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