A federal judge in San Francisco on Wednesday denied San Mateo County Sheriff Christina Corpus’ request to block a voter-approved removal process by the county’s Board of Supervisors.
With a hearing set to begin Monday, the sheriff faces possible removal due to multiple accusations of corruption and misconduct. In his ruling dated Aug. 13, U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria wrote that “the Court is skeptical that Corpus will ever be able to prevail on her claims that the removal process violates her federal rights.”
He added that “even if there were serious questions going to the merits of her claims, the Court would decline to take the extraordinary step of interfering with an ongoing local government process, particularly given that Corpus could (if she were somehow able to prevail) get most of the relief she seeks in this lawsuit after the fact.”
During oral arguments last week, Chhabria questioned whether a federal court should intervene in a process approved by voters. He described issuing a preliminary injunction as “an extraordinary step” that courts are “supposed to be reluctant to do.”
San Mateo County voters in March approved a charter amendment allowing the Board of Supervisors to remove an elected sheriff until 2028, the end of Corpus’ term. Chhabria said he was hesitant to disrupt an “ongoing county process.”
Related Articles
San Mateo County sheriff seeks federal injunction to stop ouster
Sheriff removal hearing will be open to the public, San Mateo County says
San Mateo County supports public access to Sheriff Corpus removal hearing
Editorial: Open up secret Sheriff Corpus removal hearings now
First Amendment advocates urge open hearing for San Mateo County sheriff facing removal
Corpus, the county’s first Latina sheriff, faces two removal efforts: one by the board and another through a civil grand jury accusation filed in June in San Mateo County Superior Court. She has denied wrongdoing and refused to resign.
In federal court, Corpus, elected in 2022, argued the removal procedures violate her due process rights. She accused Supervisors Noelia Corzo and Ray Mueller of prejudging her guilt, claimed the rules are vague and shift the burden of proof onto her, and said they give the board excessive control over choosing a hearing officer, including the power to disregard that officer’s findings.
Her attorneys also argue the process is an unconstitutional retroactive punishment. They note Measure A, which allows her potential removal, was enacted after she took office in 2023.
Her lawyer, Wilson Leung of San Francisco law firm Murphy, Pearson, Bradley & Feeney, told the court the process “violated basic notions of due process.” After the hearing, he told this news organization, “We were very confident in our arguments,” but acknowledged uncertainty about the outcome.
Attorneys for the county Andrew Dawson, Franco Muzzio and Jan Little countered that the request was premature because administrative remedies had not been exhausted. They said the rules comply with due process and denied that Corzo and Mueller were biased.
County spokesperson Effie Milionis Verducci previously noted that Corpus had made similar arguments in local court without success.
“The county remains committed to defending the integrity of this lawful process,” she said.
The county’s removal hearing is scheduled for Aug. 18–29, following the board’s June vote to oust Corpus after a pre-removal hearing. Retired San Mateo County Judge James Emerson will preside. The hearing will be public after Corpus withdrew an earlier request for privacy.
Calls for Corpus’ removal began last year when two sheriff’s unions accused her of workplace misconduct and abuse of power, prompting a 400-page investigation by retired Santa Clara County Judge LaDoris Cordell.
That report fueled demands for her ouster and a special election granting the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors the power to remove her by a four-fifths vote. A separate county-commissioned investigation by San Francisco law firm Keker, Van Nest & Peters, released in July, echoed many of Cordell’s findings.
In April, Corpus released a rebuttal authored by former Riverside County Superior Court Judge Burke Strunsky, who criticized Cordell’s reliance on anonymous sources and unrecorded interviews.
