Humboldt Board Faces Anticipated Litigation Over Proposed Courthouse Security Changes

A Jan. 14, 2026 Reed Smith LLP letter to Humboldt County officials warned that plans to relocate weapons screening stations from the 1st Floor to the 2nd Floor of the Humboldt County Courthouse and to reassign bailiffs to perform weapons screening “raise challenging legal issues,” and the county’s Board of Supervisors has scheduled a closed-session agenda item on March 3 to discuss anticipated litigation under Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2) and (e)(3).

The Board agenda packet lists the item as “Letter regarding proposed changes to the provision of security services at the Humboldt County Courthouse” and identifies the attachment as “ReedSmith Court Security Services Letter (1-14-26) (sm).” The document list on the agenda explicitly ties the anticipated litigation item to that Reed Smith correspondence, and the agenda entry appears alongside other closed-session litigation matters scheduled for 1:30 PM.

Independent local reporting and a blog post reiterate the same operational description of the proposed changes and quote the Reed Smith language: “Last week the Court informed the Judicial Council that the Sheriff has begun preparing plans to 1) remove Weapons Screening stations from the 1st Floor and relocate the stations to the 2nd Floor of the building, and 2) to remove bailiffs from certain Courtrooms to perform Weapons Screening Services in lieu of attending court and performing bailiff functions there. Both proposed measures raise challenging legal issues.” The blog author also stated, “Aside from legal challenges, these proposed changes are cumbersome, will add to stress and frustration and endanger the public.”

Those operational concerns are illustrated in the blog’s courtroom anecdote naming Judge April Van Dyke and Judge Lawrence Killoran. The post recounts an instance when a calendar called by Judge Van Dyke had to move into Courtroom 5, described as Judge Killoran’s courtroom, because of bailiff transport and inmate-moving preferences during a mental health calendar. The blogger also referenced a separate Alameda Superior Court document of more than 20 pages as related background material.

The Board’s March 3 closed session will consider the Reed Smith letter as an exposure-to-litigation matter under Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2) and (e)(3). The same agenda packet contains additional litigation entries listed under Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1), including Corrine Morgan Thomas and Doug Thomas, et al. v. County of Humboldt, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-5725-RMI, and Seth W. Naman as Trustee v. County of Humboldt, Humboldt County Superior Court Case No. CV2600130.

County Counsel, the Sheriff’s Office and the Humboldt Superior Court are named recipients or parties in the Reed Smith correspondence on file with the Board packet. If the closed session results in formal filings, the question before judges, the Judicial Council and county officials will be whether the 1st Floor screening configuration and the current assignment of bailiffs may be altered without breaching legal or operational obligations that the Reed Smith letter contends are at stake.