Case: 10-17098 12/23/2010 Page: 1 of 8

ID: 7591521 DktEntry: 10-1

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
Plaintiffs Reply; Motion for Injunctive Relief Seeking Approval of her Application for Physicians and Surgeons License Farzana Sheikh, M.D. v. Medical Board of California et al
Page | 1

FARZANA SHEIKH, M.D., In Pro Per P.O. Box 869 French Camp, CA 95231 Telephone: (209) 982 9039 Prepared by; Rehan Sheikh, rehansheikh@yahoo.com

THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS (SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION)

FARZANA SHEIKH, M.D. Plaintiff, v. MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA Defendant and

CA9: 10 - 17098 PLAINTIFFS REPLY BRIEF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF & MOTION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION 42 U.S.C. 181 42 U.S.C. 183

STATE OF CALIFORNIA Defendant

FRAP 8 FOR APPROVAL OF PLAINTIFFS APPLICATION FOR PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS LICENSE

Case: 10-17098 12/23/2010 Page: 2 of 8

ID: 7591521 DktEntry: 10-1

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
Plaintiffs Reply; Motion for Injunctive Relief Seeking Approval of her Application for Physicians and Surgeons License Farzana Sheikh, M.D. v. Medical Board of California et al
Page | 2

Table of Contents

I.

INTORDUCTION..................................................................................................................... 5

II. DISCUSSION AND ARGUMENTS ........................................................................................... 5 A. Plaintiff Submits a copy of Administrative Decision(s) of the Medical Board of California denying Plaintiffs Application for License in compliance with FRAP 27 (a)(2)(B)(3) ................. 5 B. Plaintiff was not able to submit the Motion for Injunctive Relief in the District Court because of Defendants neglect or deceit ........................................................................................ 6 C. Plaintiff has submitted the Motion in Pro Per; Defendants argument that Plaintiff cannot be represented by her husband is incomprehensible ........................................................................... 7 D. Defendants do not Dispute Plaintiffs Factual or Legal Arguments in the Motion ............... 7

III. CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................................... 8

Case: 10-17098 12/23/2010 Page: 3 of 8

ID: 7591521 DktEntry: 10-1

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
Plaintiffs Reply; Motion for Injunctive Relief Seeking Approval of her Application for Physicians and Surgeons License Farzana Sheikh, M.D. v. Medical Board of California et al
Page | 3

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES RULES FRAP 27 (a)(2)(B)(3) ...................................................................................................................... 1 FRAP 8 (a) (2)(A)(i)........................................................................................................................ 2 FRCP 12(b) (6)................................................................................................................................ 3

CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES Fourteenth Amendment ............................................................................................................... 4, 5

Case: 10-17098 12/23/2010 Page: 4 of 8

ID: 7591521 DktEntry: 10-1

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
Plaintiffs Reply; Motion for Injunctive Relief Seeking Approval of her Application for Physicians and Surgeons License Farzana Sheikh, M.D. v. Medical Board of California et al
Page | 4

LIST OF EXHIBITS

Exhibit E

Denial of Plaintiffs Application for Physicians and Surgeons License by Medical Board of California before Administrative Haring

Exhibit F

Denial of Plaintiffs Application for Physicians and Surgeons License by Med ical Board of California after Administrative Haring

Exhibit Application Forms

All application forms for license as referenced in the MOTION

(sections C & D of FACTUAL BACKGROUD on page 6-7) are being submitted with the Court via Mail for an Independent Review. Exhibits A D Submitted with the Motion

ERRATA; Plaintiffs Motion for Injunctive Relief quotes a Federal Statue 28 U.S.C. 1341 on pages vii, 4 and 31. That was a mistake and the Statue should be read as 18 U.S.C. 1341 (Mail Fraud).

Case: 10-17098 12/23/2010 Page: 5 of 8

ID: 7591521 DktEntry: 10-1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 II. DISCUSSION AND ARGUMENTS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

1

I. INTORDUCTION Plaintiff1 Farzana Sheikh2, M.D. hereby submits Reply Brief on her Motion for Injunctive Relief that is pending before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Dr. Sheikh has submitted the Motion in Pro Per. She is without assistance of a qualified legal counsel in a delicate matter where defendants have imposed a Professional Death Sentence by abusing their police power. Dr. Sheikh will attempt to fully comply with all procedures and rules including FRAP. This is understood that the Court will hold Dr. Sheikhs pleading to a standard that the Court may deem appropriate for a Pro Se and the Court may give a chance to Dr. Sheikh to make up for her shortcomings. For the reasons stated in the Motion and in this Reply Brief, plaintiff requests the Honorable Court to grant her Motion.

A. Plaintiff Submits a copy of Administrative Decision(s) of the Medical Board of California denying Plaintiffs Application for License in compliance with FRAP 27 (a)(2)(B)(3) 1. The Administrative decision(s) of the Medical Board of California denying Dr. Sheikhs application for license before administrative hearing are submitted as Exhibit E. 2. The final Administrative decision of the Medical Board of California dated Dec 16, 2008 denying Dr. Sheikhs application for license stated; It has been determined that grounds exist to deny your application for medical licensure pursuant to subdivision (a)(2), (a)(3), and (c) of section 480 of the California Business and Professional Code.
The terms Plaintiff and Petitioner may have been interchanging in the Motion. Ms. Sheikh has also submitted a petition for review of administrative Mandamus on denial of her application for license in addition to a confidential complaint against Defendants.
2

26 27 28

Petitioner Farzana Sheikh, M.D. is hereby referred as Dr. Sheikh for clarification.

Plaintiffs Reply; Motion for Injunctive Relief Seeking Approval of her Application for Physicians and Surgeons License Farzana Sheikh, M.D. v. Medical Board of California et al
Page | 5

Case: 10-17098 12/23/2010 Page: 6 of 8

ID: 7591521 DktEntry: 10-1

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 8. 7. 3. Prior to final denial a Stipulation proposed by the Medical Board dated Sep 24, 2008 stated; After careful considerations, it has been determined that you do not qualify for a full and unrestricted medical license at this time due to your failure to accurately respond to application questions relative to your postgraduate training program in Austin Texas. 4. The Administrative decision of the Medical Board of California denying Dr. Sheikhs application for license after administrative hearing is submitted as Exhibit F. 5. Plaintiffs Motion for Injunctive Relief is based on original denial of her application for Physicians and Surgeons license by the State Medical Board. 6. Defendants have attempted to mislead that Plaintiffs Motion for Injunctive Relief is based on the decision of the District Court; that is not the case here and defendants attempt must fail. The District Court based its dismissal of Dr. Sheikhs petition pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6) by relying on prejudicial and misleading documents submitted by defendants. The District Court did not review any of the records that Dr. Sheikh submitted with that Court. B. Plaintiff was not able to submit the Motion for Injunctive Relief in the District Court because of Defendants neglect or deceit 9. Federal Rules of Appellate Procedures, FRAP 8 (a) (2)(A)(i) states; The Motion must show that moving first in the District Court will be impractical. 10. In the District Court proceedings, Plaintiff submitted a Petition with the District Court to review administrative Decision of denial of her application for license with the Medical Board of California. Plaintiff also submitted a Motion to Compel Defendants compliance with Administrative Law Judges Discovery Orders. Defendants had continued meritless disciplinary proceedings without producing appropriate records.
Plaintiffs Reply; Motion for Injunctive Relief Seeking Approval of her Application for Physicians and Surgeons License Farzana Sheikh, M.D. v. Medical Board of California et al
Page | 6

Case: 10-17098 12/23/2010 Page: 7 of 8

ID: 7591521 DktEntry: 10-1

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 11. Defendants submitted a Motion for Dismissal of Plaintiffs Petition pursuant to FRCP 12(b) (6) before the Magistrate Judge when the parties had not consented to the Jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge. 12. Defendants knew that only pleading can be considered in the Motion for Dismissal pursuant to FRCP 12(b) (6), yet defendants presented selective, prejudicial and incomplete documents for review of the Magistrate Judge resulting in the pre-mature dismissal of Plaintiffs Petition. 13. Defendants did not inform the Magistrate Judge that the documents were not complete and did not inform the Magistrate Judge that a copy of documents was not served to plaintiff. 14. Because of defendants neglect and/or deceit and its failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, plaintiff did not have an opportunity to present the Motion for Injunctive Relief in the District Court. C. Plaintiff has submitted the Motion in Pro Per; Defendants argument that Plaintiff cannot be represented by her husband is incomprehensible 15. Plaintiffs Motion for Injunctive Relief, on the first page states, Farzana Sheikh, M.D. in Pro Per and on the last page states, Farzana Sheikh, M.D. Pro Se. Both words In Pro per and Pro Se are understood to be used for individuals who are not represented by a legal counsel. Both the words are written in plain English without any need for translation. 16. Defendants arguments that Dr. Sheikh cannot be represented by her husband are incomprehensible and irrelevant. D. Defendants do not Dispute Plaintiffs Factual or Legal Arguments in the Motion 17. The strength of Dr. Sheikhs factual and legal arguments is insurmountable and defendants have not even attempted to present any rebuttal. Defendants opposition is limited to general procedural issues.
Plaintiffs Reply; Motion for Injunctive Relief Seeking Approval of her Application for Physicians and Surgeons License Farzana Sheikh, M.D. v. Medical Board of California et al
Page | 7

Case: 10-17098 12/23/2010 Page: 8 of 8

ID: 7591521 DktEntry: 10-1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Pro Se 23 24 25 26 27 28
Plaintiffs Reply; Motion for Injunctive Relief Seeking Approval of her Application for Physicians and Surgeons License Farzana Sheikh, M.D. v. Medical Board of California et al
Page | 8

18. Defendants meritless disciplinary prosecution and incomprehensive opposition to Dr. Sheikhs Motion for Injunctive Relief is intended to deprive her of her right to practice her profession and to deprive Dr. Sheikh of her right to afford bread, medicine and shelter. III. CONCLUSION 19. Defendants do not dispute that because of their actions against Dr. Sheikh the respectable member(s) of the Medical Board of California, who are appointed by the State itself, have strongly raised their voice on a public forum. That is an unprecedented event in the history of State Medical Board(s) in the United States. 20. Defendants opposition to Dr. Sheikhs Motion for Injunctive Relief, if successful, will only further utmost helplessness among physicians of the State of California. 21. This is undisputed that Dr. Sheikh is eligible to practice Medicine in the State of California. Dr. Sheikhs success will affirm her Constitutional Right. Respectfully Submitted by;

/s/ Farzana Sheikh Date: December 23, 2010 --------------------------------------Farzana Sheikh, M.D.