SAN JOSE, Calif. — A disabled veteran, Purple Heart recipient and former police officer has filed a complaint with the Commission on Judicial Performance alleging retaliatory legal actions and administrative stonewalling involving a former Santa Clara County Superior Court commissioner, according to an April 9 press release.
Jermaine A. Hopkins alleges procedural and administrative misconduct involving former Commissioner Erik S. Johnson stemming from East Side Union High School District v. Jermaine Hopkins, a case in which Hopkins claims the court moved forward with a hearing despite alleged defects in service and questions about jurisdiction.
According to the release, Hopkins maintains he was unable to fully present his case and that the ruling was later reversed on appeal.
The release states that Hopkins believes individuals involved in the matter were aware of his separate civil case, Hopkins v. Rodriguez et al. He contends the restraining orders may have limited his ability to continue that litigation, silencing his speech and restricting his legal efforts.
Hopkins said he does not believe the matter was isolated, describing himself as “one cog in a much larger machine.”
“There are many moving parts,” Hopkins said. “Many different people were brought in, used, and then pulled back out to give each other plausible deniability.”
The press release also raises concerns about how the Santa Clara County Superior Court handled Hopkins’ later administrative complaint. It notes that many members of the bench are connected to judges and court actors involved in the matters he is challenging.
Hopkins alleges the court failed to properly process his complaint after initially instructing him to submit it by email. According to the release, Deputy General Counsel Leslie D. Jensen told Hopkins on Feb. 10, 2023, to send complaints electronically.
However, Hopkins claims that once his complaint against Johnson became more fully developed, the court imposed shifting and inconsistent requirements that made it more difficult to pursue.
He further alleges Jensen later provided misleading information to a legislative aide in December, which he viewed as an effort to distance the court from its earlier guidance and avoid addressing the complaint.
Hopkins said the experience reflects a broader pattern in which the court provides one set of instructions when no formal complaint is pending, then changes course once the complaint becomes serious.
According to the release, Hopkins filed a separate complaint against Presiding Judge Julie A. Emede on March 18, 2026. That complaint alleges the court failed to respond to his original complaint within the 90-day deadline required under California Rules of Court, Rule 10.703.
Hopkins said his written complaint against Johnson was emailed Nov. 24, 2025, mailed Nov. 28 and received by the court Dec. 1. He alleges he did not receive notice within the required time frame.
The release states that when the court eventually responded, a March 2, 2026, letter characterized his complaint as a disagreement with a ruling rather than addressing allegations of procedural misconduct, bias and denial of due process.
Hopkins also alleges inconsistencies in the handling of that response, stating the letter was dated March 2 but was not emailed to him until March 23. He further claims the court acknowledged the existence of administrative records related to the complaint, including proof of mailing, routing and internal handling, but has not released those records.
“The letter I received did not answer my complaint,” Hopkins said. It “answered a different complaint” that he did not make.
He added that he “did not ask anyone to act like an appellate court” and that he “complained about bias, defective process, lack of service, denial of the right to be heard, and institutional obstruction.”
Hopkins further alleged that “[t]he court’s response was to minimize everything and then hide the administrative records showing how it handled the complaint.”
According to the release, Hopkins argues that responsibility for the issues he raises is spread across multiple individuals and offices within the court system, making accountability more difficult and allowing potential misconduct to go unaddressed.
The allegations have not been independently verified. Reviews by the Commission on Judicial Performance and the State Bar are ongoing.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
