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)

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