Marshal D. Morgan
How Judge Morgan rules, drawn from 18 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Morgan no longer sits on this court. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled here.
About Judge Morgan
Marshal D. Morgan served as a United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Puerto Rico from 2018 to 2026. He earned a history degree from Yale University and a law degree from the University of Baltimore School of Law. Before joining the bench, he practiced law and served in the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Puerto Rico. In June 2026, McConnell Valdés announced that he had joined the firm as counsel.
How Judge Morgan decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In United States v. Ortiz-Ortiz, he recommended denying a Franks challenge after the defendant failed to present the warrant application, warrant, or supporting affidavit being challenged.
“the Court does not have before it either the application for the warrant, the warrant, nor the affidavit in support of the warrant that the Defendant seeks to challenge under Franks.”
In United States v. Morales-Perez, Morgan recommended suppressing evidence found in an unjustified sweep but found the good-faith exception applicable to evidence seized under two later warrants.
“the Court finds that the good-faith exception applies to the agents’ reliance on the First and Second Search Warrants and the evidence seized pursuant thereto should not be suppressed.”
In Otero-Vicenty v. Commissioner of Social Security, Morgan found that an RFC limitation allowing cane use was more favorable to the claimant than an RFC without that limitation.
“the Plaintiff's complaints over the inclusion of a limitation providing for the use of a cane in the RFC assessment, which is more limiting than without the use of one, is arguably more favorable to plaintiff.”
In one suppression recommendation, Morgan found a confession involuntary where officers threatened to arrest the defendant's father without a legal basis and that threat exploited the defendant's close family relationship and vulnerabilities.
“the threats that were made by the agents vitiated the defendant’s consent such that his confession to ATF agents during his custodial interview is deemed involuntary.”
Procedural preferences
In United States v. Oliveras Cardona, Morgan accepted the government's commitment not to use the statements in its case-in-chief but declined to bar their use for every purpose.
“The Court takes the government's statements at face value and will indeed hold the government to its word.”
In Reyes-Villarini v. Commissioner of Social Security, Morgan found the alleged inconsistency in vocational testimony harmless because one qualifying occupation existed in significant numbers.
“Because one occupation with jobs that exist in significant numbers is sufficient, any alleged error in this regard is deemed to be harmless.”
A party seeking to prevent a deposition must support a protective-order request with particular facts; a generalized assertion that the witness has little relevant knowledge did not establish good cause.
“Here, the defendants did not meet that burden.”
In the reviewed Morales referral, he recommended denying jurisdictional discovery where possible general marketing contacts could not establish a link between the alleged mainland tort and Puerto Rico. The district judge adopted that discovery conclusion.
“jurisdictional discovery would be futile.”
Cautions
In McMillan v. Rodriguez Negron, he recommended Rule 11 sanctions against counsel who pursued another claim he found unfounded after an earlier sanctions ruling in the same litigation.
“Having already found that Plaintiff's counsel has demonstrated a culpable carelessness in: pursuing an unfounded claim; filing a frivolous complaint a lacking legal and factual basis, and filing a lawsuit for an improper purpose, this Court once more answers that question in the affirmative.”
In United States v. Garcia-Martin, Morgan ordered pretrial detention in a felon-in-possession case after considering the firearms found at the defendant's home and his two prior murder convictions. He found danger to the community despite a recommendation for release under conditions, but found no serious flight risk.
“Despite that recommendation, the Court finds that the government has established by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant poses a danger to the community. He shall therefore be detained pending trial. The Court does not find that he poses a serious risk of flight.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Based on the foregoing, Rodriguez Negron's Motion for Sanctions (Docket No. 39) is hereby GRANTED.”
“the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the Defendant's Motion to Suppress. Docket 23.”
“the Court hereby RECOMMENDS that defendant's Franks Motion (Docket No. 21) be DENIED.”
“the Court sides with the government and RECOMMENDS that Defendant's Motion Requesting Order be DENIED.”
“the Court hereby RECOMMENDS that defendant's Franks Motion (Docket No. 21) be DENIED.”
“I RECOMMEND that the defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 44) be DENIED.”
“the Court RECOMMENDS that the Motion to Suppress (Docket No. 56) be Granted in Part and Denied in Part.”
The district judge had earlier adopted Morgan's Report and Recommendation denying a motion to suppress based on a confidential informant's tip; the defendant then sought reconsideration. The district judge denied reconsideration, reaffirming the adoption of Morgan's recommendation.
In a felon-in-possession prosecution arising from a search of the defendant's residence, Morgan found the government proved dangerousness by clear and convincing evidence given the defendant's two prior murder convictions and ordered pretrial detention, while finding no serious risk of flight.
“The Court therefore RECOMMENDS that Defendant’s Motion (Docket No. 23) be DENIED without holding an evidentiary hearing.”
“Defendants’ urgent motion requesting dismissal of the case (Docket No. 81) is DENIED”
“Defendants’ urgent motion requesting a stay of the proceedings (Docket No. 81) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”
“Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 77) is GRANTED. All claims and causes of action asserted in the present case are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“For the reasons espoused above, the undersigned hereby RECOMMENDS that the defendant’s Motion to Suppress (Docket No. 30) be GRANTED and that the firearm evidence be suppressed together with the defendant’s custodial interview as the fruit of the illegal search.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
- Sample of his consent Social Security disability-review docket, spanning filings from 2018 through 2023: eight terminated appeals, all affirming an ALJ's denial of benefits on the merits (one judgment resolved three consolidated dockets arising from the same fraud-redetermination proceedings).
- A handful of additional consent-remand and attorney's-fee dockets were identified but could not be grounded on extractable order text.
- His much larger on-duty-magistrate caseload, search-warrant applications, initial appearances, and detention hearings, and his referral R&R docket are covered separately in the published-opinion set above.
Pending matters in the official report
Reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts under the Civil Justice Reform Act, as of March 31, 2026.
| Motions pending more than six months | 0 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 2 | 1 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 2 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2021 | 1 | 1 |
| Sep 2020 | 2 | 2 |
A snapshot on that date: matters listed may since have been decided or reassigned. A motion referred to a magistrate judge is counted for both judges. Motions in multidistrict litigation, section 2255 cases and Social Security appeals are not counted, and a very large three-year count is generally a multidistrict docket. Source: Appendix A of the report (PDF); about the report.
A historical record
Judge Morgan no longer sits on this court. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled here. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.