21. Plaintiff's Supp Brief & Motion WEB

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

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

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

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

Case NO: 14 1 6 8 5 8 Appellants Supplementary Opening Brief 42. U.S.C. 1983 The DMV continues to Suspend Plaintiffs Driving License without Hearing and without Notice since 2011 District Court: 2: 14 CV- 7 5 1 GEB AC

Case: 14-16858, 07/31/2015, ID: 9630268, DktEntry: 21-1, Page 1 of 9

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 Supplementary Brief Rehan Sheikh v. [DMV]

P a g e | i

I. QUESTIONS PRESENTED

A. Submitted in Plaintiffs opening Brief dated Jan 2, 2015

B. Submitted in Plaintiffs opening Brief dated Jan 2, 2015

C. The DMV filed an additional accusation of Lack of Knowledge or skill on

plaintiffs driving license records without his knowledge. The DMV made those

records available to public and to auto insurance corporations without any

Notice to plaintiff.

Does the DMV has a mandatory duty, in order to satisfy the Due Process

Clause(s), to issue a written Notice to plaintiff?


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


P a g e | ii

STATEMENT OF CASES

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Plaintiff and plaintiffs spouse are parties in the following cases;

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

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

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

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

Eastern District of California

Plaintiff and plaintiffs spouse are parties in the following cases;

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

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

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


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


P a g e | 1

The plaintiff hereby submits this Supplementary opening Brief with an

additional Questions (Page i). Plaintiff recently learned that defendants alleged

additional accusations of Lack of Knowledge or Skills on plaintiffs Driving License

without issuing a Notice to plaintiff.

II. JURISDICTION

1. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

1291. This Court has authority to grant declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C

2201 and 2202. The Case involves plaintiffs driving license. The applicable

Standard of Review is de novo.

III. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

2. The Due Process Clause(s) mandate that the DMV issue a Notice of accusation.

The DMV denied Right to Due Process by NOT issuing a written Notice.

3. The Due Process Clause(s) mandates that the DMV has the Burden to prove its

accusations for suspending plaintiffs Driving License.

IV. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

4. The Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) issued an anonymous Order to

suspend plaintiffs driving license in 2011 without any Notice of Accusations.

5. After plaintiffs complaint, the DMV, submitted a declaration titled Second

Declaration of Shannon Robbins (exhibits- submitted Aug 06, 2014- District


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


P a g e | 2

Court Docket#40). Without alleging additional accusation of Lack of Knowledge

or skill, and without demanding Reexamination,; that declaration stated ;

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

2. I retrieved plaintiff Rehan Sheikh driving record using California

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

driving record contains information regarding his traffic citation,

conviction, and fine payment history as reported by law enforcement

agencies and California Superior Courts.

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

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

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

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

6. 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

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)

7. The above referenced letters were NOT labeled as Notices and the DMV did not

offer any hearing subsequent to those letters. Plaintiff has no opportunity to

contest above referenced accusations. The above referenced untimely letters did


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


P a g e | 3

not constitute a sufficient Notice and did not conform with the requirements of

the Due Process Clause(s).

8. 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

9. The DMV did not issue any Notice to plaintiff that stated Lack of Knowledge or

skill. For lack of a written Notice of Accusation and for lack of a hearing,

plaintiff has no opportunity to contest such accusation.

10. Even before any judicial finding, the DMV published 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.

V. ARGUMENTS

a. The Due Process Clause(s) mandate that deprivation of Driving

License be preceded by a written Notice

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

DMV issue written Notice of all of its accusations.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


P a g e | 4

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

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

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

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

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

al. 339 U.S. 306 (1950)

12. 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

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)

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

Where a person's good name, reputation, honor, or integrity is at stake


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


P a g e | 5

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

b. The DMV has Burden to Prove its accusations for Suspending

Plaintiffs Driving License

14. Californias licensing agencies are consistently confused on this important

matter. Previously California Medical Board wrote letters to plaintiff and

claimed that the Board did not have Burden of proof to bring accusations or to

deny license (Farzana Sheikh MD v Medical Board of California Exhibit 19).

15. Now the DMV incorrectly claims that it does not have Burden to Proof to

suspend license(s). This has long been established that outcome of the case rests

with the Burden of Proof. The moving party that is, the party asserting the

claim or making the charges- generally has the burden of proof in an

administrative hearing. Schaffer v. Weast, 546 US 49 (2005); Brown v. City of

Los Angeles, 102 CA4th 155 (2002); Parker v City of Fountain Valley, 127 CA3d


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


P a g e | 6

99 (1981). In proceeding to revoke [license], burden of proof never shifts to

license holder Schireson v. Walsh, 354 Ill. 40, 187 N.E. 921 (1933).

16. 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 as people have fundamental Rights associated with

their driving licenses. In order to deceptively shift its Burden of Proof, the DMV

suspended plaintiffs Driving Licenses without any process at all.

VI. PRAYER

17. Plaintiff seeks a declaratory relief that;

a. The DMV has the Burden to Prove its accusations for suspending

plaintiffs Driving License.

b. The DMV denied Plaintiffs Right to Due Process by NOT issuing a

written Notice of its accusations of Lack of knowledge and skills

c. The DMV denied Plaintiffs Right to Due Process by NOT issuing a Notice

or by NOT issuing a timely and sufficient Notice of its accusations of

Failure to Appear (FTA) and Failure to Pay (FTP).

Respectfully Submitted;

/s/ Rehan Sheikh ---------------------------------- Date: July 31, 2015 Rehan Sheikh Plaintiff


Rehan Sheikh

Phone 209.475.1263 Email; [email protected]

Date: July 31, 2015

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

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

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

Respectfully,

Rehan Sheikh


Letters from DMVs without showing accusations of

Lack of Knowledge or skill EXHIBIT


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

2 SCOTTH. WYCKOFF,StateBarNo.l91367 Supervising Deputy Attorney

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

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

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

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

6 reflect Plaintiff's fine payment and court appearance.

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

9 August 6, 2014, at Sacramento, Califomia.

\0

1\

\2

13

14

\5

\6 SA2014ll5505

17 95ll392l.doc

\8

19

20

2\

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Sharon Robinson js/ Sharon 1Wbinson Declarant Signature

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

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

Case 2:14-cv-00751-GEB-AC Document 40 Filed 08/06/14 Page 2 of 11 Case: 14-16858, 07/31/2015, ID: 9630268, DktEntry: 21-4, Page 3 of 13

DMV Public Record

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

EXHIBIT


RehanHighlight

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES

***CUSTOMER RECEIPT COPY***

DRIVER LICENSE/IDENTIFICATION CARD

INFORMATION REQUEST

07/23/2015

"

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

DL/NO:D3

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

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

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

IDENTIFYING INFORMATION:

SEX:MALE*HAIR:

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

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

HEALTH QUESTIONNAIRE EXPIRES:NONE*

LICENSE STATUS:

SUSPENDED OR REVOKED*

"

DEPARTMENTAL ACTIONS:

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

AUTH:12819 *

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


AUTH:13365 *

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

CONVICTIONS:

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

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

405095 VC

*FAILURE TO PAY FINE

UPDATED:09-17-12*

"

FAILURES TO APPEAR:

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

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

16028A VC

21453A VC

21453A VC

21703 VC

21806A VC

1 of 2


RehanHighlight

RehanHighlight

RehanHighlight

RehanHighlight

RehanHighlight

22350 VC

UPDATED:05-03-12*

ACCIDENTS:

NONE*

END

2 of 2


514/2015 Assessmanl Print Page 1 of 1

Copyright 20131

DMV Public Record

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

EXHIBIT


RehanTypewritten Text

RehanTypewritten Textwithout highlighting records

RehanTypewritten TextDUPLICATE COPY

514/2015 Assessmanl Print Page 1 of 1

Copyright 20131

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES

***CUSTOMER RECEIPT COPY***

DRIVER LICENSE/IDENTIFICATION CARD

INFORMATION REQUEST

07/23/2015

"

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

DL/NO:D3

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

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

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

IDENTIFYING INFORMATION:

SEX:MALE*HAIR:

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

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

HEALTH QUESTIONNAIRE EXPIRES:NONE*

LICENSE STATUS:

SUSPENDED OR REVOKED*

"

DEPARTMENTAL ACTIONS:


AUTH:12819 *

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


AUTH:13365 *

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

CONVICTIONS:

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

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

405095 VC

*FAILURE TO PAY FINE

UPDATED:09-17-12*

"

FAILURES TO APPEAR:

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

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

16028A VC

21453A VC

21453A VC

21703 VC

21806A VC

1 of 2


22350 VC

UPDATED:05-03-12*

ACCIDENTS:

NONE*

END

2 of 2


2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

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

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

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

Case NO: 14 1 6 8 5 8 Appellants Motion for Leave to File a Supplementary Brief District Court: 2: 14 CV- 7 5 1 GEB AC


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

Motion for Leave to file Supplementary opening Brief Rehan Sheikh v. [DMV]

P a g e | 1

MOTION For Leave to File a Supplementary Brief

1. Appellant respectfully asks the Court to grant leave to file Supplementary

opening Brief that is submitted along with Motion.

2. Appellant/ Plaintiff recently discovered that Appellees (the DMV) took

additional action on his driving license and filed additional accusations.

3. This short supplementary brief is submitted based on record that was not

reasonably available or could not be available at the time Appellant submitted

the opening brief.

PRAYER

4. Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court to grant permission to file his

supplementary opening brief.

Respectfully Submitted;

/s/ Rehan Sheikh ---------------------------------- Date: July 31, 2015 Rehan Sheikh Plaintiff


14-1685821 Additional Document - 07/31/2015, p.1QUESTIONS PRESENTEDJURISDICTIONSUMMARY OF ARGUMENTSPROCEDURAL BACKGROUNDARGUMENTSThe Due Process Clause(s) mandate that deprivation of Driving License be preceded by a written NoticeThe DMV has Burden to Prove its accusations for Suspending Plaintiffs Driving LicensePRAYER

21 Additional Document - 07/31/2015 (2), p.1021 Additional Document - 07/31/2015 (3), p.1121 Additional Document - 07/31/2015 (4), p.1921 Main Document - 07/31/2015, p.32PRAYER

21. Plaintiff's Supp Brief & Motion WEB

Documents

Transcript of 21. Plaintiff's Supp Brief & Motion WEB