Atwood II v. United States of America et al

Filing 5

ORDER Granting 2 Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis; and Order Requiring Plaintiff to File Supplemental Briefing. Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 7/3/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(lrf)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID GARLAND ATWOOD II, 12 CASE NO. 17cv1320-LAB (WVG) Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; AND vs. 13 14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING Defendants. 15 16 17 Plaintiff David Garland Atwood II filed this action to compel this District’s U.S. 18 Probation Office to allow him to come to San Diego for medical treatment. Atwood is on 19 federal supervised release in the District of Mississippi. According to his petition, the 20 probation office in Mississippi, as well as the U.S. Attorney’s office have approved Atwood’s 21 request, but the U.S. Probation Office in San Diego refuses to accept him. 22 Atwood filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court finds he lacks the 23 funds to pay the required filing fee, and GRANTS the motion. Before ordering service of a 24 complaint filed by a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court is required to screen the 25 pleading sua sponte. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th 26 Cir. 2000) (en banc). 27 Atwood’s petition does not give enough information, and in its present condition it 28 would not survive the mandatory screening. Even though the local probation office won’t -1- 17cv1320 1 accept Atwood, it isn’t clear why he can’t travel to San Diego temporarily for treatment, with 2 the approval of his local probation office. 3 Atwood is therefore ORDERED to file a supplemental memorandum, giving details 4 about the expected schedule of his course of treatment, and explaining whether it is feasible 5 for him to remain under the supervision of the probation department in Mississippi while 6 undergoing surgery and treatment. For example, he should explain how long the surgery, 7 treatment, and recovery time are expected to last; how soon he could travel back to 8 Mississippi; and how long he would be required to stay in San Diego. If the treatment would 9 occur over time, he should explain whether he could travel back and forth between 10 Mississippi and San Diego between treatments. He should explain whether his local 11 probation office is willing to allow him to come to San Diego temporarily, without transferring 12 his supervised release to this District, while he undergoes surgery and treatment. He should 13 also provide any other pertinent details explaining why there is no feasible alternative to the 14 relief he seeks. Atwood should file the memorandum as soon as he can, but not later than 15 35 calendar days from the date this order is issued. It should not be longer than seven 16 pages, not counting any attached material. 17 18 19 20 Assuming Atwood’s memorandum provides the necessary information, the Court will conduct the mandatory screening under § 1915(e)(2)(B). IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: July 3, 2017 21 22 HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2- 17cv1320

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?