San Mateo County sheriff injunction fails

Corpus’ attorneys then asked the court on Monday to issue a temporary restraining order to enjoin the process, giving the county’s counsel less than an hour’s notice, Nibbelin said, “which was disappointing.” Still, the court denied Corpus’ request. 

“Notwithstanding some of the deficiencies I cited, the court heard arguments from both sides and the court denied the sheriffs’ request for a restraining order to stop the removal proceedings,” Nibbelin said. “The removal proceedings remain on track.” 

Corpus and her counsel have made multiple attempts to question the removal procedure process to the courts, but the court has consistently stated that the matter is not yet ripe for consideration. 

“The court indicated, without touching on the merits per se, that it would be premature to rule on the matters that the sheriff’s raised until the entire removal procedure is complete,” Nibbelin said. 

This means the removal of Corpus from her elected position cannot be tried in court until if, or when, she is removed. 

“We are looking forward to and will be aggressively litigating these issues when the court deems them ripe,” Corpus’ attorney, Thomas Mazzucco, said in a statement. “Having the removal proceedings before certain members of the Board of Supervisors and county officials  who have publicly pre-judged 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 Board of Supervisors initiated the removal proceedings with the official service of a notice of intent for removal — a 59-page document with 524 pages of evidence and 42 witness interviews — that outlines the misconduct Corpus engaged in to warrant her removal. Corpus decided to keep this document private, which is within her discretion. 

The extraordinary effort to remove Corpus comes after a year of the public becoming aware of reports of a Sheriff’s Office workforce operating under low morale, allegations of retaliation and abuse of power, and many lawsuits already filed. 

Corpus has consistently denied all the allegations made against her, and has stated she “can’t wait to be heard, in the appropriate arena.” 

With the court’s denial of Corpus’ request to issue a temporary restraining order, the timeline remains as initiated. A pre-removal hearing conference will be held with both Corpus’ and the county’s counsel teams, and in front of Chief Probation Officer John Keene. This pre-removal hearing will be recorded, unless Corpus objects. 

Keene will then provide a written recommendation to the Board of Supervisors whether to remove Corpus, which it will either sustain or reject. A final decision to remove Corpus will be made by another four-fifths vote, and can be appealed by Corpus if she wants an evidentiary under-oath hearing, in front of a separate hearing officer from Keene. 

This under-oath evidentiary hearing will be open, unless Corpus objects and requests it to be closed. 

The estimated time when such a hearing may take place has changed with each update by the county. Previously, it was estimated to likely occur in August 2025. More recent proposed timelines state it may take until October.