Opinion
ORDER
EDMUND F. BRENNAN, Magistrate Judge.
On October 16, 2015, petitioner filed a verified petition pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 27, requesting that the court permit her to perpetuate testimony from expected adverse parties. ECF No. 1. For the reasons explained below, the petition is denied.
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).
Petitioner seeks in a verified petition to conduct discovery related to a warrant that was issued by the Las Vegas Justice Court in Clark County, Nevada. Id. at 2, Ex. A. According to documents appended to the petition, the Clark County District Attorney's Office sent petitioner a letter informing her that the Nevada state court issued a warrant for her arrest for nonpayment of $5, 575.00. Id. at Ex. A. In response, petitioner, though counsel, sent several requests to the district attorney to provide documents related to the amount she allegedly owed, arguing that the documents sought constituted exculpatory evidence. Id. at Exs. B, C, D. Despite the requests, petitioner claims that no responsive documents have been produced.
Petitioner further contends that she is a prospective plaintiff in an action intended to be filed in this court, but that she is unable to bring the action based on her inability to obtain information related to the nonpayment of the $5, 575.00. Id. at 2. She claims that the expected adverse parties to the anticipated action include Steven Wofson, Gleb O'Brien, Kavyn Lighten, and the Clark County District Attorney's Office. Id. She believes the individual expected parties have information related to the amount she allegedly failed to pay, and she therefore seeks the court's permission to perpetuate their testimony through interrogatories. Id.
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 court may file a verified petition in the district court for the district where an expected adverse party resides. " Fed.R.Civ.P. 27(a)(1). The petition indicates that all expected adverse parties reside in Las Vegas, Nevada. Id. As none of the expected parties reside in this district, the petition is denied and the Clerk is directed to close this miscellaneous case.
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.