jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the district court’s decision to grant or deny a petition under Rule 27 for an abuse of discretion. See Campbell v. Blodgett, 982 F.2d 1356, 1358 (9th Cir.1993). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Lucas’s Rule 27 petition. Lucas failed to establish the threshold requirement of Rule 27 that he expects to be a party to an action but is “presently unable to bring it or cause it to be brought.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 27(a)(1). Moreover, Lucas, as a prospective plaintiff, cannot utilize Rule 27 as a discovery mechanism for a future complaint, and he points to no authority allowing a prospective plaintiff to utilize Rule 27 in the manner he requests. See Nevada v. O’Leary, 63 F.3d 932, 933, 935-36 (9th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); Martin v. Reynolds Metals Corp., 297 F.2d 49,
holding that under section 9543a1 a pcra petitioner is not eligible for relief where the petitioner has completed serving the sentence before final adjudication on the petition holding that the state court ruling was objectively unreasonable where prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence that the petitioner murdered a known drug dealer although the state established that the petitioner planned to rob drug dealers for drugs or money the victim was a known drug dealer who kept drugs in his freezer and that freezer was open and empty after the homicide the petitioner and the victim had engaged in drug transactions in the past the petitioner had a motive because he had seen the victim make a pass at the petitioners girlfriend and the petitioner had possessed and once purchased the murder weapon and a similar gun was seen in his home two weeks before the murder evidence placing the petitioner at the scene was conspicuously absent leaving only a reasonable speculation that the petitioner was present holding the bia did not abuse its discretion in finding petitioner did not satisfy the procedural requirements for his motion in part because petitioner failed to submit a completed application for relief holding that the relevant date is not when petitioner filed for  212c relief holding that rule 27 is not appropriate where the petitioner seeks discovery of unknown information that the petitioner hopes will assist it in the future when the petitioner applies for judicial relief