A federal judge has dealt a huge blow in the case of local resident Jerry Cox and his lawsuit against Mariposa County.
On June 1, Judge Lee H. Rosenthal issued a 94-page opinion in favor of Mariposa County, one former and one current sheriff’s office deputy as well as Ashley Harris, another litigant in the long-running federal case.
Rosenthal, based in Houston, Texas, has been the main judge on the case for several years.
The judge granted summary judgment for the county, the deputies and Harris and denied all summary judgments requested by Cox.
In addition, the judge gave Cox’s lawyers until this Friday to “show cause why this court should not enter final judgment by identifying aspects of his complaint that he claims survive the court’s ruling.”
On Monday morning, Cox told the Mariposa Gazette his lawyers will continue to pursue the case. Cox said his lawyers will be filing a response to the judge’s ruling by this Friday.
In addition, Cox said the lawyers are planning a full appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.
“We will appeal,” said Cox.
That’s somewhat contradictory to what Mariposa County officials claim in a press release issued on June 3. In that release, it said the ruling “resolves claims brought by Cox against Mariposa County and additional defendants regarding criminal and civil enforcement proceedings.”
Though that is true in the sense the ruling by Rosenthal is in favor of the county, it did not reflect the fact Cox’s lawyers have a right to appeal, which they are going to do.
The ruling by Rosenthal relies heavily on an appeals court decision several years ago involving a receivership case against Cox as well as statute of limitation issues and qualified immunity for police officers.
A complicated matter
The case involving Cox has been ongoing for many years in Mariposa County and involves both a criminal matter and the receivership case.
The criminal matter involves Harris, a woman who accused Cox of raping her while she was staying at the Bison Creek Ranch owned by Cox and later taken from him by the local court.
The receivership case involves 101 code violations on the 435-acre ranch cited by the county. That’s how the process of the receivership case began which ultimately led to former Mariposa County Superior Court Judge Dana Walton granting a request for the receiver to sell the property.
Cox has been arguing for years the county co-mingled the cases and that was once even affirmed by a previous judge in the case, Robert Ishii of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California based in Fresno.
Ishii’s assertion, which was cited multiple times by Cox’s lawyer’s throughout the course of the case, was not mentioned by Judge Rosenthal in her decision.
But plenty of other issues were.
Rosenthal, early in her opinion, said many of the issues were not relevant for the federal court.
“The reasons for these rulings are set forth in more detail below,” she wrote. “Briefly, prior state-court litigation between these parties precludes much of this case, and Cox cannot prevail at trial on remaining claims in this federal court.”
“The county appreciates the court’s thorough review of this matter and remains committed to protecting public health and safety while following established legal process,” said Kevin Briggs, acting county counsel for Mariposa County, in the press release.
The background and more
The court document first addressed the allegations made by Cox that Harris has conspired with the sheriff’s office about the alleged sexual assault against Harris.
On Friday, Nov. 13, 2015, deputies William Atkinson and Wesley Smith interviewed Harris about her accusations of rape. She told investigators she met Cox on the dating website farmersonly.com and during their conversations, she agreed to come to the ranch.
Harris claimed she was locked in a room without phone service after being sexually assaulted by Cox, though phone records would later show she had been texting her friends and family members during the time she claimed to be held captive.
The case was eventually turned over to then District Attorney Thomas Cooke, who has since died.
According to the court documents filed last week, Cooke “assigned the case to a rotating cast of prosecutors … Several of them expressed concern about Harris’s credibility.”
It also stated that Deputy Smith “also began to doubt Harris’s credibility.”
In addition, the first part of the document also refers to the code violations case.
In that matter, the Mariposa County Superior Court ruled in favor of the county, but Cox’s lawyers argued they were entitled to more time to prepare a defense, that they were entitled to a jury trial and many of the violations were insubstantial or fixed.
But Judge Walton ruled a jury trial was not necessary before placing the property into receivership.
Cox appealed that decision to the California Court of Appeal for the Fifth District.
That court rejected Cox’s claims in a 2-1 vote and then the California Supreme Court denied review of Cox’s appeal for appointing a receiver.
That aspect of the case appears to weigh heavily on the decision handed down by Judge Rosenthal granting the county, along with Harris and the two deputies, summary judgment.
Inappropriate filing
In the case against the county, the judge wrote, “Cox’s motion is largely inappropriate for summary judgment because he does not argue the proper standard for relief against a municipal defendant.”
Judge Rosenthal then goes on to reject three arguments from Cox regarding “reasonableness” in the code violation inspection, how one part of Cox’s argument “does not apply to correct governing law” and because another part of the argument “is not properly presented in his motion for summary judgment.”
She also wrote that “Cox makes no argument and points to no evidence of a policy or custom of using false or fabricated evidence that would subject the county to liability.”
In the case against Harris, the judge also granted her summary judgment and denied that requested by Cox.
Cox had claimed that Harris had colluded with Atkinson and Smith in the rape case. But the judge ruled that Harris reported the rape, the deputies acted properly in investigating the case and agreed to do interviews.
“Even if Harris’s report to the police was false, a person who supplied inaccurate information is not involved in joint activity with the state,” the judge wrote, citing a 1981 Ninth Circuit Court case.
The document also pointed the finger at Cox, saying he did not tell the truth to the deputies when discussing Harris.
“Cox lied to the officers,” wrote the judge.
That lie, she said, was when Cox told police he “never had sex with” Harris, “never even kissed her,” and “absolutely” never made “any sexual advances towards her.” The judge noted that when the officers executed the search warrant at the ranch, they found Harris’s underwear “in the first bedroom,” where she told them it would be located.
The judge determined that because the two officers “reasonably credited” the story of Harris, the judge signed a search warrant. It further states that qualified immunity applied in this case to shield them from Cox’s claims.
It has also since been revealed that Cox and Harris actually first met in person in Fresno, where they went to dinner and then a hotel room where they both engaged in consensual sex. That was not cited in the court documents just released.
The judge also noted that it was the prosecutor who brought the formal charges against Cox, meaning the officers cannot be held liable for those filings.
Judge Rosenthal also wrote that it was Cooke, the now deceased district attorney, who made the decision to continue prosecuting the case.
“Cooke continued the prosecution because he still thought Harris had been sexually assaulted,” wrote the judge. Rosenthal concluded the decision to prosecute was Cooke’s and not that of either the officers or Mariposa County.
A major part of the decision also had to do with the receivership action, in which Cox had argued the county failed to follow proper procedures. But the judge again leaned heavily on the appeals court decision in pointing out why Cox’s arguments were not valid.
One of the points involved Sarah Williams, the former director of the Mariposa County Planning Department, who testified during a deposition that she did not personally see all 101 of the alleged violations and relied on others as well as advice from county lawyers.
The judge said Williams’ testimony was “not material” to the appointment of a receiver” and did not “undermine” the county’s probable cause.
There are many other issues cited by the judge, but in the end, she granted the summary judgment for the county, deputies and Harris and denied the judgments for Cox.
What’s not mentioned
There are many issues that have arisen over the decade this case has been ongoing which were not addressed in the judge’s findings.
Here are some of them:
• Marshall Long — The former Mariposa County Supervisor was at the heart of the case since Geonetta, the Oakland attorney, took over the case. The main issue, and one many believed would be exhibit A should the case go to court, was a text message sent by Long to Cox.
The message was sent after the Mariposa County Superior Court ordered Cox’s property be sold following a receivership. It left Cox without a home or property.
Here’s the text message: “Jerry, Tired of your lies and threats. How’s that homelessness working for you? A cord of wood is 128 cubic feet. Tape measures and the ability to use it are helpful.”
The wood is in reference to a much earlier matter in which Cox was accused of selling firewood and advertising it as a cord which it was not.
The text message was signed: “Marshall Long, Mariposa County, Supervisor District 3, (209) 966-3222. Grammatical errors courtesy of my iPhone.”
Long did provide a deposition in the case and during the questioning, he was asked by Geonetta about the text message.
“I mean, ‘How is that homelessness working for you?’ isn’t that — were you gloating? Is that what that is, gloating?” asked Geonetta.
“Like I said, I was pulling his tail,” said Long. “And like I said, I apologized for it. I apologized at a board of supervisors meeting. And whatever form this is, whether it’s an email or a text. I apologized on that also.”
Later in the questioning, Geonetta asked: “Would you agree that your message to Mr. Cox was an expression of your malice towards him?”
“No,” said Long.
“When you say ‘pulling his tail,” were you trying to make a joke?” asked the attorney.
“Yes,” said Long.
“Do you think homelessness is a funny matter?” asked Geonetta.
“I have never thought of homelessness in that way,” said Long. “I have compassion for the homeless. Always have.”
• The drinking allegation — Darlene Windham was a woman who was staying at the ranch at the time Harris was there with Cox. During testimony Windham gave in a case involving Harris in Southern California, she told the court that she was the one who drove Harris to the California Highway Patrol office the night she accused Cox of rape.
However, she said before they went to the CHP office, they stopped and drank several beers at a local bar. Windham also said she did not believe the allegations of Harris because she had been at the ranch in close proximity to where Cox and Harris were staying and had heard nothing.
• The bridge — Another central point of Cox’s argument had to do with a bridge located on the road of his property. That bridge was part of the 101 code violations cited by the county.
But the bridge was not owned by Cox, rather it is the property of CAL FIRE. Cox’s attorneys said that was just the tip of the iceberg when it came to how the county manipulated the code violation allegations.
• Cox’s attorneys, including murder — The documents also do not address the many attorneys who have represented Cox over the course of both cases.
Most notably is Marc Angelucci, the attorney who took up the case filed by Cooke alleging 16 sex-related counts that, if proven, could have landed Cox in prison for life. After that case was suddenly dropped by the DA, Angelucci made the decision to continue to represent
Cox in the receivership case.
Angelucci publicly criticized Judge Walton, the county and many others when it came to the receivership case.
And then suddenly, his fate turned fatal.
On July 11, 2020, Angelucci was at his home in Cedarpines Park, in Southern California, when a person who appeared to be a deliveryman rang the doorbell. When someone else answered, the man claimed to have a package for Angelucci.
When Angelucci came to the door, he was shot and the gunman sped away in a car. Angelucci was pronounced dead at the scene after paramedics arrived.
It was later determined that man was Roy Den Hollander, the suspect in the shooting of district judge Esther Salas’ son and husband in New Jersey.
That attack came eight days after the murder of Angelucci and he also posed as a deliveryman. He was later found dead of a self-inflicted gunshot wound in a car in New Jersey.
Den Hollander and Angelucci were both once involved in the National Coalition for Men, which is how Angelucci became involved in the Cox case following the rape allegations.
According to Harry Crouch, the president of the NCFM, Den Hollander has been kicked out of the organization five to six years prior because he was a “nut job.” According to Crouch, Den Hollander had also been removed from the coalition board for threatening Crouch.
The sudden death of Angelucci, and then the subsequent retirement of Judge Walton, threw the case into turmoil and caused months, and likely years, of delays.
How much money?
One of the big questions that remains unanswered in the Cox case is just how much money the taxpayers have spent on lawyers.
County officials have refused to release any information about the federal case. State law does allow them to withhold that information until the case is closed, however, it does not prevent officials from informing the taxpayers.
The case is likely to remain open because all indications are an appeal will be filed, though that information has not been officially announced by Cox’s lawyers. It’s probably likely no matter how the judge ruled, an appeal of the case would be filed.
Cases before the Ninth Circuit Appeals Court can take up to and more than two years to be heard and decided.
Responses (0)