Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Morgan v. Sacramento County Sheriff's Dept.

United States District Court, E.D. California

September 24, 2019

SAMMY DAVIS MORGAN, Plaintiff,
v.
SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPT., et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          DENNIS M. COTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court are the following motions: (1) plaintiff’s motions for discovery (ECF Nos. 9, 13, and 17); (2) plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 18); (3) plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 20); (4) plaintiff’s motion for issuance of a summons (ECF No. 21); and (5) plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend (ECF No. 23).[1]

         I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         This action currently proceeds on plaintiff’s original complaint, filed on June 26, 2019. See ECF No. 1. On July 1, 2019, the court issued a screening order identifying the following claims: an Eighth Amendment claim related to plaintiff’s housing, an Eighth Amendment excessive force claim, and a due process claim related to a disciplinary hearing. See ECF No. 5, pg. 2. The court determined plaintiff’s complaint stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment excessive force against defendant Morgan but otherwise failed to state any other claim against any defendants. See id. at 3-6. Plaintiff was permitted leave to file a second amended complaint and informed that the action would proceed on the original complaint against defendant Morgan if he failed to do so within the time provided. See id. at 6-8.

         On July 15, 2019, plaintiff timely filed a first amended complaint. See ECF No. 7. Plaintiff then filed another pleading entitled “First Amended Complaint” on August 19, 2018. See ECF No. 11. On September 9, 2019, plaintiff filed a pleading entitled “Second Amended Complaint.” See ECF No. 15. On September 9, 2019, plaintiff filed another pleading entitled “First Amended Complaint, ” see ECF No. 19, along with the pending motion for an extension of time, in which plaintiff seeks additional time to amend his claims, see ECF No. 18, and motion for leave to amend, see ECF No. 23.

         II. DISCUSSION

         A. Leave to Amend

         Given the filings outlined above, the following three amended pleadings are before the court, all having been filed since the court issued the July 1, 2019, screening order:

Amended Pleading 1 – “First Amended Complaint” filed July 15, 2019.
Amended Pleading 2 – “Second Amended Complaint” filed August 19, 2019.
Amended Pleading 3 – “First Amended Complaint” filed September 9, 2019.

         Amended Pleading 1 was apparently filed in response to the court’s screening order and supersedes the original complaint. Amended Pleading 2 was filed as-of-right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 and supersedes Amended Pleading 1. Good cause appearing therefor, plaintiff’s motion for further leave to amend, filed with Amended Pleading 3 on September 9, 2019, will be granted. This action will proceed on Amended Pleading 3, which the Clerk of the Court will be directed to docket as plaintiff’s second amended complaint.

         Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to amend will be denied as unnecessary because there is no indication plaintiff delayed in seeking responding to the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.