Sheriff files federal lawsuit against Board of Supervisors

It resulted in a history-making decision in June from the Board of Supervisors, that unanimously voted her out of office following voter-approved authority to remove a sheriff for just cause that was granted in March via Measure A.

Formal removal proceedings, the first ever in California’s history against an elected sheriff, will be held in an under-oath evidentiary are set to be held from Aug. 18 to Aug. 29.

Corpus has robustly denied the allegations against her since they were first initiated. She did not respond to request for comment on the lawsuit.

In the lawsuit, which is filed against all five members of the Board of Supervisors, lawyers representing her doubled down on previous statements that the removal proceedings and actions against her are politically motivated, due in large part because of her attempts to reform the Sheriff’s Office, and illegal under the constitution.

“While these procedures theoretically provide Sheriff Corpus with two opportunities to be heard, they offer no actual meaningful opportunity to do so and provide no actual limitations on Defendants’ ability to remove her,” the lawsuit read. “In the theater Defendants have created, they are ultimately empowered to remove her no matter what evidence is adduced.”

None of the five board members named as defendants in the lawsuit responded to request for comment.

Corpus’ legal team is asking the court to permanently stop the county’s removal proceedings against her on the grounds that her constitutional due process rights have been violated. Two lawyers representing her, Thomas Mazzucco and Wilson Leung, did not respond to request for comment.

Though county residents granted the Board of Supervisors the power to remove a sitting sheriff in March, the lawsuit argues that granting the board such a power provides “no meaningful limitation” on their authority or an unbiased arena for Corpus to share her side of the story.

“The entire removal proceeding apparatus set up by Defendants is a sham, is tainted by bias, provides no meaningful opportunity to be heard, and violates procedural due process,” the lawsuit reads.

The filing also disputes the process by which evidence has been produced against Corpus, largely in the form of reports by former judges, rather than following the already-established procedure to remove an elected official in California — a civil grand jury — that outlines specific accusations.

The San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury has, in actuality, initiated formal accusations of willful or corrupt misconduct, including conflict of interest and retaliation, against Corpus. While the lawsuit touches upon the grand jury process already underway, it cites complaints with that process as well.

“Significant conflicts” with District Attorney Stephen Wagstaffe taking over the process after county counsel John Nibellin recused himself are the subject of current state litigation, according to the lawsuit.

Wagstaffe said Corpus’ lawyers had filed a motion to recuse his office from proceeding with the accusation and that the DA’s Office would be filing a motion in response.

The lawsuit is also requesting that two supervisors in specific, Ray Mueller and Noelia Corzo, should not legally be allowed to participate in any removal proceedings because their previous, public statements against her allegedly are biasing the process.

Ultimately, the filing reiterates throughout that Corpus has been allegedly illegally maligned by the county’s proceedings.

“Defendants’ campaign to remove Sheriff Corpus shocks the conscience, offends all sense of fair play and decency, and violates substantive due process,” the filing said.