A new judge has been appointed in the long-running Jerry Cox case — and he has an interesting background.
The saga of local resident Jerry Cox has been ongoing for more than a decade and a federal court case has been on the books for what is nearing seven years.
Over the course of that time, several judges have handled the case with two retiring and the lead judge located in Texas.
Now, a new court document has revealed that Magistrate Judge Frank J. Singer has been assigned to the case. He is in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.
In fact, Singer was just recently appointed to the bench in Fresno, one of the most overburdened federal courts in the country.
Singer is listed as the magistrate judge, who is the person that handles motions and a lot of the intricacies in the case. Presumably, Judge Lee H. Rosenthal of Houston, Texas, will remain as the main judge on the case, including the one who handles the trial.
It is still unclear if the trial will be held in Fresno, which is likely. The presumption is when the case goes to trial in September, Rosenthal will travel from Texas to oversee the courtroom trial.
High-profile case
The high-profile Cox case involves two separate cases, both in Mariposa County. One was a case in which Cox was charged with 16 sex-related counts and the other a receivership case which ultimately led to Cox losing his 436-acre Bison Creek Ranch.
That ranch is located on CYA Road near the airport in Mt. Bullion. Since Cox lost the property, it has changed hands two times.
Cox was exonerated in the felony cases when the former district attorney dropped all charges in a quick hearing in Mariposa County Superior Court before former Judge Dana Walton.
But in the receivership case, that same judge allowed Mariposa County to proceed with a receivership case based on 101 alleged code violations at the ranch. The court eventually granted the receivership and the taking of Cox’s property.
Cox filed the federal case in August 2019, citing both Mariposa County Superior Court cases and a laundry list of Constitutional violations he claims were part of a scheme by the county to have him sent to prison, possibly for life, and then take his land as revenge for the county not being able to proceed with the rape case.
Cox is seeking damages for unconstitutional searches and seizures; retaliatory and selective enforcement; forced homelessness; loss of use and enjoyment; theft of plaintiff’s property; conversion of plaintiff’s property; lost profits; loss of business opportunities; reputational harm; emotional distress; and out-of-pocket costs incurred due to defendants’ misconduct.
The case has taken twists and turns over the years, with the latest being the appointment of a new judge.
Earlier this year, the Texas judge allowed the case to be extended one more time, with a trial date now slated in September. A ruling by that judge based on a hearing held in February remains pending and could result in the accusations being narrowed down once the case does go to trail.
To date, the county’s lawyers, the legal firm of Serviam by Wright located in Irvine, has refused to comment on the status of the matter. County officials, too, have refused to release information about how much money has been spent on the Cox case over the years.
Speculation is it is in the millions, but county officials simply won’t release the records. Though state law does allow them to withhold that information during pending litigation, it remains a fact the county could release it to inform the public of how much the taxpayers have spent.
The case
The case Cox filed is against Mariposa County, former sheriff’s office deputy William Atkinson, current sheriff’s office deputy Wesley Smith and Ashley Harris, the woman at the center of the first case against Cox in which the 16 felony charges were filed.
Cox claims that Harris colluded with the deputies — and others — in order to bring the felony case against him. He claims there was evidence from the beginning that Harris, a woman he met on the website farmersonly.com, was lying about being held captive at his ranch and subject to forced sex.
Cox has admitted he had a consensual relationship with Harris, which began in Fresno when they first met. Later, Harris came to the ranch owned by Cox, where she stayed. It was there she said she was locked in a room and unable to contact anyone.
But phone records reveal that was simply not the case as she made many calls and sent text messages — some to Cox — during the time she said she was held captive and could not communicate with the outside world.
The felony case dragged on for nearly two years with the charges hanging over Cox’s head. Former Mariposa County District Attorney Tom Cooke, who has since died, kept the case going until he eventually decided to request the court to drop the matter.
In a brief hearing before Walton, the court granted the request.
It was around that same time when the county then cited Cox with the alleged code violations and he was taken to court at the request of the county. During that court case, the receivership was granted and Cox eventually lost his property.
Some county officials have said it was the hired attorneys who brought the case into receivership, however, every court document related to that case lists Mariposa County as the entity which brought the accusations.
The county has also argued in court the felony case and the receivership case were not related.
The county has claimed since the outset the rape case and the code violation case were unrelated.
But former federal Judge Anthony Ishii, who first handled the federal case but has since retired, wrote a lengthy statement and said, in his opinion, there was little doubt the county was co-mingling cases.
Judge Rosenthal, in the February hearing, also alluded to the written statement by Ishii.
Now, the case remains in the federal court in Fresno, where, so far, all indications are it will go to trial in September. It remains unclear what Cox’s attorney, Fred Geonetta of Oakland, will ask for in damages. Some have speculated in could be in the tens of millions of dollars.
About Judge Frank Singer
Singer was appointed to the federal court in Fresno and began his duties on March 23 — the same day he was assigned the Cox case.
He is a former Department of Justice Natural Resources Section attorney.
Prior to that, he was a trial attorney.
While working for the Natural Resources Section, Singer focused on trial work and litigated a wide range of Fifth Amendment takings cases as well as tribal trust cases.
That background would seem to be fitting in this case, where Cox has claimed from the beginning the county illegally took his property under the pretext of code violations. Court documents have revealed that county took the unusual step of seeking a court order to go onto Cox’s property without him present.
That was granted by the local court. Documents reveal that several Mariposa County department heads submitted letters to the court saying Cox was dangerous and the court should allow officials to go onto the property without him present.
It is rare in California for a property owner not to be present when local officials go onto their land to inspect what they claim are code violations.
Singer’s biography on the court website states “Judge Singer presides over a large variety of federal matters. Judge Singer also conducts settlement conferences.”
Prior to taking the bench, Singer was a trial attorney, then senior trial attorney and ultimately a senior litigation counsel with the Natural Resources Section of the Justice Department’s Environment & Natural Resources Division.
There, Judge Singer focused on trial work and litigated a wide range of matters, including Fifth Amendment takings cases, tribal trust cases and challenges to governmental action under the Administrative Procedure Act. Singer also frequently taught courses on civil litigation at the Justice Department’s National Advocacy Center.
Before joining the Justice Department, Singer practiced general commercial civil litigation in Palo Alto and environmental civil litigation in Sacramento with private law firms.
Judge Singer also served as a term law clerk to the Hon. Garland E. Burrell, Jr., of the Eastern District of California.
Another development
There has also been another development in the case.
According to a court filing dated Feb. 13, attorney Nicholas L. Jaber has withdrawn from representing Atkinson and Smith, the two deputies named in the lawsuit.
Jaber was one of the attorneys with the firm Serviam by Wright that is representing Mariposa County in the federal case. Attorney Brian Chu of that same firm remains on the case.
It is unclear why Jaber has withdrawn from the case.
Another document indicates attorney Andrew Cristea will “appear as counsel” in the case for Atkinson and Smith.
Responses (0)