A San Mateo County court rejected embattled Sheriff Christina Corpus’ attempt to block removal proceedings against her, County Attorney John Nibbelin announced during a Board of Supervisors meeting Tuesday.
The denial marks the latest development in the ongoing effort to remove Corpus from office, following allegations of corruption, workplace misconduct and other accusations.
Last week, the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to begin the removal process, authorized by voters in March through a special election that amended the county charter. The charter now says supervisors have that power until 2028.
“The court denied the petition for a TRO (temporary restraining order),” Nibbelin said. “The court indicated that it would be premature to rule on matters as such.”
According to Nibbelin, the temporary restraining order was denied on procedural grounds rather than on the substance of the filing. Corpus’ attorneys argued the removal process violates her right to due process and pledged to continue challenging it in court.
“We are looking forward to and will be aggressively litigating these issues when the court deems them ripe,” Thomas Mazzucco, Corpus’ lead counsel, told this news organization. “Having the removal proceedings before certain members of the Board of Supervisors and County officials who have publicly prejudged the facts and made biased statements — in addition to creating new legislation to remove the sheriff after the alleged facts — is not due process.”
The effort to remove Corpus stems from a 400-page independent report that accused the sheriff of misconduct, corruption and an inappropriate relationship with her former chief of staff, Victor Aenlle. The report, released last year, was led by retired Judge LaDoris Cordell.
Corpus has denied the accusations and, to date, refuses to step down despite mounting political pressure against her.
During last week’s meeting, Mazzucco objected to Supervisors Ray Mueller and Noelia Corzo participating. He argued they should have recused themselves due to bias, as they had previously called for Corpus’ resignation. Mazzucco noted that without their votes, the supervisors could not achieve the four-fifths majority needed to remove the sheriff.
Mazzucco also challenged the legality of the removal process itself, noting the charter amendment authorizing it took effect on April 19 and should not apply retroactively to alleged misconduct from last year.
The board did not respond to Mazzucco’s objections during the meeting. It proceeded with issuing a notice of intent to remove Corpus, supported by a more than 50-page document detailing allegations. That notice has not yet been made public, pending review by Corpus’ legal team.
Mazzucco said the document would be released “in due time.”
Removal procedures were adopted by the Board of Supervisors last month. A pre-removal conference is set for later this week with the county’s chief probation officer. It is unclear whether that meeting will be held publicly or privately, depending on the sheriff’s preferences. The meeting will be recorded unless Corpus objects.
Following the conference, the probation officer is expected to issue a written recommendation to the board, which will then vote on whether to remove the sheriff. A four-fifths vote is required. If the board votes to remove her, the decision can be appealed, triggering a public hearing before a neutral officer unless Corpus requests a closed session.
Tensions between Corpus and county leadership have been escalating for months. Both sides have filed lawsuits and legal claims.
Elected in 2022, Corpus previously sued the county seeking access to records related to the Cordell report. She also commissioned a separate review by retired Riverside County Superior Court Judge Burke E. Strunsky, who criticized Cordell’s investigation for relying on anonymous sources and unrecorded interviews, and for failing to assess the credibility of witnesses.
The removal process is expected to take up to four months. The March special election that gave the board its new removal authority cost taxpayers more than $4 million, not including consultant fees and investigation expenses, according to the county.
