Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Joseph Anthony Reyna filed a petition under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 27(a) seeking to perpetuate testimony in connection with the Social Security Administration. The Western District of Texas dismissed the petition with prejudice as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
On appeal, Reyna argued that the district court failed to conduct de novo review of the magistrate judge’s report and recommendations, improperly dismissed his petition with prejudice, and failed to address an asserted injury involving the withholding of Medicare premiums.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit affirmed, reviewing the frivolousness dismissal for abuse of discretion. The record showed that the district court conducted the required de novo review of the magistrate judge’s report and recommendations.
The court also held that dismissal was proper because Reyna’s petition did not satisfy Rule 27(a). He did not identify any deponents and failed to show why he could not presently file an action against the Social Security Administration. The district court likewise did not abuse its discretion by making the dismissal with prejudice.
The court declined to consider Reyna’s asserted Medicare premium-withholding injury because he had not raised that claim in the district court. It found no basis to depart from the ordinary rule against reviewing claims raised for the first time on appeal.
Key Takeaways
- A Rule 27(a) petitioner must identify the relevant deponents and show that the anticipated federal action cannot presently be brought.
- The district court acted within its discretion by dismissing Reyna’s deficient petition with prejudice as frivolous.
- An argument not raised in the district court ordinarily will not be reviewed for the first time on appeal.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that a petition to perpetuate testimony must satisfy Rule 27(a)’s specific requirements, including identifying proposed deponents and explaining why the anticipated federal action cannot presently be filed.
It also illustrates the appellate consequences of failing to preserve a claim below: Reyna’s Medicare-related argument received no merits review because he first presented it on appeal.