Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01320/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01320-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 28:1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID GARLAND ATWOOD II,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 17cv1320-LAB (WVG)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS;

AND

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO

FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING

vs.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,

Defendants.

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

- 1 - 17cv1320

Case 3:17-cv-01320-LAB-WVG Document 5 Filed 07/05/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

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

- 2 - 17cv1320

Case 3:17-cv-01320-LAB-WVG Document 5 Filed 07/05/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2