Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
7
8
9
10
11
12
REHAN SHEIKH
Appellant (and plaintiff),
v.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
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 BRIEF
42. U.S.C. 1983
The DMV continues to Suspend
Plaintiffs Driving License without
Hearing since 2011
Judge : Hon. Garland E. Burrell
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
I. QUESTIONS PRESENTED
5
6
7
8
9
10
Does the DMV has a mandatory duty, in order to satisfy the Due Process
11
12
13
14
B. The DMV arbitrarily and intermittently demands that plaintiff take written
15
test, driving tests and submit to medical tests. The DMV doesnt demand such
16
17
auto accidents. The DMV denied requests for any hearing that would establish
18
19
20
Is the DMVs arbitrary demand for plaintiffs driving and medical tests
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiffs Brief Rehan Sheikh v. [DMV]
P a g e |i
1
2
3
Table of Contents
4
5
I.
QUESTIONS PRESENTED................................................................................................. i
II.
III.
STATEMENTS ....................................................................................................................... 1
IV.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND....................................................................................... 8
9
10
11
A.
12
B.
Traffic Citation for allegedly Not Completely stopping at a Stop Sign ................. 8
C.
13
14
V.
ARGUMENTS ...................................................................................................................... 13
a.
18
b.
19
c.
15
16
17
20
21
22
23
24
d.
The DMVs Arbitrarily Demand for Plaintiffs Driving, Written & Medical tests
25
26
VI.
27
28
CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................... 26
1
2
Table of Authorities
3
4
CASES
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Armstrong v. Manzo,
380 US 545 (1965) ................................................................................................................... 24
Bell v Burson,
402 U.S. 535 (1971) ................................................................................................................. 24
Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill,
470 U.S. 532, (1985) ................................................................................................................ 25
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Edwards v. California,
314 U.S. 160 (1941) ................................................................................................................. 13
Garrett v. City of San Francisco,
28
Plaintiffs Brief Rehan Sheikh v. [DMV]
P a g e | iii
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
In re Yochum,
89 F. 3d 661 (9th Cir. 1996)................................................................................................... 25
Kent v. Dulles,
357 U.S. 116 (1958) ................................................................................................................. 13
Louis v. Supreme Court of Nevada,
490 F.Supp. 1174, (D.C. Nevada, 1980) .............................................................................. 20
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Reno v Flores,
507 U.S. 292 (1993) ................................................................................................................. 24
28
Plaintiffs Brief Rehan Sheikh v. [DMV]
P a g e | iv
1
2
3
4
Schechter v. Killingsworth,
93 Ariz. 273, 380 P.2d 136 (1963) ........................................................................................ 15
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 Brief Rehan Sheikh v. [DMV]
P a g e |v
1
2
3
STATUTES
4
5
7
8
9
10
RULES
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
Due Process Clause ........................................................................................................... 13, 24, 25
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiffs Brief Rehan Sheikh v. [DMV]
P a g e | vi
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 Brief Rehan Sheikh v. [DMV]
P a g e | vii
1
2
3
District of California. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has jurisdiction pursuant to
28 U.S.C. 1291. The Case involves plaintiffs driving license. The applicable Standard
6
7
of Review is de novo.
8
9
10
III.
STATEMENTS
11
12
effectively January 4, 2012 without any pre deprivation hearing. The DMV
13
14
assumed that plaintiff did not attend a court hearing to respond to an alleged
15
stop sign violation. The DMV assumed (or alleged) a Failure to Appear (FTA)
16
and Failure to Pay fine (FTP). The DMV did not inform plaintiff of his Right to
17
18
19
20
2. On or before January 4, 2012, Plaintiff timely appeared before the Court and
before the DMV. Plaintiff requested them to NOTE his attendance and restore
21
his driving license. Defendants did not remove their allegations of failure to
22
23
24
renew his driving license. On each occasion, defendants denied renewal of his
25
26
27
28
Plaintiffs Brief Rehan Sheikh v. [DMV]
P a g e |1
1
2
3
4. In March 2014, Plaintiff submitted a complaint with the district Court alleging
five counts of violation of Due Process. Plaintiff also submitted a First Amended
6
7
8
5. After plaintiff filed the complaint, the parties consented to discovery. Defendants
issued multiple Notices of denial. In those notices of denial,
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
scheduled before the County of San Joaquin Superior Court.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
a.
11
County Court dated March 2012. Plaintiff had already taken care of that
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
the Due Process Clause, is a point of fundamental importance. The district Court
did not rule on this important matter and now it is before the Ninth Circuit
6
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
THE COURT: Okay. All right. So the requests for admission were
20
21
them?
22
23
24
MR. BESMER: Just in the letter format, Your Honor. We explained to Mr.
Sheikh that discovery has not yet opened in this case.
b. The Court conceive that discovery did not begin (Transcript at P4);
25
26
27
28
Plaintiffs Brief Rehan Sheikh v. [DMV]
P a g e |4
1
2
3
d. On a few other occasions the Court conceived that discovery had begun. The
Court invited plaintiff to submit discovery requests with the Court when there is
a dispute between the parties (Transcript at Page 3). The Court noted to take
10
11
12
13
12. Plaintiff submitted a Motion for Declaratory Relief that defendants denied
14
plaintiffs Right to Due Process (by suspending his driving license without pre
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
a. Defendants did not present any opposition and stated (Docket#35, P2)
[A Court may] issue other appropriate relief when nonmovant
cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition.
b. Plaintiff requested the Court to grant his Motion for Declaratory Relief.
(Transcript P7)
Plaintiff: So in this case, defendants do not dispute, sorry -- and
defendants do not dispute that they did not issue me timely notices of
denial, they do not dispute that over a period of last two years they denied
25
26
27
THE COURT: Well there are disputes about this early in the litigation,
28
Plaintiffs Brief Rehan Sheikh v. [DMV]
P a g e |5
1
2
3
when were not even clear on the final form that your complaint will take,
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
13. Plaintiff submitted a Motion for Injunctive Relief to restore his driving
license.
a. In the hearing, the Court emphasized the importance of Driving License
in the hearing and stated (Transcript, P 12)
The court: I understand how important it is to you to have your drivers
license back. I understand how important it is for people to have drivers
licenses.
b. In its written ruling, the district court dismissed Plaintiffs Motion
without any guidance and stated that Motion is denied as premature.
14. Plaintiff is without his driving license for years now. During that time, plaintiff
16
17
18
19
20
15. Defendants artfully pleaded their FRCP 56 Motion for Summary Judgment
and disguised their Motion as FRCP 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss. In granting
21
22
23
24
25
26
16. Plaintiff submitted written arguments that defendants arbitrary demand for
plaintiffs driving tests and medical tests is inconsistent with the Equal
Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. The district Court did not
27
rule on this important matter and now it is before the Ninth Circuit Court of
28
1
2
3
4
17. Plaintiff filed a complaint with the District Court alleging following five Counts
of violation of Due Process (42. U.S.C. 1983 ).
5
6
Notice of Denial.
i.
10
11
i.
14
15
16
12
13
17
Plaintiff submitted a First Amended Complaint (Docket #32) adding Sixth cause
18
19
20
21
22
23
Plaintiff first asserts that his due process rights were violated because he
24
25
18. The district Court applied a legal standard that stated (Docket#44 -P4),
26
Thus, a defendants Rule 12(b)(6) motion challenges the courts ability to grant
27
any relief on the plaintiffs claims even if the plaintiffs allegations are true.
28
Plaintiffs Brief Rehan Sheikh v. [DMV]
P a g e |7
1
2
IV. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
3
4
5
6
19. The DMV sent an anonymous ORDER OF SUSPENSION to plaintiff that was
generated by a computer program. That Order dated Dec 05, 2011, stated;
The suspension will remain in effect until all Failures to Appear (FTA) and
10
Failures to Pay a fine pursuant to section 42003(A) have been removed from
11
your record.
12
13
The Order of Suspension did not state name of a judge or any other person who
14
15
16
17
20. On August 11, 2011, Plaintiff was stopped a few yards from his home and was
18
given a citation for allegedly not completely stopping at a Stop sign and
19
(allegedly) for lack of Proof of Insurance. The ticket was given by a police officer
20
21
who was parked on the perpendicular street facing the opposite direction. The
22
police officer had no possibility of viewing the stop line. The police officer worked
23
24
21. Later plaintiff was stopped by Stockton Police on Feb 16, 2014 1. Police officers
25
26
27
i.
28
1
2
continued to add traffic citations (6-7) until after plaintiff was booked.
3
4
5
ii.
One officer searched plaintiffs car without plaintiffs permission. The other officer took
plaintiffs driving license, car keys, called for a towing truck and possessed plaintiffs car. A
third Police person arrived who introduced himself as Sergeant. The plaintiff was taken to a
9 iii.
As plaintiff was being booked in the County Jail, police officer (who issued the citation) asked
Jail officer to give him back a paper where police officer added multiple traffic citations. The
10
booking police officer had a conversation with the Jail police officer.
11
iv.
12
Amendment. Then several police officers surrounded plaintiff; inquiring officer became very
13
14
loud saying, I will ask you one more time [or else]; Plaintiff said, Sir, I take the fifth.
v.
Plaintiff was moved with force to a special place merely for exercising his Constitutional
Right to Fifth Amendment. Plaintiff remained deprived of critical medicine (including insulin)
15
and remained subconscious. Late night /early morning Plaintiffs vitals were unstable; he was
16
17
The Jail Police officer started interrogation. Plaintiff said sir, I exercise my right to Fifth
taken to the County Hospital Emergency and was brought back to the Jail.
vi.
18
On or around Feb 17, 2012 (Friday noon time), plaintiff was released from Jail. In the lobby
area, outside the Jail, plaintiff called his wife who came to bring him home. As plaintiff and his
19
wife were about to leave from the parking lot, a High ranking individual from Sheriffs office
20
accompanied by a Sergeant and an officer asked the Officer to book plaintiff one more time.
21
The High Ranking Sherriff told plaintiff, Im going to spend the weekend at home and you will
22
23
vii.
Plaintiff was again made to spend two more days in the County Jail before he was released on
late Sunday afternoon. During that time, Plaintiff often remained subconscious and his requests
24
25 viii.
That was not the first or the last time when City Police and/or County Sheriff department
26
undertook unprofessional and adverse actions against plaintiffs family. San Joaquin County
27
undersheriff sent an email to plaintiff April 5, 2013 that stated in Bold letters;
28
1
2
3
22. On May 23, 2012 there was a trial at the San Joaquin County Superior Court
before Judge Hon. Erik Lundeberg to respond to all of those traffic citations. The
Court addressed only alleged Failure to completely stop at the STOP sign dated
6
7
8
9
August 11, 2011. All other allegations in the traffic citations dated August 11,
2011 and February 16, 2012 were previously resolved or withdrawn.
23. The police officer who issued the citation was present. In the Court proceedings,
10
the police officer was not able to identify the location where he was parked at the
11
time he issued the ticket; and stated, I do not have good recollection of the event
12
13
14
15
on that day. Additionally, the police officer did not work for city of Stockton.
Jurisdiction of the police officer was challenged.
24. The Judge announced to issue his opinion later (still pending). The Judge also
16
17
disagreed with his opinion. The Judge commented, We can issue the license if
18
19
20
21
22
23
[then there was no guidance]. Plaintiff and his wife thanked the court.
C. Defendants Notices of Denial remain inconsistent
25. After plaintiff filed this complaint with the district court, the DMV issued
multiple Notice(s) of denial;
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
such fine. Another court document (Docket #39, P.10/26) shows a different
21
amount of fine.
22
23
a. In the Court proceedings, Defendants stated, [Plaintiff] never appeared
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiffs Brief Rehan Sheikh v. [DMV]
P a g e | 11
1
2
3
A156283 (the February 2012 citation), and that a bench warrant was
5
6
7
c. At the court hearing dated Aug 13, 2014, defendants stated (Transcript
P13); Mr. Sheikh eventually appeared on that traffic citation and that
10
11
Since then, the DMV records show that you have cleared this FTA,
However, the DMV records show that you have failed to pay (FTP) the
12
13
14
15
Once the FTA and FTP are cleared with Stockton Superior Court, you will
16
17
18
19
Part of that interview will involve a written law test, vision test and drive
20
21
in effect.
22
23
24
25
29. Plaintiff sought clarification from defendants in his letter dated July 9, 2014
and inquired (Docket # 31-1; P4),
Did the defendants remove the alleged FTA or not?
26
27
28
Plaintiffs Brief Rehan Sheikh v. [DMV]
P a g e | 12
1
2
3
V. ARGUMENTS
4
5
6
7
30. The driver's license is significant parts of the liberty and property protected by
the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and may be abridged only
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
(1964), the Supreme Court struck down a federal statute forbidding members of
22
23
opinions affirmed the principle that the right to travel is an aspect of the liberty
24
guaranteed by the Due Process Clause. In Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160
25
26
(1941) invalidating a California law which impeded the free interstate passage of
27
the indigent, the Court based its reaffirmation of the federal right of interstate
28
1
2
It is also well settled in our decisions that the federal commerce power
authorizes Congress to legislate for the protection of individuals from
violations of civil rights that impinge on their free movement in interstate
commerce.
United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966).
3
4
5
6
7
32. The concept of liberty has been buttressed by the delineation of a separate and
9
10
United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966): Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Amendment.
33. In Shapiro, supra, the right of interstate travel was held so crucial that any
18
19
20
21
22
Shapiro. In his concurring opinion, Mr. Justice Stewart compared the right to
23
24
right.
25
34. Suspending plaintiffs driving license merely for a perceived failure to appear
26
before a third party county court does not make our roads safer. Suspension of
27
28
driving license would only make it cumbersome and expensive for the plaintiff to
Plaintiffs Brief Rehan Sheikh v. [DMV]
P a g e | 14
1
2
3
travel to the court. DMV was unable to produce any court order that mandated
6
7
8
9
claim to collect money or fine from plaintiff is valid or not, it does not outweigh
plaintiffs rights to property, liberty and interstate travel.
35. California has begun to issue driving licenses to illegal immigrants so that
10
they could legally drive. California determined that their interest in driving
11
12
13
Failure to Appear (before authorities) and Failure to Pay (fees and fines).
14
15
United States Citizens) because todays social and economic circumstances have
16
17
In the public interest the State may make and enforce regulations reasonably
18
19
20
21
22
calculated to promote care on the part of all, residents and non-residents alike,
who use its highways. Hess v. Pawloski, 274 US 352 (1927); also Bell v Burson
36. "[T]he right of the States in this mode to impede or embarrass the constitutional
23
operations of that government, or the rights which its citizens hold under it, has
24
been uniformly denied." United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966). The
25
26
27
28
Killingsworth, 93 Ariz. 273, 380 P.2d 136 (1963). Thus, since 1963 the Arizona
Plaintiffs Brief Rehan Sheikh v. [DMV]
P a g e | 15
1
2
3
act in order to make explicit the requirement that fault and potential liability
6
7
must be the basis of the department's decision to suspend a driver's license. Orr
v. Superior Court, 77 Cal. Rptr. 816, 454 P.2d 712 (1969). The administrative
10
11
12
13
court review. Petitioner seeks no more than this in the present case.
37. In Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp., 395 U.S. 337 (1969) and in Goldberg v.
Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970) the Supreme Court found improper the withholding of
14
wages and welfare benefits pending subsequent due process review. Whether or
15
16
does not outweigh the individual rights to property, liberty and interstate travel.
17
18
19
38. The lack of due process in plaintiffs case is more flagrant; Plaintiff has
20
no opportunity for any hearing either before or after suspension of his driving
21
license. Plaintiff now asks that his right to drive a car, necessary to his essential
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiffs Brief Rehan Sheikh v. [DMV]
P a g e | 16
1
2
3
but his family is strained for lack of plaintiffs driving license. Plaintiff is unable
7
8
unable to take his child to school or for any recreation. Plaintiff is unable to keep
10
11
regard. All of this constitutes irreparable harm. Under such circumstances, the
12
United States Judges are authorized to restore plaintiffs driving license. This
13
14
15
16
17
18
For all the following reasons, this court is requested to reverse the dismissal of
19
20
21
22
40. Plaintiff has stated sufficient facts in his complaint. A motion to dismiss for
1.
23
a. 16 years old,
24
b. 80 years old,
25
c. healthy people,
26
27
e. disabled people,
28
1
2
3
failure to state a claim will be denied unless it appears that the plaintiff can
prove no set of facts which would entitle it to relief. Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure do not require a claimant to set out in detail the facts upon which he
6
7
bases his claim. To the contrary, all the Rules require is "a short and plain
statement of the claim" that will give the defendant fair notice of what the
plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests. Conley v Gibson, 355
10
US 41 (1957). All material allegations in the complaint will be taken as true and
11
construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See NL Indus., Inc. v.
12
13
14
15
Kaplan, 792 F.2d 896, 898 (9th Cir.1986). Embury v. King, 191 F.Supp.2d 1071,
(N.D.Cal.2001) affirmed 361 F.3d 562 (9th Cir. 2004).
41. The district court erred by striking First amended complaint as plaintiff added
16
sixth cause of violation of due process. The Supreme Court has directed federal
17
trial courts to read pro se papers liberally. Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5 (1980)
18
19
(per curiam). It would be a good use of discretion to grant leave to file the
20
21
Court granted plaintiff leave to file Amended complaint without the need of
22
filing a Motion for leave of the Court. See Rehan Sheikh v Cisco Systems, No: C-
23
24
25
42. Defendants state law claims to collect money or fees, enforce any such state law
26
are NOT civil actions within original Jurisdiction of the district court. Neither
27
28
Plaintiffs Brief Rehan Sheikh v. [DMV]
P a g e | 18
1
2
3
U.S.C. 1367. The Court did a reversible error to rule on such matters without
exercising jurisdiction.
6
7
43. Defendants submitted a disguised Motion for Summary Judgment before the
District Court. Defendants artfully labeled the Motion for Summary Judgment
FRCP (56) as Motion to Dismiss FRCP 12(b)(6). Defendants motivation for their
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Constitutional Rights.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
45. One important purpose of the federal rules is to ensure predictable court
proceedings and preserve fairness. Compliance with the Federal Rules is a
27
28
Plaintiffs Brief Rehan Sheikh v. [DMV]
P a g e | 19
1
2
3
matter of paramount importance. In the hearing the Court offered its guidance
5
6
request under FRCP (56), under Ninth Circuit precedent plaintiffs discovery
9
10
11
787 F.2d 1302 (9th Cir.1986). Garrett v. City of San Francisco, 818 F.2d 1515
12
13
14
15
16
47. Where waivers of a rule are not granted with consistency and no explanation is
given for the disparity of treatment, a finding of denial of equal protection may
be appropriate. This rule alone would suffice to keep the plaintiff in court at this
17
time as against the defendants' FRCP 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to
18
state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Where, as in this case, the
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
driver's license and the use of his car. Justice demands and the Due Process
26
27
28
Plaintiffs Brief Rehan Sheikh v. [DMV]
P a g e | 20
1
2
3
49. Defendants arbitrarily demand plaintiffs driving tests, written tests and
Reexamination.
8
9
50. Defendants demand that before taking Reexamination, plaintiff remove the
10
alleged Failure to Appear. Then defendants refuse to provide any hearing that
11
12
13
51. Defendants claim their ability to deny an individuals driving license even after
14
15
If after completing the reexamination the DMV does not remove the
16
17
52. Defendants excuses for arbitrarily demanding plaintiffs written, driving and
18
medical tests remain unsettled. Police issued traffic citation to plaintiff and
19
20
justification for reexamination is that because police said so. Police issues
21
22
23
demand all drivers to take driving and medical tests. Here police issued a traffic
24
25
26
The defendants mention traffic citation issued by police as justification for polices request for
27
28
1
2
3
medical tests. Police does not refer all drivers for such a reexamination when
police issues traffic citations. Police does not refer drivers for reexamination
6
7
53. The defendants have refused a hearing that would determine polices interest for
10
plaintiffs reexamination would make highways safer while it does not demand
11
12
13
accidents. The city police that issued a request for plaintiffs reexamination, do
14
not respond to traffic accidents. If by chance, police officers are present at the
15
16
17
18
19
54. Requiring driving and medical tests as a condition of issuing driving licensing is
at one end of the scale of the safety schemes. Requiring driving and medical tests
only from arbitrarily identified individuals as a precondition of license renewal,
20
is at the other end of the scale. The federal courts are concerned when such
21
22
23
24
25
55. In the oral arguments, the Court stressed the need of a hearing that would
26
27
The Court: As to the reexamination what opportunity, if any, does a driver have
28
Plaintiffs Brief Rehan Sheikh v. [DMV]
P a g e | 22
1
2
3
Office of Attorney General: Theres -- from the statutory framework that Ive
The Court: But when it comes to the reexaminations, you know, if I am issued
7
8
this notice for a reexamination -- and Im making this up, right? But in a
hypothetical case, if Im issued it because, you know, someone doesnt like the
way Im dressed, right, I shouldnt have to take that reexamination. It seems to
me that I should be able to get to a hearing officer, even if its just one of those
10
telephone things the DMV does in some contexts, to say hey, this was given to
11
12
skills need to be tested, but because this person didnt like the way I was
13
dressed, didnt like the political slogan on my t-shirt. Doesnt due process require
14
that I have an opportunity to make that argument and try to convince someone
15
16
17
18
19
Office of Attorney General: Potentially under the facts that you just -- without
conceding anything, Your Honor -- under the facts that you presented.
56. Plaintiff contested defendants arbitrary demand for re-examination before DMV
on or around March 26, 2012 and requested an administrative hearing. The
20
21
22
23
that somehow plaintiff cannot drive a car. Rather than proving their claim, for
24
25
26
drive a car.
27
28
Plaintiffs Brief Rehan Sheikh v. [DMV]
P a g e | 23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
hearing that would assess fault. Absent fault, the State's declared interest
11
12
13
58. Plaintiff requests this Court for a Declaratory Relief that the DMVs arbitrary
14
demand for plaintiffs written, driving and medical tests constituted violation of
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
license without any pre deprivation hearing and it continues to deny all request
23
for any post deprivation hearing. At the time DMV suspended plaintiffs driving
24
25
26
27
28
60. The fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard and
it is an "opportunity which must be granted at a meaningful time and in a
meaningful manner." Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 US 545 (1965). At the time
Plaintiffs Brief Rehan Sheikh v. [DMV]
P a g e | 24
1
2
3
opportunity to appear before any hearing officer to restore his driving license.
6
7
instrument of oppression."
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
63. Plaintiff requests this Court for a Declaratory Relief that suspension of
25
plaintiffs driving license without pre deprivation and without post deprivation
26
27
28
Plaintiffs Brief Rehan Sheikh v. [DMV]
P a g e | 25
1
2
3
VI.CONCLUSION
64. The DMV sent a 30 day notice to suspend plaintiff driving license for an alleged
5
6
7
Failure to Appear (FTA). Plaintiff timely attended the County Court but DMV
continued to suspend plaintiffs driving license. Despite plaintiff submitted a
proof of his attendance at the county court, the DMV continued to allege an FTA.
The DMV never offered any process to challenge suspension of driving license.
10
11
12
13
14
15
65. Plaintiff filed a complaint with the District Court. The Court dismissed
plaintiffs complaint. In the district court proceedings, the court recognized the
importance of driving license but the court did not analyze if the DMV has an
obligation to provide a hearing on suspension of plaintiffs driving license.
66. A short and plain statement of plaintiffs claim is chilling:
16
17
without any court order and without assessing plaintiffs fault, the DMV
18
19
continues to deny any hearing that would assess plaintiffs fault, and despite
20
21
22
23
67. The United States Courts have recognized peoples fundamental Rights in their
driving license and have mandated Constitutional Due Process for deprivation of
24
25
driving license. Respectfully, Plaintiff asks the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to
26
27
28
Plaintiffs Brief Rehan Sheikh v. [DMV]
P a g e | 26
1
2
3
VII.
68. Plaintiff respectfully Prays before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that;
5
6
7
8
9
10
PRAYER
11
12
Respectfully Submitted;
13
14
15
16
17
18
---------------------------------Rehan Sheikh
Plaintiff
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiffs Brief Rehan Sheikh v. [DMV]
P a g e | 27