(PC) Morgan v. Sacramento County Sheriffs Dept. et al, No. 2:2019cv01179 - Document 39 (E.D. Cal. 2020)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota on 3/31/2020 RECOMMENDING 22 Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief be denied. Referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Henshaw, R)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 SAMMY DAVIS MORGAN, aka Sammy Davis Dewitt Morgan, Plaintiff, 13 14 15 No. 2:19-CV-1179-KJM-DMC-P FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS v. MORGAN, et al., Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 19 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief. 20 See ECF No. 22. 21 In his motion, entitled “Motion to Prohibit Restrictions on Right to Counsel,” ECF 22 No. 22, plaintiff seeks an order “directing the Sheriff of Sacramento County to remove the 23 restrictions on the plaintiff’s right to communicate confidentially with and have access to his 24 counsel.” Id. at 1. Plaintiff also seek an order granting him access to the library “and all of its 25 materials. . . .” Id. More specifically, plaintiff seeks the following relief: 26 27 28 Relief Sought: By this Motion I Sammy Morgan request an order that I shall be allowed unpaid, unmonitored telephone calls to my paralegal and other persons designated by counsel to assist on my behalf, which includes calls to the private investigator and my power of attorney. Also have access to institutional library and contents made available to indigent 1 1 detainees. 2 Id. at 2. 3 A review of the docket reflects that plaintiff was transferred into federal custody 4 on or about December 30, 2019. See ECF Nos. 26 (notice of release from county detention) and 5 37 (notice of change of address to the Victorville Medium Federal Correctional Institution in 6 Adelanto, California). Because plaintiff is no longer in county custody and his claims relate to 7 the conditions of confinement in county custody, and because plaintiff has not alleged any 8 expectation of being returned to county custody, plaintiff’s motion is moot. See Prieser v. 9 Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395, 402-03 (1975); Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.3d 517, 519 (9th Cir. 1991) (per 10 11 12 curiam). Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief, ECF No. 22, be denied. 13 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 14 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days 15 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections 16 with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of objections. 17 Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See Martinez v. 18 Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 19 20 21 Dated: March 31, 2020 ____________________________________ DENNIS M. COTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
