Court of Appeals grants Humboldt DA disqualification of Judge Neel and vacates Humboldt Superior Court ruling

 

You heard it here first.

The Court of Appeals granted the Humboldt County DA's request to disqualify Humboldt Superior Court Presiding Judge Kelly Neel's request. I just looked at the order. The 8/21/26 date is vacated. Petition for mental health diversion reset for 8/24/26 and will be assigned to another judicial officer.

Senior Deputy District Attorney Roger Rees is the prosecutor for the Daryl Jones case. Conflict Counsel Supervising Attorney Meagan O'Connell is Jones attorney. The Humboldt Superior Court ruling vacated was issued by Humboldt Superior Court Assistant Presiding Judge Timothy Canning.

Humboldt Superior Court Judge Steven Steward, Judge Lawrence Killoran, Judge Cockrum and Judge April Van Dyke recused themselves. With Judge Neel disqualified, this leaves the option of Judge Canning, Humboldt Superior Commissioner Sarah Kaber, a Retired or Visiting Judge to hear the petition.

The apellate case number is not in e court. I looked it up. There is no opinion but on 8/17/26, what is posted below is on the docket next to 8/17/26.

"On July 9, 2026, petitioner filed a petition for writ of mandate or prohibition challenging respondent court's July 1, 2026 order denying petitioner's challenge of Judge Kelly Neel, which petitioner brought pursuant to section 170.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Respondent court denied the section 170.6 challenge pursuant to J.O. v. San Joaquin Superior Court (2026) 19 Cal.5th 753. We solicited informal further briefing. Real party in interest filed an informal opposition, but petitioner did not file an informal reply.

The court has conducted a detailed review of the record and briefing regarding this petition. It appears respondent court erred by denying petitioner's section 170.6 challenge. Assuming, without deciding, that real party in interest made a prima facie showing that petitioner's challenge of Judge Neel was a bad-faith blanket challenge under J.O., the record reflects that petitioner adequately explained the challenge by offering a good-faith basis for their belief that Judge Neel was prejudiced against them in this case. (J.O. v. San Joaquin Superior Court, supra, 19 Cal.5th at pp. 783-784.)

Therefore, let an alternative writ of mandate issue commanding respondent Humboldt County Superior Court, in case No. CR2500835, to vacate its July 1, 2026 order denying petitioner's section 170.6 challenge of Judge Neel and to enter a new order granting the challenge and reassigning the case to a different judge. In the alternative, respondent superior court may appear and show cause before Division Two of this court why a peremptory writ of mandate should not be granted. If respondent superior court complies with this court's directive on or before August 24, 2026, the court will discharge the alternative writ and dismiss the petition as moot.

Petitioner shall inform this court by letter of respondent court's decision as soon as possible. Should respondent court choose not to follow the above procedure, but instead to appear and show cause before this court why a peremptory writ of mandate should not issue, this matter will be heard before Division Two when ordered on calendar.

The alternative writ is to be issued, served and filed on or before August 17, 2026, and shall be deemed served upon mailing by the clerk of this court of a certified copy of the alternative writ and this order to respondent superior court. A written return shall be served and filed on or before August 31, 2026, and a reply to the return shall be served and filed on or before September 7, 2026. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.487(b).) If, however, respondent superior court complies with the alternative writ, and proof thereof is filed herein on or before August 27, 2026, then no return or reply need be filed, and the court will discharge the alternative writ and dismiss the petition as moot."

I am not listing all the posts I have done on the Jones case but these recent posts provide relevant information to this Court of Appeals ruling.