Nguyen v. Wofson et al

Filing 5

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 10/22/2015 ORDERING that the 1 petition is DENIED and the Clerk is directed to close this miscellaneous case. The 2 Motion to Proceed IFP is DENIED. CASE CLOSED. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

VANA NGUYEN,

11
12
13

No. 2:15-mc-118-KJM-EFB

Petitioner,
v.

ORDER

STEVEN WOFSON, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15
16

On October 16, 2015, petitioner filed a verified petition pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

17

Procedure 27, requesting that the court permit her to perpetuate testimony from expected adverse

18

parties. ECF No. 1.1 For the reasons explained below, the petition is denied.

19

Petitioner seeks in a verified petition to conduct discovery related to a warrant that was

20

issued by the Las Vegas Justice Court in Clark County, Nevada. Id. at 2, Ex. A. According to

21

documents appended to the petition, the Clark County District Attorney’s Office sent petitioner a

22

letter informing her that the Nevada state court issued a warrant for her arrest for nonpayment of

23

$5,575.00. Id. at Ex. A. In response, petitioner, though counsel, sent several requests to the

24

district attorney to provide documents related to the amount she allegedly owed, arguing that the

25

documents sought constituted exculpatory evidence. Id. at Exs. B, C, D. Despite the requests,

26

petitioner claims that no responsive documents have been produced.

27
28

1

This case is before the undersigned pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule
302(c)(1). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
1

1

Petitioner further contends that she is a prospective plaintiff in an action intended to be

2

filed in this court, but that she is unable to bring the action based on her inability to obtain

3

information related to the nonpayment of the $5,575.00. Id. at 2. She claims that the expected

4

adverse parties to the anticipated action include Steven Wofson, Gleb O’Brien, Kavyn Lighten,

5

and the Clark County District Attorney’s Office. Id. She believes the individual expected parties

6

have information related to the amount she allegedly failed to pay, and she therefore seeks the

7

court’s permission to perpetuate their testimony through interrogatories. Id.

8
9

Petitioner, however, has filed her Rule 27 petition in the wrong court. Rule 27 provides
that “[a] person who wants to perpetuate testimony about any matter cognizable in a United States

10

court may file a verified petition in the district court for the district where an expected adverse

11

party resides.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 27(a)(1). The petition indicates that all expected adverse parties

12

reside in Las Vegas, Nevada. Id. As none of the expected parties reside in this district, the

13

petition is denied and the Clerk is directed to close this miscellaneous case. 2

14

DATED: October 22, 2015.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

Petitioner also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 2. Given that the
petition was filed in the wrong court and must therefore be denied, the court denies the motion to
proceed in forma pauperis as moot.
2