Walton v. Smith
- Maxine Chesney
- 3:23-cv-04843
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
Walton v. Smith: Judge Chesney struck plaintiffs’ supplemental filing because Rule 27 does not permit that petition in another case.
The plaintiffs’ supplemental filing was stricken; the opinion does not state that the court resolved the underlying claims.
What happened
In Denisha M Walton, et al. v. Kee Ana Smith, et al., the plaintiffs filed a notice containing documents supporting a petition to preserve evidence and obtain testimony under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 27.
The court explained that Rule 27 permits this type of petition before a lawsuit is filed, but does not allow it to be filed in another case. The plaintiffs said they believed they might have a future claim brought on behalf of the United States; the court also noted that people representing themselves cannot bring such a claim for the United States.
Judge Maxine M. Chesney ordered the filing stricken. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Walton v. Smith · No. 3:23-cv-04843
- Maxine Chesney
- Oct. 7, 2025
Background
The court considered the plaintiffs’ “Notice of Filing Supplemental Statement.” The filing consisted of numerous documents submitted in support of a “Petition to Perpetuate Testimony and Preserve Evidence” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 27. The plaintiffs stated that they filed the petition because they had a good-faith belief that they possessed a future claim brought on behalf of the United States.
Court’s analysis
Rule 27 allows a person, before filing an action, to submit a verified petition in the district where an expected opposing party resides. The purpose is to seek authorization to question named people under oath before the action is filed. The court held that Rule 27 does not allow such a petition to be filed in another case. In a footnote, the court also noted that people representing themselves, like these plaintiffs, cannot prosecute a claim brought on behalf of the United States.
Disposition
The court ordered the plaintiffs’ filing “STRICKEN.” The order addressed the filing procedure and did not decide the merits of the underlying dispute.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.