Plaintiff's Reply Brief - 1

Case: 14-16858, 09/30/2015, ID: 9703104, DktEntry: 28-1, Page 1 of 23
2
3
4
5
Rehan Sheikh
1219 W. El Monte Street
Stockton, California 95207
Telephone: (209) 475.1263
rehansheikh@yahoo.com
6
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
7
8
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
9
10
11
12
REHAN SHEIKH
Appellant (and plaintiff),
v.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
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
22
Magistrate Judge Hon. Allison Claire
23
District Court: 2: 14 CV- 7 5 1 GEB AC
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
Table of Contents
4
5
I.
STATEMENT OF CASES................................................................................................... iii
II.
SUMMARY.............................................................................................................................. 2
III.
STATEMENTS ....................................................................................................................... 3
7
8
A.
B.
C.
9
10
DMVs Demand for Reexamination - Mar 26, 2012 ................................................... 3

The DMVs Arbitrary Order to Suspend Driving License - Mar 27, 2012 ............ 5
The DMVs Verbal Demand for Medical Examination Sep 06, 2014 ............... 6
IV.
ARGUMENTS ........................................................................................................................ 6
A.
Demand for Medical Exams Constitutes Unreasonable Searches ............................. 6
14
B.
DMVs and County Courts Records are inconsistent or Perjured ............................. 8
15
C.
Like Medical Board, DMV should Grant hearing on alleged Failure to Pay ......... 10
17
D.
Burden of Proof Driving License and Physicians License ...................................... 10
18
E.
Right to Hearing on Suspension of License ................................................................... 11
F.
Dispersal of Power; Justice Scalia emphasized on Structure of the Constitution 11
21
G.
Suspension of Driving License for FTA and FTP is without Justification and does
22
not make roads Safer ..................................................................................................................... 12
11
12
13
16
19
20
23
24
H.
Due Process Clause(s) Mandate a Notice....................................................................... 15
25
I.
Plaintiff has established irreparable harm ................................................................... 17
V.
PRAYER ................................................................................................................................ 19
26
27
28
Plaintiffs Reply Brief Rehan Sheikh v. [DMV]

P a g e |i
1
2
3
Table of Authorities
4
5
6
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
10
Ker v. California, 374 US 23 (1963). ........................................................................................... 7
11
Mullane, Special Guardian, v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.,

Trustee, et al. 339 U.S. 306 (1950) ....................................................................................... 16
12
Schmerber v California, 384 US 757 (1966) .............................................................................. 7
13
State of Texas v United States 5th Circuit - Case No; 15-40238 ......................................... 14
14
15
CALIFORNIA CASES
16
Bixby v. Pierno, 481 P. 2d 242, 4 Cal.3d 130, 151 (California Supreme

Court, 1971) .............................................................................................................................. 17
17
In re Garcia, 315 P. 3d 117 (California Supreme Court, 2014) ........................................... 13
18
19
OTHER AUTHORITIES
20
California Assembly Bill 60 (2013) ............................................................................................ 14
21
22
California Assembly passed Resolution ACR 76 -800th Anniversary of

Magna Carta ............................................................................................................................. 11
23
California Senator Darrell Steinberg - Right to Hearing ..................................................... 11
24
California Senator Darrell Steinberg -Innocent until Proven Guilty ................................ 11
25
Justice Antonin Scalia - Structure of Constitution ............................................................... 12
26
27
28
P a g e | ii
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
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.
3) Rehan Sheikh v Brian Kelly (California Department of Motor Vehicles)
4) San Joaquin (County) General Hospital v Farzana Sheikh, MD
16
17
Eastern District of California
18
Plaintiff and plaintiffs spouse are parties in the following cases;
19
1) Farzana Sheikh MD v Medical Board of California
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
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
28
P a g e | iii
1
2
3
LIST OF EXHIBITS
4
5
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
13
G. May 6, 2014
Letter - Jennifer Berry, Assistant Chief County, DMV
14
H. April 25, 2014
Letter - Thomas Laughter, Manager DMV
15
I. July 14, 2014
Letter - Matthew Besmer, DAG Department of Justice
16
J. July 31, 2015
Plaintiffs Letter Public Records
K. Aug 12, 2014
Plaintiffs Declaration
L. Year 2015
Defendant Brian Kelly Drivers Handbook
10
11
12
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

P a g e |1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
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
10
License without stating any stating any cause. The Due Process Clause(s)
11
mandates that the DMV state a cause for Suspension of Driving License.
12
13
14
3. Without stating any cause, the DMV demands plaintiffs Reexamination

including Driving test, written test, Medical, Psychological, Neurological
15
examinations, Drug addition, alcohol addiction, chemical and blood tests. The
16
DMV stated that it can deny license even after successfully completing such
17
Reexamination.
18
19
20
21
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.
22
5. Plaintiff contested the policy of summary Driving License suspension merely for
23
an alleged Failure to Pay (FTP) and for alleged Failure to appear (FTA). The
24
DMV was not able to present opposition and matter is ripe for default judgment
25
26
for plaintiff.
27
28
P a g e |2
1
2
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
6
7
8
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
10
who identified himself as a Manager at DMV. Plaintiff explained DMV manager
11
about adverse impact on life because of non-renewal of his driving license. Mr.
12
13
14
Tweety did not care at all about impact on plaintiffs life and stated, this is not
important for you to drive.
15
8. Plaintiff reminded Mr. Tweety of his Right to Due Process and requested a good
16
cause for denial. Mr. Tweety stated that license is a Contractual Agreement
17
(without any explanation). Mr. Tweety also said, there is no Due Process
18
19
available for denial of driving license.
20
9. On or around March 23, 2012 Mr. Tweety called plaintiff. Mr. Tweety mentioned
21
that he was out to another facility that morning. Mr .Tweety stated that some of
22
the information relevant to non-renewal of plaintiffs license does not seem to
23
align. Mr. Tweety asked plaintiff to come to DMV office in Sacramento.
24
25
A. DMVs Demand for Reexamination - Mar 26, 2012
26
10. On or around March 26, 2012, Plaintiff went to the DMV office in Sacramento,
27
28
California and was asked to meet a senior DMV officer Darryl Mickens. The
P a g e |3
1
2
3
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
6
7
8
9
10
11
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,
12
13
or mental conditions, and/or drug and/or alcohol use, and to release any related
14
information or records to the Departmental of Motor Vehicles or its employees.
15
Any expenses involved is to be charged to me and not to the Department of Motor
16
Vehicles.
17
and
18
19
I hereby authorize the Department of Motor Vehicles to receive any information
20
relating to my physical or mental condition, and/or drug and/or alcohol use or
21
abuse, and to use the same in determining whether I have the ability to operate
22
motor vehicles safely.
23
24
12. On the Medical form (P2), the DMV stated misleading and suggestive
25
instructions to the Medical Professionals that stated;
26
The Department of Motor Vehicles record indicate your patient may have a
27
condition that could affect the safe operation of a motor vehicle. . With your
28
assistance, the department hopes to resolve the matter with a minimum of

P a g e |4
1
2
3
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
10
11
any functional impairment.
12
14. Plaintiff requested hearing to determine if there is a good cause for
13
Reexamination. The DMV denied the request. Further, the DMV officer stated
14
that even if you successfully complete Reexamination, the DMV is not required
15
to issue driving license.
16
17
15. Further, the DMV demands Reexamination at plaintiffs expense that could cost
18
tens of thousand dollars or more. The DMVs demand for Reexamination at
19
plaintiffs expense places an additional unbearable burden on plaintiff.
20
21
22
23
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;
24
No Action is warranted at this time.
25
The suspension of your driving privileges effective February 25, 2012 shall
26
27
remain in affect until successful completion of reexamination process.
28
P a g e |5
1
2
3
17. In its order, the DMV did not state any reason at all for Driving License
4
5
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.
8
9
10
11
C. The DMVs Verbal Demand for Medical Examination Sep 06, 2014
19. Plaintiff applied for renewal of California Identification Card. The DMV office
12
again asked that plaintiff complete a five page form (exhibit). On that day, the
13
DMV denied renewal of plaintiffs identity card.
14
15
IV.
ARGUMENTS
16
17
A. Demand for Medical Exams Constitutes Unreasonable Searches
18
20. The DMVs arbitrary demand for Medical, Psychological, Neurological, Drug,
19
Alcohol related records, chemical and blood tests is intrusive, invades privacy,
20
21
22
23
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
24
seizures is its recognition of individual freedom. That safeguard has been
25
declared to be "as of the very essence of constitutional liberty" the guaranty of
26
27
28
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
P a g e |6
1
2
3
4
5
(1963).
22. Likewise the Fourth Amendment recognizes that right when it guarantees the
right of the people to be secure "in their persons."
6
7
8
9
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,
10
that the administration of the blood test in this case was free of the
11
constraints of the Fourth Amendment. Such testing procedures plainly
12
constitute searches of "persons," and depend antecedently upon seizures of
13
"persons," within the meaning of that Amendment. Schmerber v
14
California, 384 US 757 (1966)
15
16
23. The values protected by the Fourth Amendment thus substantially overlap those
the Fifth Amendment helps to protect.
17
Thus, the Fifth Amendment marks "a zone of privacy" which the
18
Government may not force a person to surrender. Likewise the Fourth
19
Amendment recognizes that right when it guarantees the right of the people
20
to be secure "in their persons." Ibid. No clearer invasion of this right of
21
privacy can be imagined than forcible bloodletting of the kind involved
22
23
24
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
25
history of the Fifth Amendment. Such situations call to mind the principle
26
that the protection of the privilege `is as broad as the mischief against which it
27
seeks to guard.' Counselman v. Hitchchock, 142 U.S. 547 (1892)
28
P a g e |7
1
2
3
B. DMVs and County Courts Records are inconsistent or Perjured
24. DMV submitted a declaration titled Second Declaration of Shannon Robbins
5
6
7
8
9
(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.
10
2. I retrieved plaintiff Rehan Sheikh driving record using California
11
Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) computer system. Plaintiff's
12
driving record contains information regarding his traffic citation,
13
14
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
15
paid his fine for his August 11, 20111Taffic citation (No. i\158647),
16
and that he has not appeared in the San Joaquin County Superior
17
Court on his February 16,2012 traffic citation (No. A156283).
18
4. When Plaintiff pays his traffic 1ine and when he appears in court, the
19
San Joaquin County Superior Court -will notify the DMV and
20
Plaintiffs driving record will be updated to reflect Plaintiff's fine
21
payment and court appearance.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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

P a g e |8
1
2
3
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
6
7
the following two accusations;

i. Failure to Appear (FTA)
ii. Failure to Pay (FTP)
9
10
11
12
13
26. Recently plaintiff accidently received a copy of the Public record and the DMV
report (exhibit) where the DMV alleged three accusations;
i.
14
ii.
15
iii.
16
17
Failure to Appear (FTA)

Failure to Pay (FTP) or unpaid fine
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
18
accusation of Lack of knowledge or skills. When the DMV published those
19
accusations?
20
21
22
23
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
24
insurance corporations. As a result, most reputable providers denied insurance
25
or quoted significantly higher premiums making insurance more expensive.
26
27
28
P a g e |9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
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
10
deserves a procedural protection of a hearing before neutral hearing officers.
11
12
13
14
D. Burden of Proof Driving License and Physicians License

30. On June 16, 2015 Ms. Cassandra Hockenson, Public Affairs Manager of
15
California Medical Board attended a Fraud Prevention workshop at George Sims
16
Community Center, Sacramento California. In her presentation, Ms. Cassandra
17
stated that the Board has Burden of Proof to suspend a license and the Burden
18
was higher than the civil cases. She mentioned that (evidentiary) standard is 60-
19
20
21
22
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.
23
If DMV alleges that a Driver did not appear before a third party, the DMV must
24
prove its accusations and their relevance. This is the process widely accepted in
25
26
modern civilized countries. In order to deceptively shift its Burden of Proof,
27
defendants demand that plaintiff provide a proof of attendance at county court.
28
P a g e | 10
1
2
3
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 Analysis 1).
6
7
E. Right to Hearing on Suspension of License
8
9
33. The principle was correctly affirmed by California Senator Darrell Steinberg -
10
Innocent until Proven Guilty in the matter of license suspension (video link2):
11
12
Not trying to expel (a senator) because he is not tried yet and under our
13
system of justice one is considered innocent until proven guilty.

[Citing another example] Senator Steinberg said,
14
15
Senator was tried and convicted by Jury of his peers but he still has Right to
16
appeal. To expel them, you have to give them a last hearing before a Judge.
17
California Senator Darrell Steinberg - Right to Hearing
18
19
F. Dispersal of Power; Justice Scalia emphasized on Structure of the
20
Constitution
21
22
34. DMVs argument to suspend driving license for an alleged Police Order, without
23
Due Diligence by DMV, would undermine our system of checks and balances.
24
35. Now this is a judicial fact that California Police issue tickets and random orders
25
26
Bill Analysis of ACR 76 800th Anniversary of Magna Carta

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billAnalysisClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160ACR76
27
28
ex California Senator Darrell Steinberg Innocent until proven Guilty

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJrYJGP2fVY
P a g e | 11
1
2
3
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
7
8
matter involving officer Orr the documents were presented showing that police
has a quota to issue citations.
10
11
That is terrible, U.S. District Judge William B. Shubb said. I would
12
think that the CHP should be ashamed of that document.
13
36. In order to prevent erroneous deprivation, the DMV can perform its own Due
14
Diligence before suspending License. Justice Antonin Scalia - Structure of
15
Constitution categorically emphasized the importance of preventing
16
centralization of power; even more important than the Bill of Rights itself.
17
18
The genius of the American constitutional system is the dispersal of power,
19
he said. Once power is centralized in one person, or one part [of government],
20
a Bill of Rights is just words on paper.
21
G. Suspension of Driving License for FTA and FTP is without
22
Justification and does not make roads Safer
23
37. Late night TV host John Oliver presented an 18 minute episode including a brief
24
25
section on suspension of driving license for Failure to Pay; (video link 3);
26
27
28
John Oliver Revoking License for Failure to Pay Series of clips
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ry9EM61aKCM&list=PLcmwDdyPFLQ-o8QuUip_p4RhFH0bdfnjR&index=1

P a g e | 12
1
2
3
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
6
7
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
10
11
12
13
14
15
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
16
Supreme Court of California eliminated barriers on Attorneys license. There
17
were questions of incorrectly completing the application form, lack of Social
18
19
Security number and lack of documentation. The Court granted license. The
20
Court noted this is a case of first impression, as we are not aware of any other jurisdiction
21
that has ever knowingly admitted an undocumented alien to the practice of law.
22
23
24
25
26
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.
27
28
John Oliver - Brief version (29 seconds)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ry9EM61aKCM

P a g e | 13
1
2
39. DMVs singles out driver based on drivers ability to pay. DMV singled out
3
4
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
7
8
which benefits state economies rather than denying license for failure or
inability to pay. Recently, California filed An Amicus Brief that stated;
10
When immigrants are able to work legallyeven for a limited timetheir
11
wages increase, they seek work compatible with their skill level, and they
12
enhance their skills to obtain higher wages, all of which benefits State
13
economies by increasing income and growing the tax base.
14
Brief of Amicus States dated Mar 12, 2015 (P5-line 1) State of Texas v
15
United States 5th Circuit - Case No; 15-40238
16
41. Criteria for driving license is ability to safely drive car. California issued license
17
to illegal or undocumented aliens who didnt appear before united states
18
authorities and didnt pay. California Assembly Bill 60 (2013) eliminated
19
numerous barriers and promoted safe driving by issuing licenses. (Analysis4).
20
42. In Driver handbook (P1), Mr. Kelly listed criteria of safe driving that stated;
21
22
California is safer when all motorists pass written and driving tests and
23
obtain proof of insurance and a driver license.
24
25
26
27
4
28
AB 60 Analysis
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB60
P a g e | 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
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.
10
11
44. The bare minimum requirement of the Due Process clause mandates that the
DMV issue written Notice of all of its accusations.
12
13
Many controversies have raged about the cryptic and abstract words of the
14
Due Process Clause but there can be no doubt that at a minimum they require
15
that deprivation of life, liberty or property by adjudication be preceded by
16
notice and opportunity for hearing appropriate to the nature of the case.
17
Mullane, Special Guardian, v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., Trustee, et
18
al. 339 U.S. 306 (1950)
19
20
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.
21
22
An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any
23
proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated,
24
under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of
25
the action and afford them an opportunity to present their
26
objections.(citations omitted). The notice must be of such nature as
27
reasonably to convey the required information, and it must afford a
28
reasonable time for those interested to make their appearance, "The

P a g e | 15
1
2
3
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.
10
The DMV continues to suspend plaintiffs driving license since 2011. On such a
11
matter involving 10 day suspension the Supreme Court noted;
12
Where a person's good name, reputation, honor, or integrity is at stake
13
because of what the government is doing to him," the minimal
14
requirements of the Clause must be satisfied (citations omitted). School
15
authorities here suspended [student] from school for periods of up to 10
16
days based on charges of misconduct. If sustained and recorded, those
17
charges could seriously damage the students' standing with their fellow
18
pupils and their teachers as well as interfere with later opportunities for
19
20
21
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)
22
47. Plaintiff is improperly deprived of his Driving License in violation of the Due
23
Process Clause(s). "[T]he Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was
24
25
intended to prevent government `from abusing [its] power, or employing it as an
26
instrument of oppression. (citations omitted) Collins v. City of Harker Heights,
27
503 U.S. 115 (1992). Protection of individuals against arbitrary government
28
P a g e | 16
1
2
3
action is the great purpose of this clause. Wilwording v. Swenson, 502 F.2d 844,
(8th Cir. 1974).
5
6
7
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
10
in law or no substantial basis in fact.
11
12
13
14
I. Plaintiff has established irreparable harm

49. Irreparable harm is traditionally defined as harm for which there is no adequate
15
legal remedy, such as an award of damages. See Rent-A-Ctr., Inc. v. Canyon
16
Television & Appliance Rental, Inc., 944 F.2d 597, 603 (9th Cir. 1991). Because
17
intangible injuries generally lack an adequate legal remedy, intangible injuries
18
[may] qualify as irreparable harm. Id.
19
20
50. Plaintiffs Constitutional Right to liberty, interstate travel, and Right to pursuit
21
of happiness depend on his Driving License. Deprivation of plaintiffs Driving
22
License is not accompanied by constitutionally mandated procedural protection.
23
Defendants violation of Plaintiffs constitutional rights, alone, constitutes an
24
25
irreparable injury.
26
51. Plaintiff risks harm from potential prosecution for Driving without a Driving
27
License. It is well settled that risk of prosecution is sufficient to establish
28
P a g e | 17
1
2
3
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
6
7
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
10
11
12
13
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
14
drivers license] may become essential in the pursuit of a livelihood). Plaintiff is
15
an engineer in the fields of software and internet engineering and worked in the
16
San Francisco bay area. Now Plaintiff cannot even attempt to find work for lack
17
of Driving License.
18
19
53. In Arizona Dream Act Coalition v Brewer, 757 F.3d 1053 (2014), the Court
20
considered irreparable and granted injunction. The Court noted that plaintiff
21
were likely to suffer irreparable harm unless defendants policy was enjoined,
22
and that both the balance of equities and the public interest favored an
23
injunction.
24
25
This Court also noted;
26
The irreparable nature of Plaintiffs' injury is heightened by Plaintiffs' young
27
age and fragile socioeconomic position. Setbacks early in their careers are
28
likely to haunt Plaintiffs for the rest of their lives. Thus, "a delay, even if only
P a g e | 18
1
2
3
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
6
7
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
10
inability to obtain driver's licenses. Thus, Plaintiffs are likely to suffer
11
irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
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;
22
23
24
/s/ Rehan Sheikh
25
---------------------------------Rehan Sheikh
26
27
Date: September 30, 2015
Plaintiff
28
P a g e | 19
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
1219 W EL MONTE ST
STOCKTON, CALIFORNIA 95207
DRIVERS LICENSE NO, D
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

Plaintiff's Reply Brief - 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Plaintiff's Reply Brief - 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

The DMV continues to Suspend

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 2 of 23

STATEMENT OF CASES................................................................................................... iii

DMVs Demand for Reexamination - Mar 26, 2012 ................................................... 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Plaintiffs Reply Brief Rehan Sheikh v. [DMV]

Case: 14-16858, 09/30/2015, ID: 9703104, DktEntry: 28-1, Page 3 of 23

UNITED STATES CASES

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.,

Schmerber v California, 384 US 757 (1966) .............................................................................. 7

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

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

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

California Assembly passed Resolution ACR 76 -800th Anniversary of

California Senator Darrell Steinberg - Right to Hearing ..................................................... 11

California Senator Darrell Steinberg -Innocent until Proven Guilty ................................ 11

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

Case: 14-16858, 09/30/2015, ID: 9703104, DktEntry: 28-1, Page 4 of 23

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

Case: 14-16858, 09/30/2015, ID: 9703104, DktEntry: 28-1, Page 5 of 23

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

DMVs Public Records showing Accusations without Notice

Declaration of Shannon Gove - without Reexamination

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

Defendant Brian Kelly Drivers Handbook

Plaintiffs Reply Brief Rehan Sheikh v. [DMV]

Case: 14-16858, 09/30/2015, ID: 9703104, DktEntry: 28-1, Page 6 of 23

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

Case: 14-16858, 09/30/2015, ID: 9703104, DktEntry: 28-1, Page 7 of 23

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

available for denial of driving license.

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