28. Plaintiff's Reply Brief

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Rehan Sheikh 1219 W. El Monte Street Stockton, California 95207 Telephone: (209) 475.1263 [email protected]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

REHAN SHEIKH Appellant (and plaintiff), v. Brian Kelly Secretary, California State Transportation Agency Appellee and Mark Tweety Manager, Department of Motor Vehicles Appellee

Case NO: 14 1 6 8 5 8 PLAINTIFFs REPLY BRIEF

The DMV continues to Suspend Plaintiffs Driving License without Notice and without Hearing since 2011 42. U.S.C. 1983 Judge : Hon. Garland E. Burrell Magistrate Judge Hon. Allison Claire District Court: 2: 14 CV- 7 5 1 GEB AC

Case: 14-16858, 09/30/2015, ID: 9703104, DktEntry: 28-1, Page 1 of 23

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Plaintiffs Reply Brief Rehan Sheikh v. [DMV]

P a g e | i

Table of Contents I. STATEMENT OF CASES................................................................................................... iii

II. SUMMARY.............................................................................................................................. 2

III. STATEMENTS ....................................................................................................................... 3

A. DMVs Demand for Reexamination - Mar 26, 2012 ................................................... 3 B. The DMVs Arbitrary Order to Suspend Driving License - Mar 27, 2012 ............ 5 C. The DMVs Verbal Demand for Medical Examination Sep 06, 2014 ............... 6

IV. ARGUMENTS ........................................................................................................................ 6

A. Demand for Medical Exams Constitutes Unreasonable Searches ............................. 6

B. DMVs and County Courts Records are inconsistent or Perjured ............................. 8

C. Like Medical Board, DMV should Grant hearing on alleged Failure to Pay ......... 10

D. Burden of Proof Driving License and Physicians License ...................................... 10

E. Right to Hearing on Suspension of License ................................................................... 11

F. Dispersal of Power; Justice Scalia emphasized on Structure of the Constitution 11

G. Suspension of Driving License for FTA and FTP is without Justification and does

not make roads Safer ..................................................................................................................... 12

H. Due Process Clause(s) Mandate a Notice ....................................................................... 15

I. Plaintiff has established irreparable harm ................................................................... 17

V. PRAYER ................................................................................................................................ 19


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


P a g e | ii

Table of Authorities

UNITED STATES CASES

Arizona Dream Act Coalition v Brewer, 757 F.3d 1053 (2014) ......................................................................................................... 13, 18

Counselman v. Hitchchock, 142 U.S. 547 (1892) ................................................................................................................... 7

Goss et al. v. Lopez et al. 419 U.S. 565 (1975) ......................................................................... 16

Ker v. California, 374 US 23 (1963). ........................................................................................... 7

Mullane, Special Guardian, v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., Trustee, et al. 339 U.S. 306 (1950) ....................................................................................... 16

Schmerber v California, 384 US 757 (1966) .............................................................................. 7 State of Texas v United States 5th Circuit - Case No; 15-40238 ......................................... 14

CALIFORNIA CASES

Bixby v. Pierno, 481 P. 2d 242, 4 Cal.3d 130, 151 (California Supreme Court, 1971) .............................................................................................................................. 17

In re Garcia, 315 P. 3d 117 (California Supreme Court, 2014) ........................................... 13

OTHER AUTHORITIES

California Assembly Bill 60 (2013) ............................................................................................ 14

California Assembly passed Resolution ACR 76 -800th Anniversary of Magna Carta ............................................................................................................................. 11

California Senator Darrell Steinberg - Right to Hearing ..................................................... 11 California Senator Darrell Steinberg -Innocent until Proven Guilty ................................ 11

Justice Antonin Scalia - Structure of Constitution ............................................................... 12


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


P a g e | iii

I. STATEMENT OF CASES

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Plaintiff and plaintiffs spouse are parties in the following cases;

1) Farzana Sheikh MD v Medical Board of California Case Number: 10 17098

2) Rehan Sheikh v Cisco Systems Inc. Case Number: 10 17684

3) Rehan Sheikh v Brian Kelly (California Department of Motor Vehicles) Case Number: 14 16858

4) San Joaquin (County) General Hospital v Farzana Sheikh, MD Case Number: 14 17322

Eastern District of California

Plaintiff and plaintiffs spouse are parties in the following cases;

1) Farzana Sheikh MD v Medical Board of California Case Number: 2:10 CV 213 FCD - GGH

2) Rehan Sheikh v Brian Kelly (DMV) Case Number: 2: 14 CV 751 GEB AC

3) San Joaquin (County) General Hospital v Farzana Sheikh, MD Case Number: 2:14 CV 1509 MCE AC

4) Farzana Sheikh, MD v Hon. Leslie Holland

Case Number: 2:15 CV 1773 TLN DAD


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


P a g e | 1

LIST OF EXHIBITS

A. Dec 5, 2011 Order of Suspension (Anonymous, unsigned)

B. March 27, 2012 Order of Suspension (without stating any cause)

C. March 26, 2012 Driver Medical Exam - Any and All Conditions

D. Sep 16, 2014 Driver Medical Exam

E. May 2015 DMVs Public Records showing Accusations without Notice

F. Aug 6, 2014 Declaration of Shannon Gove - without Reexamination

G. May 6, 2014 Letter - Jennifer Berry, Assistant Chief County, DMV

H. April 25, 2014 Letter - Thomas Laughter, Manager DMV

I. July 14, 2014 Letter - Matthew Besmer, DAG Department of Justice

J. July 31, 2015 Plaintiffs Letter Public Records

K. Aug 12, 2014 Plaintiffs Declaration

L. Year 2015 Defendant Brian Kelly Drivers Handbook


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


P a g e | 2

II. SUMMARY

1. The DMV issued first anonymous Order (dated Dec 5, 2011) to suspend

plaintiffs Driving License generally citing an alleged Failure to Appear (FTA)

and an alleged Failure to Pay (FTP). All of the DMVs accusations are contested.

2. The DMV issued second Order (March 27, 2012) to suspend plaintiffs Driving

License without stating any stating any cause. The Due Process Clause(s)

mandates that the DMV state a cause for Suspension of Driving License.

3. Without stating any cause, the DMV demands plaintiffs Reexamination

including Driving test, written test, Medical, Psychological, Neurological

examinations, Drug addition, alcohol addiction, chemical and blood tests. The

DMV stated that it can deny license even after successfully completing such

Reexamination.

4. Without Judicial hearing and without any Notice, the DMV published its

accusations including Lack of Knowledge or skill on its public reports to auto

insurance corporations causing undue injury.

5. Plaintiff contested the policy of summary Driving License suspension merely for

an alleged Failure to Pay (FTP) and for alleged Failure to appear (FTA). The

DMV was not able to present opposition and matter is ripe for default judgment

for plaintiff.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


P a g e | 3

III. STATEMENTS

6. On or around February 29, 2012, the DMV denied renewal of Plaintiffs Driving

License without a written Notice and without hearing. The DMV Stockton office

stated that the driving license was blocked by the DMV Sacramento office. After

plaintiffs request the DMV office Supervisor gave a phone number.

7. Plaintiff called the DMV Sacramento office and spoke with Mr. Mark Tweety

who identified himself as a Manager at DMV. Plaintiff explained DMV manager

about adverse impact on life because of non-renewal of his driving license. Mr.

Tweety did not care at all about impact on plaintiffs life and stated, this is not

important for you to drive.

8. Plaintiff reminded Mr. Tweety of his Right to Due Process and requested a good

cause for denial. Mr. Tweety stated that license is a Contractual Agreement

(without any explanation). Mr. Tweety also said, there is no Due Process

available for denial of driving license.

9. On or around March 23, 2012 Mr. Tweety called plaintiff. Mr. Tweety mentioned

that he was out to another facility that morning. Mr .Tweety stated that some of

the information relevant to non-renewal of plaintiffs license does not seem to

align. Mr. Tweety asked plaintiff to come to DMV office in Sacramento.

A. DMVs Demand for Reexamination - Mar 26, 2012

10. On or around March 26, 2012, Plaintiff went to the DMV office in Sacramento,

California and was asked to meet a senior DMV officer Darryl Mickens. The


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


P a g e | 4

DMV demanded written test, Driving test and that plaintiff provide complete

information on a five page pre typed Driver Medical Evaluation Form (Exhibit).

Title of that Medical Form is All Medical Conditions. On that form DMV

demanded Medical, Psychological, Neurological, Drug addition, alcohol

addiction, chemical and blood tests.

11. The DMVs Medical Form mandates authorization (P1) that stated;

I hereby authorize my medical professional or hospital to answer any questions

from the Department of Motor Vehicles, or its employees, relating to my physical,

or mental conditions, and/or drug and/or alcohol use, and to release any related

information or records to the Departmental of Motor Vehicles or its employees.

Any expenses involved is to be charged to me and not to the Department of Motor

Vehicles.

and

I hereby authorize the Department of Motor Vehicles to receive any information

relating to my physical or mental condition, and/or drug and/or alcohol use or

abuse, and to use the same in determining whether I have the ability to operate

motor vehicles safely.

12. On the Medical form (P2), the DMV stated misleading and suggestive

instructions to the Medical Professionals that stated;

The Department of Motor Vehicles record indicate your patient may have a

condition that could affect the safe operation of a motor vehicle. . With your

assistance, the department hopes to resolve the matter with a minimum of


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


P a g e | 5

inconvenience to all concerned Your experience and knowledge of the patients

condition, result of medical examinations and treatment plans, will be of great

value in assisting the department to determine a proper licensing decision. 13. Not only the instructions, but also the questions on the Medical Evaluation

Form are also misleading; e.g. Question 8 Levels of Functional Impairment

has only three checkboxes, i) Mild, ii) Moderate and iii) Severe. There is no check

box labeled None where a doctor could indicate that a patient does not have

any functional impairment.

14. Plaintiff requested hearing to determine if there is a good cause for

Reexamination. The DMV denied the request. Further, the DMV officer stated

that even if you successfully complete Reexamination, the DMV is not required

to issue driving license.

15. Further, the DMV demands Reexamination at plaintiffs expense that could cost

tens of thousand dollars or more. The DMVs demand for Reexamination at

plaintiffs expense places an additional unbearable burden on plaintiff.

B. The DMVs Arbitrary Order to Suspend Driving License - Mar 27, 2012

16. On March 28, 2012 plaintiff received an Order dated March 27, 2012 suspending

his Driving License. In that order, the DMV checked two check boxes;

No Action is warranted at this time.

The suspension of your driving privileges effective February 25, 2012 shall

remain in affect until successful completion of reexamination process.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


P a g e | 6

17. In its order, the DMV did not state any reason at all for Driving License

Suspension and indefinitely suspended plaintiffs Driving License

18. The DMV officers are untrained on availability of procedural or substantive

Due process in California, and availability of Rights of American people such as

right to travel or right to interstate travel, right to work, pursuit of happiness.

C. The DMVs Verbal Demand for Medical Examination Sep 06, 2014

19. Plaintiff applied for renewal of California Identification Card. The DMV office

again asked that plaintiff complete a five page form (exhibit). On that day, the

DMV denied renewal of plaintiffs identity card.

IV. ARGUMENTS

A. Demand for Medical Exams Constitutes Unreasonable Searches

20. The DMVs arbitrary demand for Medical, Psychological, Neurological, Drug,

Alcohol related records, chemical and blood tests is intrusive, invades privacy,

and invades body integrity. The DMVs demand for Reexamination constitutes

unreasonable searches in violation of Fourth, and Fifth Amendment.

21. Implicit in the Fourth Amendment's protection from unreasonable searches and

seizures is its recognition of individual freedom. That safeguard has been

declared to be "as of the very essence of constitutional liberty" the guaranty of

which "is as important and as imperative as are the guaranties of the other

fundamental rights of the individual citizen ... Ker v. California, 374 US 23


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


P a g e | 7

(1963).

22. Likewise the Fourth Amendment recognizes that right when it guarantees the

right of the people to be secure "in their persons."

That Amendment expressly provides that "[t]he right of the people to be

secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable

searches and seizures, shall not be violated . . . ." (Emphasis added.) It

could not reasonably be argued, and indeed respondent does not argue,

that the administration of the blood test in this case was free of the

constraints of the Fourth Amendment. Such testing procedures plainly

constitute searches of "persons," and depend antecedently upon seizures of

"persons," within the meaning of that Amendment. Schmerber v California, 384 US 757 (1966)

23. The values protected by the Fourth Amendment thus substantially overlap those

the Fifth Amendment helps to protect.

Thus, the Fifth Amendment marks "a zone of privacy" which the

Government may not force a person to surrender. Likewise the Fourth

Amendment recognizes that right when it guarantees the right of the people

to be secure "in their persons." Ibid. No clearer invasion of this right of

privacy can be imagined than forcible bloodletting of the kind involved

here. Schmerber v California, 384 US 757 (1966) "To compel a person to submit to testing [by lie detectors for example] in which

an effort will be made to determine his guilt or innocence on the basis of

physiological responses, whether willed or not, is to evoke the spirit and

history of the Fifth Amendment. Such situations call to mind the principle

that the protection of the privilege `is as broad as the mischief against which it

seeks to guard.' Counselman v. Hitchchock, 142 U.S. 547 (1892)


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


P a g e | 8

B. DMVs and County Courts Records are inconsistent or Perjured

24. DMV submitted a declaration titled Second Declaration of Shannon Robbins

(exhibits- submitted Aug 06, 2014- District Court Docket#40). Without alleging

additional accusation of Lack of Knowledge or skill, and without demanding

Reexamination,; that declaration stated ;

1. Im a senior legal analyst at the Department of Motor Vehicels.

2. I retrieved plaintiff Rehan Sheikh driving record using California

Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) computer system. Plaintiff's

driving record contains information regarding his traffic citation,

conviction, and fine payment history as reported by law enforcement

agencies and California Superior Courts.

3. As of August 6, 2014, Plaintiff's driving record shows that he has not

paid his fine for his August 11, 20111Taffic citation (No. i\158647),

and that he has not appeared in the San Joaquin County Superior

Court on his February 16,2012 traffic citation (No. A156283).

4. When Plaintiff pays his traffic 1ine and when he appears in court, the

San Joaquin County Superior Court -will notify the DMV and

Plaintiffs driving record will be updated to reflect Plaintiff's fine

payment and court appearance.

5. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States

of America and the State of California that the foregoing is true and

correct and that this declaration was executed on August 6, 2014, at

Sacramento, California.

25. The DMV and the Department of Justice issued the following letters (exhibit);

a. May 6, 2014 - Jennifer Berry, Assistant Chief County, DMV

b. April 25, 2014 - Thomas Laughter, Manager DMV


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


P a g e | 9

c. July 14, 2014 - Matthew Besmer DAG Department of Justice

The above referenced three letters, without alleging additional accusation of

Lack of Knowledge or skill, arbitrarily demanded Reexamination and alleged

the following two accusations;

i. Failure to Appear (FTA)

ii. Failure to Pay (FTP)

26. Recently plaintiff accidently received a copy of the Public record and the DMV

report (exhibit) where the DMV alleged three accusations;

i. Failure to Appear (FTA)

ii. Failure to Pay (FTP) or unpaid fine

iii. Lack of Knowledge or skill

27. Plaintiff wrote a letter dated July 31 (docket 21-2) , The letter stated,

In the above referenced matter, the Driving License Records show an

accusation of Lack of knowledge or skills. When the DMV published those

accusations?

Defendants have yet to respond.

28. Even before any judicial finding, the DMV published all the above referenced

accusations including Lack of Knowledge or skill on its public reports to auto

insurance corporations. As a result, most reputable providers denied insurance

or quoted significantly higher premiums making insurance more expensive.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


P a g e | 10

C. Like Medical Board, DMV should Grant hearing on alleged

Failure to Pay

29. When a physician is accused of FTP state or federal tax, the office of California

Attorney General prepares allegations and a physician has an opportunity of a

hearing first before a Medical Board Judge and then a second hearing before

Members of the Medical Board. The Rights embedded in the Driving License also

deserves a procedural protection of a hearing before neutral hearing officers.

D. Burden of Proof Driving License and Physicians License

30. On June 16, 2015 Ms. Cassandra Hockenson, Public Affairs Manager of

California Medical Board attended a Fraud Prevention workshop at George Sims

Community Center, Sacramento California. In her presentation, Ms. Cassandra

stated that the Board has Burden of Proof to suspend a license and the Burden

was higher than the civil cases. She mentioned that (evidentiary) standard is 60-

70%. Such a process, if practiced, could potentially reduce risk of erroneous

deprivation.

31. The DMV also Burden to prove its accusations for suspension of Driving License.

If DMV alleges that a Driver did not appear before a third party, the DMV must

prove its accusations and their relevance. This is the process widely accepted in

modern civilized countries. In order to deceptively shift its Burden of Proof,

defendants demand that plaintiff provide a proof of attendance at county court.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


P a g e | 11

32. The charter of Magna Carta affirmed judicial principles. In order to (re)affirm

such principles of liberty, in July 2015, California Assembly passed Resolution

ACR 76 -800th Anniversary of Magna Carta. (Bill Analysis1

E. Right to Hearing on Suspension of License

).

33. The principle was correctly affirmed by California Senator Darrell Steinberg -

Innocent until Proven Guilty in the matter of license suspension (video link2

Not trying to expel (a senator) because he is not tried yet and under our

system of justice one is considered innocent until proven guilty.

):

[Citing another example] Senator Steinberg said,

Senator was tried and convicted by Jury of his peers but he still has Right to

appeal. To expel them, you have to give them a last hearing before a Judge.

California Senator Darrell Steinberg - Right to Hearing

F. Dispersal of Power; Justice Scalia emphasized on Structure of the

Constitution

34. DMVs argument to suspend driving license for an alleged Police Order, without

Due Diligence by DMV, would undermine our system of checks and balances.

35. Now this is a judicial fact that California Police issue tickets and random orders 1 Bill Analysis of ACR 76 800th Anniversary of Magna Carta http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billAnalysisClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160ACR76 2 ex California Senator Darrell Steinberg Innocent until proven Guilty https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJrYJGP2fVY


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


P a g e | 12

regardless of merit (quota). This was recently echoed at Eastern District of

California (June 2015). While driving his car, an old ex cop Mr. Orr was

mistreated by police, wrongfully accused of DUI, wrongfully jailed for 14 hours

and finally police demanded that the DMV revoke his driving license. In that

matter involving officer Orr the documents were presented showing that police

has a quota to issue citations.

That is terrible, U.S. District Judge William B. Shubb said. I would

think that the CHP should be ashamed of that document.

36. In order to prevent erroneous deprivation, the DMV can perform its own Due

Diligence before suspending License. Justice Antonin Scalia - Structure of

Constitution categorically emphasized the importance of preventing

centralization of power; even more important than the Bill of Rights itself.

The genius of the American constitutional system is the dispersal of power,

he said. Once power is centralized in one person, or one part [of government],

a Bill of Rights is just words on paper.

G. Suspension of Driving License for FTA and FTP is without

Justification and does not make roads Safer

37. Late night TV host John Oliver presented an 18 minute episode including a brief

section on suspension of driving license for Failure to Pay; (video link3

3 John Oliver Revoking License for Failure to Pay Series of clips

);

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ry9EM61aKCM&list=PLcmwDdyPFLQ-o8QuUip_p4RhFH0bdfnjR&index=1


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


P a g e | 13

If you loose driving license, it affects every thing. Most American drive to work

and if you cannot do that you got a problem. John Oliver cited a a particular

survey that found that 64% of the people who lost driving license lost their job

which does not help anyone. You need them to pay their fine but you are

taking away their means of paying it. That is the most self defeating idea

since

38. The Courts have eliminated barriers on licenses in this New Era.

In Arizona Dream Act Coalition v Brewer, 757 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2014),

the Court considered fundamental Rights, irreparable harm and eliminated

state law barriers on driving license.

In re Garcia, 315 P. 3d 117 (California Supreme Court, 2014), the

Supreme Court of California eliminated barriers on Attorneys license. There

were questions of incorrectly completing the application form, lack of Social

Security number and lack of documentation. The Court granted license. The

Court noted this is a case of first impression, as we are not aware of any other jurisdiction

that has ever knowingly admitted an undocumented alien to the practice of law.

In Perry v. Brown, 671 F. 3d 1052 (9th Circuit 2012), this Court

eliminated barriers on marriage license and noted;

The People may not employ the initiative power to single out a disfavored

group for unequal treatment and strip them, without a legitimate

justification, of a right as important as the right to marry. John Oliver - Brief version (29 seconds) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ry9EM61aKCM


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


P a g e | 14

39. DMVs singles out driver based on drivers ability to pay. DMV singled out

plaintiff potentially for mismatched documents. Such minor undocumented

status cannot be a barrier to plaintiffs driving license.

40. Actually state would gain significantly more in taxes by issuing driving license

which benefits state economies rather than denying license for failure or

inability to pay. Recently, California filed An Amicus Brief that stated;

When immigrants are able to work legallyeven for a limited timetheir

wages increase, they seek work compatible with their skill level, and they

enhance their skills to obtain higher wages, all of which benefits State

economies by increasing income and growing the tax base.

Brief of Amicus States dated Mar 12, 2015 (P5-line 1) State of Texas v

United States 5th Circuit - Case No; 15-40238

41. Criteria for driving license is ability to safely drive car. California issued license

to illegal or undocumented aliens who didnt appear before united states

authorities and didnt pay. California Assembly Bill 60 (2013) eliminated

numerous barriers and promoted safe driving by issuing licenses. (Analysis4

42. In Driver handbook (P1), Mr. Kelly listed criteria of safe driving that stated;

).

California is safer when all motorists pass written and driving tests and

obtain proof of insurance and a driver license.

4 AB 60 Analysis http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB60


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


P a g e | 15

H. Due Process Clause(s) Mandate a Notice

43. The DMV did not issue any Notice or any letter to plaintiff that stated Lack of

Knowledge or skill. The DMV did not issue any Notice that alleged Failure to

Appear (FTA) or Failure to Pay (FTP). The DMV did not issue any Notice at all.

For lack of written Notice of Accusation and for lack of hearing, plaintiff has no

opportunity to contest accusation.

44. The bare minimum requirement of the Due Process clause mandates that the

DMV issue written Notice of all of its accusations.

Many controversies have raged about the cryptic and abstract words of the

Due Process Clause but there can be no doubt that at a minimum they require

that deprivation of life, liberty or property by adjudication be preceded by

notice and opportunity for hearing appropriate to the nature of the case.

Mullane, Special Guardian, v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., Trustee, et

al. 339 U.S. 306 (1950)

45. The Notice of accusations is not a mere gesture and must reasonably inform

plaintiff of the pendency of an action and an opportunity to present objections.

An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any

proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated,

under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of

the action and afford them an opportunity to present their

objections.(citations omitted). The notice must be of such nature as

reasonably to convey the required information, and it must afford a

reasonable time for those interested to make their appearance, "The


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


P a g e | 16

criterion is not the possibility of conceivable injury but the just and

reasonable character of the requirements, having reference to the subject

with which the statute deals." But when notice is a person's due, process

which is a mere gesture is not due process. Mullane, Special Guardian, v.

Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., Trustee, et al. 339 U.S. 306 (1950)

46. The DMV suspended plaintiffs Driving License, published its accusations on its public report without a Notice and without any hearing causing undue injury. The DMV continues to suspend plaintiffs driving license since 2011. On such a matter involving 10 day suspension the Supreme Court noted;

Where a person's good name, reputation, honor, or integrity is at stake because of what the government is doing to him," the minimal requirements of the Clause must be satisfied (citations omitted). School authorities here suspended [student] from school for periods of up to 10 days based on charges of misconduct. If sustained and recorded, those charges could seriously damage the students' standing with their fellow pupils and their teachers as well as interfere with later opportunities for higher education and employment. It is apparent that the claimed right of the State to determine unilaterally and without process whether that misconduct has occurred immediately collides with the requirements of the Constitution. Goss et al. v. Lopez et al. 419 U.S. 565 (1975)

47. Plaintiff is improperly deprived of his Driving License in violation of the Due

Process Clause(s). "[T]he Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was

intended to prevent government `from abusing [its] power, or employing it as an

instrument of oppression. (citations omitted) Collins v. City of Harker Heights,

503 U.S. 115 (1992). Protection of individuals against arbitrary government


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


P a g e | 17

action is the great purpose of this clause. Wilwording v. Swenson, 502 F.2d 844,

(8th Cir. 1974).

48. The DMVs order to suspend Driving license is arbitrary, capricious, vague

atrocious and shocks the conscious. In Bixby v. Pierno, 481 P. 2d 242, 4 Cal.3d

130, 151 (California Supreme Court, 1971) the Court characterized as arbitrary

and capricious any administrative decision which has no reasonable basis

in law or no substantial basis in fact.

I. Plaintiff has established irreparable harm

49. Irreparable harm is traditionally defined as harm for which there is no adequate

legal remedy, such as an award of damages. See Rent-A-Ctr., Inc. v. Canyon

Television & Appliance Rental, Inc., 944 F.2d 597, 603 (9th Cir. 1991). Because

intangible injuries generally lack an adequate legal remedy, intangible injuries

[may] qualify as irreparable harm. Id.

50. Plaintiffs Constitutional Right to liberty, interstate travel, and Right to pursuit

of happiness depend on his Driving License. Deprivation of plaintiffs Driving

License is not accompanied by constitutionally mandated procedural protection.

Defendants violation of Plaintiffs constitutional rights, alone, constitutes an

irreparable injury.

51. Plaintiff risks harm from potential prosecution for Driving without a Driving

License. It is well settled that risk of prosecution is sufficient to establish


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


P a g e | 18

irreparable injury. See Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705, 712 (1977) (holding

that plaintiffs had demonstrated harms sufficient to justify injunctive relief to

redress threat of prosecution for use of automobile). Plaintiff risks prosecution

merely for driving to a grocery store. In 2012 California police took plaintiffs

car and never returned. California police arrested plaintiff and deprived him of

food and insulin. Plaintiff risks prosecution merely for driving to a doctors office

for a medical examination or risks his health for not doing so.

52. Courts have long recognized that the ability to work often depends on the ability

to drive. Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535, 539 (1971) (noting that possession [of a

drivers license] may become essential in the pursuit of a livelihood). Plaintiff is

an engineer in the fields of software and internet engineering and worked in the

San Francisco bay area. Now Plaintiff cannot even attempt to find work for lack

of Driving License.

53. In Arizona Dream Act Coalition v Brewer, 757 F.3d 1053 (2014), the Court

considered irreparable and granted injunction. The Court noted that plaintiff

were likely to suffer irreparable harm unless defendants policy was enjoined,

and that both the balance of equities and the public interest favored an

injunction.

This Court also noted;

The irreparable nature of Plaintiffs' injury is heightened by Plaintiffs' young

age and fragile socioeconomic position. Setbacks early in their careers are

likely to haunt Plaintiffs for the rest of their lives. Thus, "a delay, even if only


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


P a g e | 19

a few months, pending trial represents ... productive time irretrievably lost" to

these young Plaintiffs. Chalk 840 F.2d 701 (1988). Plaintiffs' entire careers

may be constrained by professional opportunities they are denied today.

And

There can be no serious dispute that Defendants' policy hinders Plaintiffs'

ability to drive, and that this (in turn) hinders Plaintiffs' ability to work and

engage in other everyday activities. No award of damages can compensate

Plaintiffs' for the myriad personal and professional harms caused by their

inability to obtain driver's licenses. Thus, Plaintiffs are likely to suffer

irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction.

V. PRAYER

54. Plaintiff respectfully Prays before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that;

a. The DMV arbitrary demand for Reexamination constituted violation of

Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

b. The Court invalidate DMVs Orders of Suspension and issue an Injunction

to restore plaintiffs driving license.

c. The Court grant any other relief available at the discretion of the Court.

Respectfully Submitted;

/s/ Rehan Sheikh ---------------------------------- Date: September 30, 2015 Rehan Sheikh Plaintiff


Anonymous & unsigned Order of Suspension

Dec 5, 2011 EXHIBIT


Stiltll of California Businllss, Trilnsportation. and Housing Agllncy

DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES LICENSING OPERATIONS DIVISION P,O. lOX 942890, HAIL STATION J-233 SACRAHENTO, CA. 94290-0001 (916) 657-6525

DEC 05# 2011 ORDER OF SUSPENSION

PLEASE SHOW THIS NUHBER ON YOUR CORRESIP'ONDENCE

08981120511D3024994SHEOI0412 REHAN AVVUB SHEIKH DRIVERS LICENSE NO, D1219 W EL MONTE ST STOCKTON, CALIFORNIA 95207

YOUR DRIVING PRIVILEGE IS SUSPENDED AS OF JAN 04, 2012.

THIS ACTION IS BEING TAKEN UNDER THE AUTHORITV OF SECTION 13365 OF THE VEHICLE CODE (V.C.)

BECAUSE YOU VIOLATED YOUR WRITTEN PROMISE TO APPEAR ANDIOR YOU FAILED TO PAY A FINE

PURSUANT TO SECTION 42003(A) V.C. (SEE ENCLOSED LETTER).

THE SUSPENSION WILL REMAIN IN EFFECT UNTIL ALL FAILURES-TO-'APPEAR (FTA'S) AND FAILURES-TO

PAY-A-FINE PURSUANT TO SECTION 42003(A) HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM YOUR RECORD,

YOU MUST SURRENDER ANY DRIVER LICENSE IN YOUR POSSESSION. NOT DOING THIS IS A MISDEMEANOR (SECTION 14610 V.C,). YOU MAV APPLY FOR AN IDENTIFICATION (I.D.) CARD AT ANV DMV OFFICE.

YOUR VEHICLE CAN BE IMPOUNDED AND MAY BE SOLD IF YOU DRIVE WHILE UNLICENSED, SUSPENDED OR

REVOKED, IN VIOLATION OF A RESTRICTION REQUIRING USE OF A COURT-ORDERED IGNITION INTERLOCK

DEVICE (lID), OR AFTER REFUSING TO OBEY THE LAWFUL ORDER OF A PEACE OFFICER, OR WHILE

ATTEMPTING TO EVADE A PEACE OFFICER. CONVICTION CAN MEAN JAIL, A FII~E OR INSTALLATION OF

AN lID IF YOU DO NOT HAVE ONE.

BEFORE A LICENSE CAN BE ISSUED OR RETURNED, A REISSUE FEE OF $ 55 IS DUE (SECTIONS 14904 14906 V.C,), PLEASE INCLUDE YOUR DRIVER LICENSE NUMBER OR FILE NUMBER WITH YOUR PAYMENT.

DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES

ENCLOSURES


March 27, 2012

DMVs Arbitrary Order of Suspension

EXHIBIT


March 26, 2012

DRIVER MEDICAL EVALUATION

ANY AND ALL MEDICAL CONDITIONS

EXHIBIT


September 6, 2014

DRIVER MEDICAL EVALUATION

EXHIBIT


DMV Public Record

showing Additional Accusations of Lack of Knowledge or Skills without any Notice to Plaintiff

EXHIBIT


RehanHighlight

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES

***CUSTOMER RECEIPT COPY***

DRIVER LICENSE/IDENTIFICATION CARD

INFORMATION REQUEST

07/23/2015

"

DATE:07-23-15*TIME:10:19*

DL/NO:D3

B/D: *NAME:SHEIKH,REHAN AYYUB*

RES ADD AS OF 11-07-14:1219 W EL MONTE ST, STOCKTON 95207*

OTH ADD AS OF 01-09-07:500 W HOSPITAL RD, FRENCH CAMP*

IDENTIFYING INFORMATION:

SEX:MALE*HAIR:

ID CARD MLD:11-18-14* EXP:01-09-20*

LIC/ISS:01-09-07* EXP:01-09-12*RBMS*CLASS:C NON-COMMERCIAL*

HEALTH QUESTIONNAIRE EXPIRES:NONE*

LICENSE STATUS:

SUSPENDED OR REVOKED*

"

DEPARTMENTAL ACTIONS:

DRV LIC SUSPENDED*EFF:02-25-12*ORDER MAILED:02-16-12*

AUTH:12819 *

REASON:LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OR SKILL*SERVICE:J/02-25-12*


AUTH:13365 *

REASON:FAIL TO APPEAR NOTICE*SERVICE:M/09-16-14*

CONVICTIONS:

VIOL/DT CONV/DT SEC/VIOL DKT/NO DISP COURT VEH/LIC

08-11-11 05-23-12 22450 VC A158647 39460 5XOD646

405095 VC

*FAILURE TO PAY FINE

UPDATED:09-17-12*

"

FAILURES TO APPEAR:

VIOL/DT SEC/VIOL DKT/NO COURT VEH/LIC

02-16-12 14601A VC A156283 39460 5WAV921

16028A VC

21453A VC

21453A VC

21703 VC

21806A VC

1 of 2


RehanHighlight

RehanHighlight

RehanHighlight

RehanHighlight

RehanHighlight

22350 VC

UPDATED:05-03-12*

ACCIDENTS:

NONE*

END

2 of 2


514/2015 Assessmanl Print Page 1 of 1

Copyright 20131

DMV Public Record

showing Additional Accusations of Lack of Knowledge or Skills without any Notice to Plaintiff

EXHIBIT


RehanTypewritten Text

RehanTypewritten Textwithout highlighting records

RehanTypewritten TextDUPLICATE COPY

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES

***CUSTOMER RECEIPT COPY***

DRIVER LICENSE/IDENTIFICATION CARD

INFORMATION REQUEST

07/23/2015

"

DATE:07-23-15*TIME:10:19*

DL/NO:D3

B/D: *NAME:SHEIKH,REHAN AYYUB*

RES ADD AS OF 11-07-14:1219 W EL MONTE ST, STOCKTON 95207*

OTH ADD AS OF 01-09-07:500 W HOSPITAL RD, FRENCH CAMP*

IDENTIFYING INFORMATION:

SEX:MALE*HAIR:

ID CARD MLD:11-18-14* EXP:01-09-20*

LIC/ISS:01-09-07* EXP:01-09-12*RBMS*CLASS:C NON-COMMERCIAL*

HEALTH QUESTIONNAIRE EXPIRES:NONE*

LICENSE STATUS:

SUSPENDED OR REVOKED*

"

DEPARTMENTAL ACTIONS:


AUTH:12819 *

REASON:LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OR SKILL*SERVICE:J/02-25-12*


AUTH:13365 *

REASON:FAIL TO APPEAR NOTICE*SERVICE:M/09-16-14*

CONVICTIONS:

VIOL/DT CONV/DT SEC/VIOL DKT/NO DISP COURT VEH/LIC

08-11-11 05-23-12 22450 VC A158647 39460 5XOD646

405095 VC

*FAILURE TO PAY FINE

UPDATED:09-17-12*

"

FAILURES TO APPEAR:

VIOL/DT SEC/VIOL DKT/NO COURT VEH/LIC

02-16-12 14601A VC A156283 39460 5WAV921

16028A VC

21453A VC

21453A VC

21703 VC

21806A VC

1 of 2


22350 VC

UPDATED:05-03-12*

ACCIDENTS:

NONE*

END

2 of 2


514/2015 Assessmanl Print Page 1 of 1

Copyright 20131

Letters from DMVs without showing accusations of

Lack of Knowledge or skill EXHIBIT


1 KAMALA D. HARRIS, State Bar No. 146672 Attorney General of California

2 SCOTTH. WYCKOFF,StateBarNo.l91367 Supervising Deputy Attorney

l 3. As of August 6, 2014, Plaintiff's driving record shows that he has not paid his fine for

2 his August 11, 20111Taffic citation (No. i\158647), and that he has not appeared in the San 3 Joaquin County Superior Court on his February 16,2012 traffic citation (No. A156283).

4 4. When Plaintiff pays his traffic 1ine and when he appears in court, the San Joaquin

5 Counly Superior Court -will notify the DMV and Plaintiffs driving record will be updated to

6 reflect Plaintiff's fine payment and court appearance.

7 I declare under penalty ofpet:jury under the laws of the United States of America and the 8 State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on

9 August 6, 2014, at Sacramento, Califomia.

\0

1\

\2

13

14

\5

\6 SA2014ll5505

17 95ll392l.doc

\8

19

20

2\

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Sharon Robinson js/ Sharon 1Wbinson Declarant Signature

2 Second Declaration of Sharon Robinson ln Support of Motion to Dismiss for Moo1ness and Standing (Rule 12(b)(l))

and Molion to Dismiss lOr failure to State a Claim Rule 12(b)(6) (2:14-cv-751 GEB AC PS)

Case 2:14-cv-00751-GEB-AC Document 40 Filed 08/06/14 Page 2 of 11 Case: 14-16858, 09/30/2015, ID: 9703104, DktEntry: 28-7, Page 3 of 13

DMV

EDMUND

LEGAL OFFICE C128 DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICL.ES 2415 FIRST AVENUE PO BOX 932382 SACRAMENTO, CA 942:3238:?0 (916) 6576469

May 6, 2014

Rchan Ayyub Sheikh DL# D3024994 ] 219 West El Monte StJ'(~Cl Stockton, California 95207

Re: Sheikh v. Kd(v, United States District Courtj(;r the Eastern

(" l'f' . . 'l 14 ( 'r' I C' 'l"j) 1C" j) S-",.,u.lorma "':. ""I/~ J .:, J I.. ,

Dear Mr, Sheikh:

This letter is a follow-up to the April 2014 letter stmt to you by Tom Manager, Driver Safety Appeals Court Review, You in your cmnplaint that th(~ Department of Motor Vehicles ("DMV") did not provide you with proper and hearing rights before or after your driver's license was suspended, 'I'he D~vlV with your allegations, Nevertheless, the DMV is commilted to providing with an 0PPol1unity to renew your Jicense, This It,tter st'rves as additional notic(;;~ of the grolmds Ibr previously suspended, and the steps that you need to take to clear the license.

FAILllRE TO PAY., AlJGlJST 8, 2011 VEHICLE CODE VIOLATIONS

On or abDut August 11,2011, you were cited for Vehid(,' Code violations. You fhilcd to appear ("FT/\,') in the Stockton Superior Court to address al violations. a result, the DMV served an Order of Suspension datt~d December 5, 11 which is enclosed as J.':xhibit '1'his letter nOli tied you that your license \vould be suspended on 20 served a sccond letter also datcd December 5, ] 1, which is as Exhibil sti.lted that the FTA was in reference to Stockton Superior Court d()ck(.~t number alleged violations of Vehicle: Code sections 16028A, 40508A, and 40509,5,

()n January 3, 201 you visited the Stockton DMV branch and inquired about your driver's license, Y()u were verbally inforlned that you could not rCllcwyour lic(;;,llse bCl'ctLlSe of the FTA in uccocchmc(;;; with Vehiel\;' Code section 1 You signed this verbal notice at 16:49 on January 2012. 'rhis verbal notice is as Exhibit C

Since then, the DMV s records show that you have clear(~d this FTA 1Lovvcver, the DMV's records show that you havel1tilcd 10 pay ("F'rp") the ttl!' your 8,2011, Vehicle Code violations. Th~., DMV served an Order of Suspension f()r this FTP, This Order of Suspension is endosed as Exhibit D, 'I'be

California Relay Telephone Service for the deaf 01 heanng Irnp... tred fWIn TDD Phone,; 1800,'135-2929; front V()I~i:l Ptlones 1 ,80()--r:>52922 DMVW~ll A Pu1Jlic Servi(:t/ Agency

1 was

October 201


Rehan Ayyub Sht,~ikh Page Two May 6,2014

letter also dated October 23, 20 I which is enclosed as Exhibit This notil1ed you that the FTP was in reference to Stockton Superior Court docket nwnber A 1 fbI' violations of Vehicle Code sections and 40509,5. 'T'he eflectivt' date of suspension for FTP was November 12. (S

Rehan Ayyub Sheikh Page Three May 6,20[4

CONCLIJSION

In smnrnury, you willnced to do the following to remove the for suspension 10 renew your driver's lic(;'nse:

I. Resolve the tint' for the Vehidc Code violations on or about August 8,2011. This will need to hi; addresst!d with the Stockton

2. Resolve the t~li]ure 10 appear l()r the Vehicle Code on or about February 16, 201 This will need to be tl.ddressed with the Stock ton Superior Court.

3. Submit to, and successfhlly complete, a ree~aminminn. Please

contact the DMV to schedule your reexamination.

4. Pay the applil:able n~issuance

5 . You have not yet completed the application under Vehi

Rehan Sheikh

1219 W El Monte Street, Stockton, CA 95207 Phone 209.475.1263 Email; [email protected]

http://www.Physicianforfairness.com

http://www.facebook.com/PhysiciansForFairness

Date: June 20, 2014 Matthew Besmer, Deputy Attorney General 2550 Maripose Mall, Room 5090 Fresno, CA 93721 [email protected] Subject: Letter from DMV dated May 6, 2014 Sheikh v Brian Kelly Dear Ms. Besmer,

The above referenced letter from the DMV stated,

This is a follow-up to the April 25, 2014 letter sent to you by

Tom Laughter, Manager, Driver Safety Appeals & Court

Review.

Im writing to inform you that I do not recall receiving the letter dated

April 25, 2014. I have called the DMV a couple of times since you are on vacation. Could you please send me a copy of that letter dated April 25th, 2014.

Respectfully, Sent via email

Rehan Sheikh


STATE OF CALIFORNIA. BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY EOMUND G. BROWN JR., Governol

DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHlCLESLICENSING OPERATIONS DIVISIONP.O. BOX 932345SACRAMENTO, C A 94232-3450

April25,2014

Rehan Ayyub Sheikh500 W. Hospital RoadFrench Camp, CA95231

DL#D3024994

Dear Mr. Sheikh,

The Driver Safety Appeals & Court Review Unit would like to provide you with informationregarding the status of your driving privilege and what you need to do in order to clear twosuspensions and renew your California Driver License.

Our records reveal that at 4:49 PM on January 3,2012, you attempted to renew your license atthe Stockton DMV field office; how'ever, you ll'ere informed by the DMV employee that yourdriving privilege was being suspended the following day for failing to appear in court regardinga stop sign citation you received on August 1 1, 201 l. This suspension prevented you fromrenewing your license until you had cleared the suspension for failure to appear.

At 8:30 PM on February 76,2072, you were stopped by the Stockton Police Department forspeeding, traffic light violations and following too closely. The police officer also submitted arequest for priority reexamination and served you with a notice that you had five (5) workingdays to contact the local Driver Safety Office and schedule a reexamination or your drivingprivilege would be suspended pursuant to Section 12819 of the Vehicle Code. On February 25,2012, your driving privilege was suspended for failing to schedule a reexamination. On March1,2072, you contacted the Sacramento Driver Safety Office and scheduled a reexamination forMarch 26,2012 at2:30 PM; however, you failed to appear and the suspension remains in effect.

On November 22,2012, your driving privilege was suspended pursuant to Section 13365 of theVehicle Code for failing to appear in court for the traffic citations you received on February 16,2012. That suspension currently remains in effect.

In order to end the suspensions currently in effect and renew your driving privilege, you willneed to do the following:

Contact the Stockton Superior Court at (209) 468-2966 and clear the Failure to Appear(FTA) in corurection with the 0211612012 traffic citation. You will also need to clear aFailure to Pay Fine (FTP) with the Stockton Superior Court in connection with the stopsign citation of 08/1 112011.

Once the FTA and FTP are cleared with the Stockton Superior Court, you will need tocontact the Stockton Driver Safety Office at QA\ 948-7115 to schedule an interview to

California Relay Telephone Service for the deaf or hearing impaired from TDD Phones: 1-800-735-2929; from Volce Phones: 1-800-735-2922

1)

2)

DL 900 (REV. 122010) WEB NET A Public Service Agency


discuss the priority reexamination referral of A2l$12012. Part of the interview will involvea written law test, vision test and drive test; however, these tests can't be administered ifthe FTA suspension remains in effect.

The Department of Motor Vehicle's goal is that you be afforded an opportunity to clear thesesuspensions, complete the reexamination and renew your California Driver License in order todrive legally and safely. I hope you find this information helpful in restoring your drivingprivilege.

If you have any further questions, you can contact me at (916) 657-8431.

Sincerely,

z//THOM'6 LAUGHTER,Driver Safety Appeals &

ManagerCourt Review

cc: Matthew T. Besmer, Deputy Attorney General, Department of JusticeDavid P. Harris, Chief Counsel/Deputy Director, Department of Motor VehiclesStockton Driver Safety Office


Rehan Sheikh

Phone 209.475.1263 Email; [email protected]

Date: July 31, 2015

Matthew Besmer, Deputy Attorney General Department of Justice 2550 Mariposa Mall, Room 5090 Fresno, CA 93721 Matthew.Besmer @doj.ca.gov Subject: When the DMV filed the accusations? Ref: Sheikh v Brian Kelly (DMV) The Ninth Circuit No. 14 - 16858 Dear Mr. Besmer,

In the above referenced matter, the Driving License Records show an

accusation of Lack of knowledge or skills. When the DMV published those accusations?

Respectfully,

Rehan Sheikh


2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

REHAN SHEIKH 1219 W. El Monte Street Stockton, California 95207 Telephone: (209) 475.1263 [email protected]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

REHAN SHEIKH, Plaintiff, v. Brian Kelly Secretary, California State Transportation Agency Defendant Mark Tweety, Manager, Department of Motor Vehicles Defendant

CASE NO: 2:14 - CV- 751 GEB- AC

PLAINTIFFS DECLARATION

1. IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF (Docket #33)

2. IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR ADMISSION (Docket #31)

1. Im plaintiff in the above referenced complaint. I received an anonymous and unsigned

ORDER OF SUSPESION summarily suspending my driving license dated Dec 05, 2011.

The order cited a Failure to Appear as justification for suspending my license.

2. Between Dec 05, 2011 and March 28, 2012, on three or more occasions, I appeared before

the Department of Motor Vehicles. On each occasion,

a. The DMV did not remove the alleged Failure to Appear.

b. The DMV did not give me a proof of my appearance.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

PLAINTIFFS DECLARATION (On his Appearances) Page | 2

3. Between Dec 05, 2011 and February 28, 2012, on two or more occasions, I appeared before

the County of San Joaquin Superior Court. On each occasion,

a. The Court staff (or Court) did not remove the alleged Failure to Appear.

b. The Court staff (or Court) did not give me a proof of my appearance.

On my last appearance, the Court staff scheduled a hearing dated February 29, 2012.

4. On or around February 29, I appeared before the Court to address traffic citations dated

August 11, 2011 and traffic citations dated Feb 16, 2012.

a. The Court scheduled a trial for May 23, 2012.

b. The Court did not give me a proof of my appearance.

5. On or around May 23, 2012, I appeared before the Court and a bench trial was held to

determine whether plaintiff completely stopped on the stop sign near his residence.

a. The Court announced to issue its opinion. I did not receive Courts opinion.

b. The Court did not give me any proof of my appearance.

6. On or around March 6, 2012, I again appeared before the Court to address traffic citations

dated February 16, 2012. The California Department of Justice withdrew its traffic citation.

The Court affixed its Stamp and Signature on the official document. (Exhibit).

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the forgoing is

true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

/s/ Rehan Sheikh ----------------------------------

Date: August 12, 2014 Rehan Sheikh


Dear Fellow Californian: Thank you for taking the time to study the 2015 California Driver Handbook. This handbook will help you on your journey to becoming a iicensed driver who understands and follows the rules of the road in California. This year marks the 100th anniversary of the California DMV, which was created in 1915 under legislation drafted by California State Senator Ernest Stratton Birdsall. California registered 191,000 vehicles that year, quite large for that era but miniscule compared to 32 million currently registered vehicles in California today. As the DMV moves into its second century of serving the motoring public, customer service and public safety remain its top priorities. The written driver license exam is now offered in an automated, touch screen version that reduces test time and wait time at DMV offices. DMV has also opened new field offices and extended office hours to serve more new drivers than ever before. California is safer when all motorists pass written and driving tests and obtain proof of insurance and a driver license. Your decision to study this handbook and commit to safe driving is making California a better place for everyone. Sincerely,

Brian P. Kelly Secretary California State Transportation Agency

-1-


RehanLine

RehanLine

14-1685828 Main Document - 09/30/2015, p.1STATEMENT OF CASESSUMMARYSTATEMENTSDMVs Demand for Reexamination - Mar 26, 2012The DMVs Arbitrary Order to Suspend Driving License - Mar 27, 2012The DMVs Verbal Demand for Medical Examination Sep 06, 2014

ARGUMENTSDemand for Medical Exams Constitutes Unreasonable SearchesDMVs and County Courts Records are inconsistent or PerjuredLike Medical Board, DMV should Grant hearing on alleged Failure to PayBurden of Proof Driving License and Physicians LicenseRight to Hearing on Suspension of LicenseDispersal of Power; Justice Scalia emphasized on Structure of the ConstitutionSuspension of Driving License for FTA and FTP is without Justification and does not make roads SaferDue Process Clause(s) Mandate a NoticePlaintiff has established irreparable harmPRAYER

28 Additional Document - 09/30/2015, p.2428 Additional Document - 09/30/2015 (2), p.2628 Additional Document - 09/30/2015 (3), p.2828 Additional Document - 09/30/2015 (4), p.3528 Additional Document - 09/30/2015 (5), p.4128 Additional Document - 09/30/2015 (6), p.4928 Additional Document - 09/30/2015 (7), p.6228 Additional Document - 09/30/2015 (8), p.6328 Additional Document - 09/30/2015 (9), p.65

Date post:	07-Jan-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	goofy-for-healthcare
View:	43 times
Download:	0 times

28. Plaintiff's Reply Brief

Documents