In Re Petition Of Sheila Roberts Ford

170 F.R.D. 504 (1997)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

On November 15, 1996, Ford (P) filed a petition pursuant to Rule 27. P asks 'for leave to proceed with the deposition of Elmore County Sheriff Bill Franklin.' P claims she is presently unable to bring an action'; that the 'anticipated action surrounds the shooting death of Fred William Roberts by law-enforcement officers of Elmore County on November 8, 1996'; that she 'is the Administratrix of the Estate of Fred William Roberts; that she 'intends to establish who the appropriate party defendants to the anticipated action are through the testimony of Elmore County Sheriff Bill Franklin'; that she 'is unable to determine the appropriate party defendants and the basic facts surrounding the death of Fred William Roberts without the testimony of Sheriff Franklin' and 'needs to establish an accurate account of the events that took place ... before the memories of those involved fade or become distorted by publicity'; and that she is 'requesting the deposition of ... Franklin' because he 'was the commanding officer of the Elmore County deputies believed to be involved in the shooting of ... Roberts' and he 'is expected to identify the facts involved in Mr. Roberts' shooting death as well as the identity of the law enforcement officers involved.' Ford also gave the names, addresses, and descriptions of the persons she expected to be adverse parties. The court entered an order stating that there need not be an independent basis of federal jurisdiction in a proceeding to perpetuate, but it must be shown that in the contemplated action, for which the testimony is being perpetuated, federal jurisdiction would exist and thus is a matter that may be cognizable in the federal courts.' P failed to meet the jurisdictional requirements of Rule 27.' The court informed Ford that she must amend her petition to satisfy this defect or suffer its denial. P amended and stated the 'expected action is an action at law to redress deprivation under ... the Fourteenth Amendment, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and § 1988, and that the 'jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1343.'