28. plaintiff's reply brief -1

8/19/2019 28. Plaintiff's Reply Brief -1

1/27

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 Sheikh1219 W. El Monte StreetStockton, California 95207

Telephone: (209) [email protected]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

REHAN SHEIKH Appellant (and plaintiff),

v.

Brian KellySecretary, California StateTransportation Agency

Appellee

and

Mark TweetyManager, Department of Motor

Vehicles Appellee

Case NO: 14 – 1 6 8 5 8

PLAINTIFF’s REPLY BRIEF

The DMV continues to Suspend

Plaintiff’s Driving License without

Notice and without Hearing since2011

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


2/27

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

Plaintiff’s 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. DMV’s Demand for Reexamination - Mar 26, 2012 ................................................... 3

B. The DMV’s Arbitrary Order to Suspend Driving License - Mar 27, 2012 ............ 5

C.

The DMV’s Verbal Demand for “Medical Examination” – Sep 06, 2014 ............... 6

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

A.

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

B. DMV’s and County Court’s 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



3/27

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

Plaintiff’s Reply Brief – Rehan Sheikh v. [DMV]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



4/27

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

Plaintiff’s Reply Brief – Rehan Sheikh v. [DMV]P a g e | iii

I.

STATEMENT OF CASES

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Plaintiff and plaintiff’s 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


Eastern District of California

Plaintiff and plaintiff’s 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



5/27

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

Plaintiff’s Reply Brief – Rehan Sheikh v. [DMV]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 DMV’s 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 Plaintiff’s Letter – Public Records

K. Aug 12, 2014 Plaintiff’s Declaration

L. Year 2015 Defendant Brian Kelly – Drivers Handbook



6/27

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


II. SUMMARY

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

plaintiff’s Driving License generally citing an alleged Failure to Appear (FTA)

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

2.

The DMV issued second Order (March 27, 2012) to suspend plaintiff’s 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 plaintiff’s ‘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.



7/27

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


III. STATEMENTS

6.

On or around February 29, 2012, the DMV denied renewal of Plaintiff’s 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

plaintiff’s 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 plaintiff’s 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 plaintiff’s license does not seem to

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

A. DMV’s 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



8/27

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


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 DMV’s 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



9/27

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


inconvenience to all concerned… Your experience and knowledge of the patient’s

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 plaintiff’s expense that could cost

tens of thousand dollars or more. The DMV’s demand for ‘Reexamination at

plaintiff’s expense places an additional unbearable burden on plaintiff.

B. The DMV’s 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.



10/27

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


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

Suspension and indefinitely suspended plaintiff’s 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 DMV’s 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 plaintiff’s identity card.

IV. ARGUMENTS

A.

Demand for Medical Exams Constitutes Unreasonable Searches

20. The DMV’s arbitrary demand for Medical, Psychological, Neurological, Drug,

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

and invades body integrity. The DMV’s 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



11/27

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


(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)



12/27

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


B. DMV’s and County Court’s 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. I’m a senior legal analyst at the Department of Motor Vehicels.

2. ‘I retrieved plaintiff Rehan Sheikh driving record using California

Department of Motor Vehicle’s (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



13/27

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


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.



14/27

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


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.



15/27

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


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.

DMV’s 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 Cartahttp://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billAnalysisClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160ACR76

2 ex California Senator Darrell Steinberg – Innocent until proven Guiltyhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJrYJGP2fVY


http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billAnalysisClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160ACR76.http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billAnalysisClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160ACR76.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJrYJGP2fVY.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJrYJGP2fVY.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJrYJGP2fVY.http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billAnalysisClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160ACR76.


16/27

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


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


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


17/27

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


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 Attorney’s 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


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


18/27

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


39. DMV’s 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 plaintiff’s 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 legally—even for a limited time—their

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 didn’t appear before united states

authorities and didn’t 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 Analysishttp://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB60


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


19/27

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


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, etal. 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



20/27

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


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 plaintiff’s Driving License, published its accusations on its

public report without a Notice and without any hearing causing undue injury.

The DMV continues to suspend plaintiff’s 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 fellowpupils 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



21/27

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


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

(8th Cir. 1974).

48. The DMV’s 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. Plaintiff’s Constitutional Right to liberty, interstate travel, and Right to pursuit

of happiness depend on his Driving License. Deprivation of plaintiff’s 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



22/27

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


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’ plaintiff’s

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

food and insulin. Plaintiff risks prosecution merely for driving to a doctor’s 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

driver’s 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



23/27

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


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 sufferirreparable 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 DMV’s Orders of Suspension and issue an Injunction

to restore plaintiff’s 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



24/27

Anonymous & unsigned

‘Order of Suspension’Dec 5, 2011

EXHIBIT



25/27

tiltll

of

Califo rnia Businllss T rilnsportatio n. and Housing Aglln cy

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, D

1219 WEL

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 F I I ~ 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



26/27

March 27, 2012

DMV’s Arbitrary Order of Suspension

EXHIBIT



27/27


28. plaintiff's reply brief -1

Documents