1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910111213141516171819202122232425

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTEASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

--o0o--REHAN SHEIKH, ) Case No. 2:14-cv-00751-GEB-AC

) Plaintiff, ) Sacramento, California

) Wednesday, August 13, 2014vs. ) 9:54 A.M.

)BRIAN KELLY, et al., ) Hearing re: defendants motion

) to dismiss; plaintiff's Defendants. ) motion for admissions and for

) judgment; and to amend complaint

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGSBEFORE THE HONORABLE ALLISON CLAIRE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGEAPPEARANCES:For Plaintiff: REHAN SHEIKH, Pro Se

1219 W. El Monte StreetStockton, CA 95207(209) 475-1263

For Defendants: MATTHEW T. BESMERAttorney General's Office 2550 Mariposa Mall, Room 5090Fresno, CA 93721(559) 477-1680

Court Recorder: (UNMONITORED)U.S. District Court501 "I" Street, Suite 4-200Sacramento, CA 95814(916) 930-4072

Transcription Service: Petrilla Reporting & Transcription5002 - 61st StreetSacramento, CA 95820(916) 455-3887

Proceedings recorded by electronic sound recording;transcript produced by transcription service.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910111213141516171819202122232425

1

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA, WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 13, 2014, 9:54 A.M.

(Call to order of the Court.)THE CLERK: Calling 14-cv-00751-GEB-AC, Rehan Sheikh

v. Brian Kelly, et al. This matter is on calendar fordefendants' motion to dismiss and plaintiff's motion forjudgment, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Good morning.MR. SHEIKH: Good morning, Your Honor.THE COURT: Take a seat please, and then state your

appearances for the record.MR. SHEIKH: Yes, Your Honor. My name is Rehan

Sheikh, I'm plaintiff in this case.THE COURT: Good morning, Mr. Sheikh.MR. BESMER: Good morning, Your Honor. Matt Besmer

for the attorney general representing the defendants.THE COURT: Good morning, Mr. Besmer.So we have the defendants' motion to dismiss on

calendar. Also before me is the plaintiff's motion to compeladmissions, the plaintiff's motion for judgment, and Mr.Sheikh, you've filed a first amended complaint that I want totalk to you about.

MR. SHEIKH: Yes.THE COURT: I want to focus this morning on

defendants' motion to dismiss. That's what I'll hear argument

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910111213141516171819202122232425

2

on. But first I want to talk to you, Mr. Sheikh, about thethings that you have filed, just to give you some informationand clarify some procedural matters for your benefit.

MR. SHEIKH: Okay.THE COURT: And I will be issuing a written order

after the hearing which will spell all this out for you.After a plaintiff files an initial complaint and the

defendants respond to it, either by filing an answer or amotion to dismiss, that puts you in a position where you arenot free to simply file an amended complaint without a motionseeking leave to do so and providing legal grounds. And forthat reason I want to just advise you that I will be orderingthe first amended complaint stricken because you have not madea motion to file it.

But the thing to bear in mind for now is that when amotion to dismiss is on the table, if it's granted in whole orin part, it is always my practice to permit the plaintiff atleast one opportunity to amend the complaint after the rulingon the motion to dismiss. So after I have laid out for you inany order or any findings and recommendations to the districtcourt any deficiencies that I find in the complaint, you willhave the benefit of that being laid out for you --

MR. SHEIKH: Thank you.THE COURT: -- prior to having an opportunity to

amend.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910111213141516171819202122232425

3

On the discovery issue, it -- from what I've read inyour papers, you told me that you did submit requests foradmissions to the defendants and at the time you filed yourmotion to compel you had not yet gotten a response, is thatcorrect? Let me break that down.

MR. SHEIKH: I don't understand correctly, but Ifiled a request for admission more than 30 days ago and myunderstanding is that after 30 days it will be -- it can beadmitted.

THE COURT: When you want to conduct discovery,whether it's requests for admission, request for production ofdocuments or interrogatories, which are questions --

MR. SHEIKH: Right.THE COURT: -- that you propound in writing you want

answers to, you're not supposed to file them with the Court atall.

MR. SHEIKH: Right.THE COURT: They don't get filed. They need to be

served directly on the other side. And then when you get aresponse from the defendants, if you're not happy with theresponse -- for example, if their response is, we don't have toanswer that question, or they do answer the question but theydon't give you all the information you wanted, then the nextthing you do is talk to them and try to work it out.

MR. SHEIKH: Yes.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910111213141516171819202122232425

4

THE COURT: And if you can't work it out, then youfile a motion to compel further responses. All right.

MR. SHEIKH: That makes sense. Thank you.THE COURT: Mr. Besmer, did -- were you served with

requests for admissions?MR. BESMER: Just through the ECF service, Your

Honor, and we did submit a letter to Mr. Sheikh --THE COURT: Okay.MR. BESMER: -- addressing his, what we believe to be

an untimely request for admission -- or a premature request foradmission rather.

THE COURT: Okay. All right. So the requests foradmission were propounded, although in an atypical sort of way,and you did respond to them?

MR. BESMER: Just in the letter format, Your Honor. We explained to Mr. Sheikh that discovery has not yet opened inthis case.

THE COURT: All right. Which is true, there's beenno discovery and scheduling order. In a case such as this, Mr.Sheikh, once -- the usual way the thing proceeds is that afterthe motion to dismiss has been ruled on, once we get acomplaint on file that provides a basis for continuinglitigation, then an order will issue setting deadlinesincluding for discovery and it is -- in the usual course ofevents, you would wait for that to happen before conducting the

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910111213141516171819202122232425

5

discovery.But when you get there, again, the process is not to

file it with the Court, but to simply submit your discoveryrequests directly to counsel for the defendants and onlyinvolve the Court if you're not happy with the responses. Okay?

MR. SHEIKH: Sure. That makes sense to me.THE COURT: And in that regard, as well as for

general guidance in litigating your case, I know it's very,very challenging to be a plaintiff trying to prosecute alawsuit without the assistance of counsel. The primary thingsyou need to always look to are the Federal Rules of CivilProcedure, the local rules of this Court and the law library atthis Court or the larger county law library can give you accessto civil procedure practice guides.

MR. SHEIKH: Yes, ma'am.THE COURT: There are several, if you haven't seen

them already, handy three-ring sets of binders that will giveyou pretty concrete instructions on what you need to do,particularly when it comes to pleading and discovery. So Isuggest that you consult those resources.

Finally, Mr. Sheikh, you filed a motion for judgmentwhich also appears to me to be premature. As the plaintiff ina civil lawsuit you, with very, very rare exceptions, can't getjudgment just based on the pleadings in your case. The burden

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910111213141516171819202122232425

6

is on you ultimately to prove all your claims with evidence.And there is a provision in Rule 56 of the rules of

civil procedure to move for summary judgment at a later stagein the litigation, after all the discovery has been conducted. If at the end of the discovery period you look at --

MR. SHEIKH: If I may?THE COURT: Go ahead, sir.MR. SHEIKH: Yeah, I think I maybe did not name it

correctly in my memorandum supporting the motion. I correctlycharacterized it as motion for declaratory and injunctiverelief and that is simply based on the fact and the motion --it's just procedural issues, they don't require discovery.

It's just the procedure that I have a driving licenseand it's a basic necessity of life. And defendants have sentme an anonymous letter and they are not giving me basicprovision and posted provision heading.

So in my opinion, and Court will decide that, that itmade sense that I could submit a motion for declarative reliefthat the defendants did not follow the procedures, that I'mentitled to defend my driving license and to renew my drivinglicense.

So in that perspective, I mean, I'm just conveyingwhat I thought. So if I incorrectly titled it as a motion forjudgment, I tried to make up that remedial situation in mymemorandum. If you see, it is clearly labeled as motion for

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910111213141516171819202122232425

7

declaratory and injunctive relief.THE COURT: All right. Your -- I'm aware that your

complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief. Declaratoryand injunctive relief, just like money damages, are types ofrelief that you are entitled to at the end of a lawsuit if youprevail, after you have proved your claims with evidence. So --

MR. SHEIKH: So in this case, defendants do notdispute, sorry -- and defendants do not dispute that they didnot issue me timely notices of denial, they do not dispute thatover a period of last two years they denied me pre-deprivationand post-deprivation --

THE COURT: Well there are disputes about -- thisearly in the litigation, when we're not even clear on the finalform that your complaint will take, it is too soon for anyoneto tell me that things are undisputed. There, it seems to meis, I'm seeing in this case plenty of room for dispute, bothabout historical facts of what happened and about the legalsignificance of what happened.

So again, if what you are seeking is judgment in yourfavor without a trial, the way you get that is under Rule 56with a motion for summary judgment.

Based on what you're telling me, you might also beseeking -- there is a provision, again under the rules forpreliminary injunctive relief. That's a very high bar. In

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910111213141516171819202122232425

8

order to bring a successful motion for a preliminary injunction-- and what you submitted does not meet the requirements for amotion for a preliminary injunction -- but you have to prove upfront that you are likely to prevail on the merits. There -- Iwill leave it to you to research what the requirements are forsuch a motion, but such a motion is not before me right now.

And again, I leave it to you to decide what theappropriate motions are to bring and how to bring them. Ican't give you advice about that.

MR. SHEIKH: Yes, Your Honor.THE COURT: But you should look those things up.All right. Is there anything else, Mr. Sheikh, that

you want to tell me about your -- the first amended complaintyou filed, your motion to compel admissions or your motion forjudgment? Anything you think I've misunderstood or that youwant to clarify?

MR. SHEIKH: Well I think, Your Honor, you correctlystated that. If I may add to that, it's an uncommon situation,or simple situation of how do we see that. A driving licenseis a basic necessity of life and we all need driving license. We need to go to drive to work or we need to seek medicaltreatment or whatever may be. So it's a very basic necessity.

And I have a driving license. I've been driving carssince the young age, like everyone else. So I mean it's a veryhigh bar for defendants. They just cannot -- I mean it doesn't

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910111213141516171819202122232425

9

seem right for them to come and take your driving licensewithout the due process of law.

And they seems like mistaken, or they have a softwareglitch in their computer that is just sending anonymous random-- that's not up to me to tell, but it clearly seems like avery obvious mistake and they are stating, well, there is afailure to appear.

And in my declaration I pointed out probably morethan half dozen events that I have appeared before DMV andbefore the county court. Issue is they won't specify what --there is a failure to appear. I mean if there is a deficiencyin my side, I would be glad to make up for that. I mean ifthere's a fine that I need to pay, if there is somethingspecific that -- but their allegations remain general and eventhough I appeared before them, they do not remove that failureto appear or they don't give you proof of appearance.

I mean the county court a number of times I haveappeared and they won't give you a proof of attendance, eventhough I have requested specifically. And now two days agodefendant bring another additional accusation that for aparticular traffic citation dated 2012, more than two yearsago, they claim that I missed a court date and they come with abench warrant that they claim that was issued in April 2012.

And I have very well -- verifiable record that Iappeared before that court in February, in March and in May.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910111213141516171819202122232425

10

So I mean it's kind of a uncommon situation that defendant --they are trying to bring court records that may have existed ornot, but they don't make sense, that for a traffic citation --there's a one specific traffic citation and I went before thecourt twice and the court signed and stamped my appearance. They withdraw their accusation for verification the courtsigned and stamped. And that -- the court's proof is submittedalong with my declaration.

THE COURT: Okay. You're referring to thedeclaration that you submitted yesterday?

MR. SHEIKH: Right. Yes, Your Honor.THE COURT: Well let me ask you a question about

that, Mr. Sheikh, because I'm confused. Your declaration tellsme that the exhibit documents a withdraw of the trafficcitation, but this document isn't a court document or awithdrawal of the traffic citation. This is a piece of paperyou were given by the sheriff's department --

MR. SHEIKH: Yes, Your Honor.THE COURT: -- when they released you from custody

and told you to go to court on 3/6. This doesn't documentanything that happened in court on 3/6. This is just a pieceof paper that you got at the jail saying this is when you needto go to court.

MR. SHEIKH: Yes, Your Honor. I was told that I needto go to court by 3/6, that's why I was explaining, even though

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910111213141516171819202122232425

11

the document says I need to appear precisely on 3/6. So I hadmy first appearance before the judge on February 29th, but thatdiscussed another traffic citation.

And this one was specifically for this thing and Idecided not to bring declaration this piece of stamp, this issigned by the court. This is -- in the middle there is a bigstamp and a signature. The signature and stamp is by thecourt. So I got --

THE COURT: I see the court stamp and I see a date onit --

MR. SHEIKH: Right.THE COURT: -- which might -- which proves to me

that you appeared on that date, but it doesn't indicateanything about any action that the court took.

MR. SHEIKH: That's possibly -- I was there and theydid not bring any accusation and I verified with everyone, andthey are telling people about your accusations are withdrawn. So I don't have a proof what the action the court did.

THE COURT: Okay.MR. SHEIKH: But it definitely shows that I was

responsible enough to go to the court, I did all my duediligence and the court, they overlooked to do whatever. Andfor the same traffic citation, the court signed it -- myappearance of -- at least appearance -- for the same appearancein April. They are claiming that they have a bench warrant

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910111213141516171819202122232425

12

against me. You know. I mean that doesn't make sense, youknow.

THE COURT: Okay. Let me -- I appreciate yourexplanation. I understand how important it is to you to haveyour driver's license back. I understand how important it isfor people to have driver's licenses.

MR. SHEIKH: Yes.THE COURT: Let me turn to the defendants. In your

motion -- the part of your argument that -- particularly yourmootness argument is based on the May 6th letter and thatletter does appear to provide information about why Mr.Sheikh's license was suspended and how to clear the suspension,but it doesn't address what I would agree is an independentissue, which is the process for challenging the suspensionrather than taking care of the department's basis for it.

If Mr. Sheikh was to want to challenge the suspensionitself, saying you were, you know, wrong to do it, you can'tmake me go clear up these things because I should never havebeen suspended. Where, and when, and how did the departmentnotify him how to do that?

MR. BESMER: Yes, Your Honor. First, the departmentsent Mr. Sheikh the very first letter, and I don't have thedate right in front of me, but it was somewhere around November2011. And it informed him -- I think it was December 2011. Itinformed him that his license was going to be suspended in 30

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910111213141516171819202122232425

13

days if he didn't clear up his failure to appear on his August2011 citation.

The process that's established is that there reallyis a hearing and that hearing is to go to the court that'shandling that traffic citation and the court, based on how thestatutory framework is set up, will automatically notify theDMV when the failure to appear is cleared.

And that did in fact happen because Mr. Sheikheventually appeared on that traffic citation and thatsuspension was removed when he showed up in court. On thattraffic citation then he was found guilty of a trafficviolation and ordered to pay a fine. And similar system is setup is that when a --

And so to your question about what's the process tochallenge that.

THE COURT: Uh-huh. MR. BESMER: That process is -- I mean we're inviting

him right now to challenge that process, to let us know thathe's paid that fine and that he's appeared in court on hisFebruary 2012 citation.

I understand he's not challenged his failure to pay afine in oral argument, and as to the failure to appear, Iunderstand he's challenging that right now. All I can do isrepresent to the Court that the county court records -- the SanJoaquin County Court records show that Mr. Sheikh failed to

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910111213141516171819202122232425

14

appear on his February 2012 citation. And all he needs to dois go to court and clear that up.

The DMV system is just simply set up based on thestatutory framework to get these notifications from the court,and I'm not aware of any errors in that system. So he doeshave a hearing right to the extent that he goes to court andsays hey, you know, there's an error here, I need to get thisfixed. And based on the cases that we cited in our reply, it'sclear that due process does not always require a formaladjudicatory hearing. It's just some type of process to allowthe person to protect his or her interest.

And at this stage, Your Honor, we believe we'reinviting Mr. Sheikh to do the three things we've asked him todo. And there's really not a system set up for him to say hey,I, you know -- well let me back up. We are inviting him toshow us that he paid his traffic fine. Until he shows that hepaid his traffic fine, the DMV is prohibited from lifting thesuspension of his license.

THE COURT: Right. And Mr. Sheikh, what proof do youhave that you ever paid that fine?

MR. SHEIKH: Well, Your Honor, there was a trialconnected and I dispute that part, the guilty part. There wasa trial connected. There was a discussion with that judge andI had challenged the jurisdiction of the cop. The cop workedfor the private university in Stockton that is next to my home.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910111213141516171819202122232425

15

The cop was parked at a position where no human -- Imean it seems like I'm just saying it -- it was like clearlyimpossible for him to have a visual of that street, which wason his back. So that was questioned in the trial and the copcould not satisfactorily answer his location and he madestatements that I don't have a good recollection of events atthat time.

And the matter was before a judge and the judgepromised that he will issue his opinion. There were a numberof matters that was discussed and I don't want to go in all thedetails. So what I'm expecting is opinion of the judge thatwould establish the jurisdiction of the cop and see how the cop-- did the cop have actually -- he was parked at a positionwhere it could have any visual where he could identify whethera plaintiff completely stopped on a stop sign or not.

THE COURT: So you had a trial?MR. SHEIKH: Yes, Your Honor.THE COURT: But there was no result? The judge

didn't rule at the end of the trial?MR. SHEIKH: Well judge said that he will issue his

opinion because the jurisdiction was challenged and the cop didnot have a visual --

THE COURT: Okay. Let me just interrupt to say thatI'm a little confused about what your issue was, because theability of a witness to perceive things --

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910111213141516171819202122232425

16

MR. SHEIKH: Yes, Your Honor.THE COURT: -- is an issue that I understand is a

trial issue.MR. SHEIKH: Yes, Your Honor.THE COURT: I don't understand that to be an issue

going to jurisdiction. But in any case, when was this trial?MR. SHEIKH: Around May 25 of 2012.THE COURT: Of 2012?MR. SHEIKH: Yes, Your Honor.THE COURT: And there has never been a decision by

the judge after that trial? You've been waiting since May of2012 to get a written opinion?

MR. SHEIKH: That is my understanding, Your Honor. Exactly. I have never seen -- I am waiting for opinion and Ihave not received an opinion. However --

THE COURT: And there is no record that you werefound guilty of the citation?

MR. SHEIKH: Well they produced a form. They said --when I was leaving the court, the court stopped, asked me tosign a form and I did. And now I -- defendants hand me thoseforms and those forms say that they found me guilty and thereis no opinion.

THE COURT: Okay. Well then that's what happened. If that's what the forms say, that's what happened. And youmay have been expecting --

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910111213141516171819202122232425

17

MR. SHEIKH: Well I -- I received from court insections and the court discussed that if I do not disagree withthe opinion I could challenge the court's opinion. So I meanthat form doesn't say whether the court has -- the cop hasjurisdiction and how the -- I mean all the details, Your Honor.

THE COURT: All right. But you acknowledge that youdid receive and sign a form saying that you'd been found guiltyand ordering you to pay a fine?

MR. SHEIKH: I was instructed to do so and I had nochoice, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. So you were instructed to pay afine?

MR. SHEIKH: I was instructed to sign a form that Ihad no knowledge what I'm signing at that time.

THE COURT: Did the form say that you were requiredto pay a fine?

MR. SHEIKH: Yes, Your Honor.THE COURT: Okay. Did you ever pay that fine?MR. SHEIKH: No, Your Honor.THE COURT: Okay. You know, in this court as a

magistrate judge I sometimes hear traffic matters which mightseem surprising because it's a federal court, but if someonecommits a traffic infraction on federal property, like ifthey're going hiking up in the El Dorado Forest and they parkimproperly in the parking lot on federal land, for example,

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910111213141516171819202122232425

18

sometimes that will come into this Court.And I am well aware that if I find that someone

parked improperly or drove under the influence of alcohol oranything forbidden by the California Vehicle Code, even in thisfederal court, what happens if I find them guilty and I imposea fine is that gets automatically reported to the Department ofMotor Vehicles and the DMV does what it does on the basis ofthat report from me.

That seems to be what happened for you. The courtordered you to pay a fine and regardless of your understandingthat there remained an outstanding legal issue and you didn'tfeel that you were therefore obligated to pay the fine, youropportunity to challenge that is in the state courts.

MR. SHEIKH: I understand.THE COURT: Did you appeal the decision of the

Superior Court?MR. SHEIKH: I understand, Your Honor. I cannot

challenge that opinion over here.THE COURT: Right.MR. SHEIKH: But I don't have any way to challenge

that opinion unless I have an opinion, so it's kind of a limbo,you know.

THE COURT: Well I can't advise you about how toprosecute an appeal in state court, and the time to do so hascertainly expired a long time ago. But based on the facts as

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910111213141516171819202122232425

19

you are representing them to me, it seems that you were awarethat even though you dispute the validity of it, that you wereunder an obligation to pay a fine in that matter and you havenot paid the fine in that matter. And the DMV is not going torestore your driver's license until the county court tells themthat you've taken care of the fine.

Mr. Besmer, what else do I need to know about thiscase in order to rule on your motion? Are there facts you wantto clarify or things you'd like to direct me to in the recordthat would help me understand the procedural history?

MR. BESMER: Yes, Your Honor. On July 14th, inresponse to Mr. Sheikh's request for admission we sent adetailed letter to him, and in that detailed letter we includedcopies of the certified records from the traffic court whichshowed that he was found guilty of his traffic violation fromAugust 2011, and that also included a copy from the courtrecords that showed on August 4th, 2012 a $20,000 bench warrantwas issued because he failed to appear on his February 2012traffic citation.

The third reason why his license is suspended isbecause he's not appeared and completed a reexamination. Whenhe was pulled over in February of 2012 based on his driving andhis behavior, the officer believed that there was some concernsabout his ability to safely operate a motor vehicle, and allthe statutory codes as referenced in our reply.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910111213141516171819202122232425

20

The officer issued to him what's called a notice ofreexamination and that says that you are to call the DMV withinfive days and set up an appointment to retake your driver'slicense exam. He didn't do it within the five days and hislicense was suspended. An additional reason for his licensewas -- suspension was added to his driving record.

He called up a few days later and scheduled areexamination and I believe the date of the reexamination wasMarch 26th, 2012. When he showed up on March 26th, 2012 herefused to complete the reexamination and because of that,that's an additional reason his license is suspended. TheDMV's committed and wants to provide Mr. Sheikh with theopportunity to get his license, he just needs to do those threethings.

THE COURT: As to the reexamination what opportunity,if any, does a driver have to contest the need for thereexamination?

MR. BESMER: There's -- from the statutory frameworkthat I've reviewed, Your Honor, none. The --

THE COURT: Don't you see, I do -- that's the oneplace where I think maybe there is a due process issue at leastworth thinking about here. I understand that when a courtreports to DMV that someone hasn't paid a fine or has failed toappear, that has an automatic consequence for the status of thelicense and the DMV's role is fairly ministerial there.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910111213141516171819202122232425

21

But when it comes to the reexaminations, you know, ifI am issued this notice for a reexamination -- and I'm makingthis up, right? But in a hypothetical case, if I'm issued itbecause, you know, someone doesn't like the way I'm dressed,right, I shouldn't have to take that reexamination.

It seems to me that I should be able to get to ahearing officer, even if it's just one of those telephonethings the DMV does in some contexts, to say hey, this wasgiven to me not because of anything I was doing as a driverthat indicates my driving skills need to be tested, but becausethis person didn't like the way I was dressed, didn't like thepolitical slogan on my t-shirt.

Doesn't due process require that I have anopportunity to make that argument and try to convince someonethat I shouldn't have to retake the test?

MR. BESMER: Potentially under the facts that youjust -- without conceding anything, Your Honor -- under thefacts that you presented. But I'd like to present an analogyhere that this is -- the reexamination process is similar insome regards to what happens when somebody gets a DUI beforethe DMV.

The police officer fills out a report, says that thisperson was arrested for driving under the influence, and thedocuments are forwarded to DMV, and the person can request ahearing and the hearing's held on whether or not that person

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910111213141516171819202122232425

22

was driving under the influence of alcohol. That persondoesn't get to contest or challenge the reporting officer'sreport and whether there's a need for the hearing, that's takenplace during the hearing.

So in this case, the statutory framework sets outspecific things that the officer needs to observe and report totrigger the reexamination process.

And included in the letter that we sent to Mr. Sheikhon July 2014 which is in the Court's record, we included a copyof the police report that outlined his erratic behavior, hiscursing, his need to be placed in handcuffs and his ultimatearrest over a traffic violation.

So to the extent that he believes that he wasmistreated by the police, that's not something the DMVaddresses, that's something that he needs to take up with thepolice department.

So from the perspective of the reexamination process,I think that the statutory framework that's establishedprotects a person's due process rights. It's really not unlikethe DUI situation where a person's arrested for a DUI. Theydon't get to challenge, well I think the cop was picking on me,I really wasn't drunk.

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. That's helpful.Mr. Sheikh, I'm going to give you the last word.

What -- are there any things you've heard from Mr. Besmer that

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910111213141516171819202122232425

23

you want to correct, any additional facts you think I need toknow?

MR. SHEIKH: Well I think, or just a really importantpoint, that there's a process to challenge the need for theirdemand for medical tests -- unspecified medical tests. Thereshould be a mechanism to challenge those tests and somebodyneeds to provide an opportunity as a justification.

Police saying something is that their accusation, areport, or a proof of wrongdoing, you know. I mean there's adifference. That's their accusation that needs to be heard andgive -- they need to provide justification of demanding such areexamination.

But I mean there are a couple of points. Forexample, one of the points defendant did -- well, as you know,police -- behavior of the police is relevant. Like they tookme in custody once, they released me, my wife came to pick meup. They came, took me in custody because really it buildsyour behavior on multiple occasions. The Court -- you know, Iwas deprived of medication. I could die over there. I don'tknow. So --

THE COURT: But you haven't raised claims based onany of those facts in your complaint, sir. The --

MR. SHEIKH: So the point is that -- let me get tothe point. The point is defendant not saying that my behavioris relevant -- my behavior before the police is relevant and --

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910111213141516171819202122232425

24

but what police did to me is relevant to this complaint, whichkind of makes sense, but I mean this establishes there is aneed for a hearing that could establish the need for such amedical test or what they call a reexamination.

There are levels of problems. I cannot go intodetail on all of these, but there are at least three majorproblems in those. We are just talking on the first level,there is a need for reexamination.

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Sheikh. Let meexplain how -- what's going to happen next. Okay. I'm takingall these matters under submission. I will issue a writtenorder and findings and recommendations.

Some of the matters that are before me right now, Ihave the authority as a United States Magistrate Judge to ruleon directly, that includes discovery related matters; but JudgeBurrell is the district judge in this case and he is the onewho has the authority to enter a final order on a motion todismiss.

So what I do is lay out my findings andrecommendations, my analysis of the issue and I tell JudgeBurrell which way I think he should go and you will receivethose. And if you disagree with any part of it, you fileobjections to the findings and recommendations with JudgeBurrell. The instructions for that will be included.

MR. SHEIKH: Yes, Your Honor.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910111213141516171819202122232425

25

THE COURT: And he's the one who will make the finaldecision. Okay?

MR. SHEIKH: Yes, Your Honor.THE COURT: Thank you very much. The matter's under

submission.MR. BESMER: Thank you, Your Honor.MR. SHEIKH: Thank you so much, Your Honor.

(Whereupon the hearing in the above-entitled matter wasadjourned at 10:27 a.m.)

--o0o--CERTIFICATE

I certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript fromthe electronic sound recording of the proceedings in the above-entitled matter.

November 12, 2014Patricia A. Petrilla, TranscriberAAERT CERT*D-113