We Requested and Received Judge Clay Brennan’s Retirement Notice—We Didn’t Expect This

We requested Mendocino County Superior Court Judge Clay Brennan’s retirement announcement under the California Public Records Act (CPRA). The courts informed us that, by statute, the CPRA does not apply to judicial branch records.

However, Mendocino County Court Executive Kim Turner released the email anyway—under the proper authority: California Rule of Court 10.500, which governs public access to judicial administrative records.

Thanks to Turner for honoring the spirit of transparency.

With the legal authority clarified, what followed was a stunningly brief retirement notice—and a narrow window of time.

We’d welcome the chance to speak with Judge Brennan directly. What we do know: after nearly 19 years serving on the bench in Fort Bragg, Brennan was reassigned to split his time between Fort Bragg and Ukiah, where he was tasked with handling the lowest-level cases.

We don’t know who made that call. But we’d wager it wasn’t Judge Brennan.

To make matters worse, whenever Judge Brennan so much as picked up a criminal calendar to handle routine tasks, District Attorney David Eyster would promptly recuse him.

Everyone in the court system and media knows: Eyster had it in for Brennan.

In a press release about a criminal case, Eyster inserted the following into the document:

“At a November 2022 probation violation sentencing hearing before coast Judge Clayton Brennan, the imposition of the suspended state prison sentence that should have happened did not happen. Instead, Judge Brennan simply ordered the defendant to serve the original local jail sentence that was part of her probation from December 2021 that she had not yet begun to serve plus 60 extra county jail days.”

The jab at Judge Brennan felt misplaced—unnecessary and out of step with the gravity of the case.

Worse still, the release barely scratched the surface of a heartbreaking story and seems to misconstrue what the court documents say about the case.

We’ve watched a lot of cases—but the DA taking on the judge tale has veered off The Deep End more than once.

And no, we don’t mean Navarro. (Though in Boontling, that’s The Deep End too.)

A resignation letter with just one week’s notice—and no explanation—deserves more. Many in the courts expected him to complete 20 years then retire and to go out with the expected retirement parties and transition his replacement or replacements. But then the calendar was shuffled and Brennan ended up handling small claims cases and eviction cases in Ukiah then back to Fort Bragg for the criminal calendar. A large number of shifts have been made that impact the judicial system, with little or not publicity being put out about them.

Judge Clay Brennan gave the Coast nearly two decades of service. That legacy calls for clarity, not silence.

We’d welcome a conversation anytime, Clay. The community deserves to hear your story.

Here is the resignation letter…in full

From:
Clay Brennan
Friday, October 24, 2025 2:48 PM

To Keith Faulder; Carly Dolan; Kim Turner

Re: Retirement

Dear Keith, Carly and Kim,

After a lot of thought and consideration, I no longer feel I cancontinue working for the Court. Effective Friday, October 31 at 5:00 p.m. I am retiring.

–Clay

There are currently 7 courtrooms planned in Ukiah. The plans that cleared CEQA in 2025 show eventual plans for 9 courtrooms. But the final plans in the works right now is for seven courtrooms.
Here is the CEQA document. “This Addendum supplements the Final Environmental Impact Report (2012 EIR; State Clearinghouse No. 2011042089) for the New Ukiah Courthouse project in Mendocino County, California. The 2012 EIR analyzed two potential sites for the courthouse. The Judicial Council selected and approved the acquisition of one site for the courthouse and has prepared the final conceptual design. This Addendum demonstrates, based on substantial evidence, that the 2022 final conceptual design is consistent with the project analyzed in the 2012 EIR, will have similar or reduced environmental impacts as those described in the 2012 EIR, and will not raise any new significant impacts. The 2022 conceptual design includes construction of a three-story, nine-courtroom, full-service courthouse for the Superior Court, County of Mendocino. The proposed project will be approximately 77,887 BGSF. The new courthouse will replace the court space in the existing Ukiah Courthouse, and will include court support space for court operations, court administration, criminal/civil/family law divisions, collaborative court, jury assembly and jury services, self-help, court security operations and holding and building support space. The proposed project will include surface parking spaces for staff, jurors, and the general public and secure parking spaces in the basement of the courthouse.

We should have reported the current plans are indeed for seven courtrooms, seven chambers. But they have permission to build up to 9.