Having obtained judgment in his favor in his federal civil rights case against all defendants [City of Morro Bay, and two MBPD police chiefs (Joseph Cox aka Jody Cox and Amy Watkins) sued as individuals, NOT in their official capacities], and having received payment in full satisfaction of that judgment, plaintiff (attorney in pro per) David R Duringer (that’s me) has now submitted a civil rights complaint to the US Attorney for the Central District of California, urging maximal prosecution of both police chiefs (and any other culpable individuals, after full investigation) for violation of 18 USC § 242, in depriving him of his federally-protected rights under color of law.
Violation of that section can carry stiff penalties, potentially even the penalty of death. Fortunately, since this ordeal resulted in neither death nor even the sort of near-death AOC apparently suffered, there is no need for the death penalty here. Just keep in mind that capital punishment is indeed possible where Americans are deprived of their right of self-defense.
And given the lack of any bodily injury whatsoever, the heinous acts of these police chiefs appear chargeable only as misdemeanors under this particular code section. Note that my win in the civil case was due to accepting a Rule 68 offer and no issues were decided on the merits. Nevertheless, the US Attorney should investigate, look at all the evidence, and prosecute these apparent crimes fully.
Here is an excerpt from the civil rights complaint i submitted:
Details, including hyperlinks to judgment and complaint and other pages with all essential
documentary and video evidence, located here: https://lawnews.tv/judgment-entered-against-city-
and-2-police-chiefs-in-duringer-v-morro-bay-2a-victory/
I filed a federal 42 USC 1983 complaint against the City of Morro Bay and two of its police chiefs
(Joseph Cox aka Jody Cox, and Amy Watkins, both sued in their individual capacities, NOT official). I
obtained judgment in my favor against all three defendants, accepting their Rule 68 offer. That money
judgment has been satisfied in full and my understanding is that funds came from the city’s insurer.
Under Rule 68 there was no decision on the merits, but my complaint alleged five causes of action:
1. Denial of Right to Bear Arms (violation of 2A)
2. Retaliation Against Offer of Firearm Training by Political Candidate (violation of 2A)
3. Retaliation Against Political Speech by Political Candidate (violation of 1A)
4. Denial of Right to Procedural Due Process (14A)
5. Denial of Right to Equal Protection of the Laws (14A)
The central violation was denial of CCW, but the sole reason for denial was a political speech at a
forum for city council candidates.
The denial was so irrational it would have been actionable even prior to Bruen, but there is ample
evidence that defendants knew the denial violated Bruen even as they issued the denial.
There is also evidence of a conspiracy between defendants and other individuals including at least
one city council member and several members of the public, and that defendants lied about the
nature of the political speech and supposed consequences.
There is hard evidence that public records were falsified, as the copy of the denial letter produced by
the City differs substantially from the actual denial letter i received and still possess.
I ask that this matter be investigated fully and that all culpable individuals be maximally prosecuted
under 18 USC 242 and other applicable law.
