Wallace Ward, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Jon Dobre, Warden, Defendant-appellee, 141 F.3d 1182 (9th Cir. 1998)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 141 F.3d 1182 (9th Cir. 1998) .Submitted Mar. 10, 1998**.Decided Mar. 17, 1998

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Lloyd D. George, District Judge, Presiding.

Before FLETCHER, BEEZER, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.


MEMORANDUM* 

Wallace Ward, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's denial of his motion to perpetuate testimony filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 27(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 27(c). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the district court's decision for an abuse of discretion, see Campbell v. Blodgett, 982 F.2d 1356, 1358 (9th Cir. 1993), and we affirm.

Ward contends that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion to perpetuate testimony. We disagree.

The district court may permit depositions to be taken if the court finds that "the perpetuation of the testimony is proper to avoid a failure or delay of justice." Fed. R. Civ. P. 27(b); See Nevada v. O'Leary, 63 F.3d 932, 937 (9th Cir. 1995) (stating that Fed. R. Civ. P. 27(c) does not expand applicability of Fed. R. Civ. P. 27).

In this case, Ward sought to depose various prison officials in an effort to establish that defendant violated his First Amendment rights when defendant restricted Ward's telephone and visitor access. Because the district court determined that qualified immunity protected defendant, and the determination was not timely challenged by Ward, the district court did not err by concluding that the proposed discovery was not needed to avoid a failure or delay of justice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 27(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 27(c).

AFFIRMED.

 **

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir. R. 34-4

 *

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.