRATE JTJDGE STATES

-3-

AO72A (Rev.8i82)