Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Plaintiff's Reply Brief
Plaintiff's Reply Brief
2
3
4
5
Rehan Sheikh
1219 W. El Monte Street
Stockton, California 95207
Telephone: (209) 475.1263
rehansheikh@yahoo.com
6
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
7
8
9
10
11
12
REHAN SHEIKH
Appellant (and plaintiff),
v.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Brian Kelly
Secretary, California State
Transportation Agency
Appellee
and
Mark Tweety
Manager, Department of Motor
Vehicles
Appellee
Case NO: 14 1 6 8 5 8
PLAINTIFFs REPLY BRIEF
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
Table of Contents
4
5
I.
II.
SUMMARY.............................................................................................................................. 2
III.
STATEMENTS ....................................................................................................................... 3
7
8
A.
B.
C.
9
10
IV.
ARGUMENTS ........................................................................................................................ 6
A.
14
B.
15
C.
Like Medical Board, DMV should Grant hearing on alleged Failure to Pay ......... 10
17
D.
18
E.
F.
21
G.
Suspension of Driving License for FTA and FTP is without Justification and does
22
11
12
13
16
19
20
23
24
H.
25
I.
V.
PRAYER ................................................................................................................................ 19
26
27
28
1
2
3
Table of Authorities
4
5
6
Counselman v. Hitchchock,
142 U.S. 547 (1892) ................................................................................................................... 7
10
11
12
13
State of Texas v United States 5th Circuit - Case No; 15-40238 ......................................... 14
14
15
CALIFORNIA CASES
16
17
18
19
OTHER AUTHORITIES
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiffs Reply Brief Rehan Sheikh v. [DMV]
P a g e | ii
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
I.
STATEMENT OF CASES
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
Plaintiff and plaintiffs spouse are parties in the following cases;
1) Farzana Sheikh MD v Medical Board of California
Case Number: 10 17098
2) Rehan Sheikh v Cisco Systems Inc.
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
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiffs Reply Brief Rehan Sheikh v. [DMV]
P a g e | iii
1
2
3
LIST OF EXHIBITS
4
5
A. Dec 5, 2011
E. May 2015
F. Aug 6, 2014
13
G. May 6, 2014
14
15
16
Plaintiffs Declaration
L. Year 2015
10
11
12
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
II.
SUMMARY
1. The DMV issued first anonymous Order (dated Dec 5, 2011) to suspend
plaintiffs Driving License generally citing an alleged Failure to Appear (FTA)
and an alleged Failure to Pay (FTP). All of the DMVs accusations are contested.
2. The DMV issued second Order (March 27, 2012) to suspend plaintiffs Driving
10
License without stating any stating any cause. The Due Process Clause(s)
11
mandates that the DMV state a cause for Suspension of Driving License.
12
13
14
15
examinations, Drug addition, alcohol addiction, chemical and blood tests. The
16
DMV stated that it can deny license even after successfully completing such
17
Reexamination.
18
19
20
21
4. Without Judicial hearing and without any Notice, the DMV published its
accusations including Lack of Knowledge or skill on its public reports to auto
insurance corporations causing undue injury.
22
5. Plaintiff contested the policy of summary Driving License suspension merely for
23
an alleged Failure to Pay (FTP) and for alleged Failure to appear (FTA). The
24
DMV was not able to present opposition and matter is ripe for default judgment
25
26
for plaintiff.
27
28
Plaintiffs Reply Brief Rehan Sheikh v. [DMV]
P a g e |2
1
2
3
III.
STATEMENTS
6. On or around February 29, 2012, the DMV denied renewal of Plaintiffs Driving
License without a written Notice and without hearing. The DMV Stockton office
6
7
8
stated that the driving license was blocked by the DMV Sacramento office. After
plaintiffs request the DMV office Supervisor gave a phone number.
7. Plaintiff called the DMV Sacramento office and spoke with Mr. Mark Tweety
10
11
about adverse impact on life because of non-renewal of his driving license. Mr.
12
13
14
Tweety did not care at all about impact on plaintiffs life and stated, this is not
important for you to drive.
15
8. Plaintiff reminded Mr. Tweety of his Right to Due Process and requested a good
16
cause for denial. Mr. Tweety stated that license is a Contractual Agreement
17
(without any explanation). Mr. Tweety also said, there is no Due Process
18
19
20
9. On or around March 23, 2012 Mr. Tweety called plaintiff. Mr. Tweety mentioned
21
that he was out to another facility that morning. Mr .Tweety stated that some of
22
23
24
25
26
10. On or around March 26, 2012, Plaintiff went to the DMV office in Sacramento,
27
28
California and was asked to meet a senior DMV officer Darryl Mickens. The
Plaintiffs Reply Brief Rehan Sheikh v. [DMV]
P a g e |3
1
2
3
DMV demanded written test, Driving test and that plaintiff provide complete
information on a five page pre typed Driver Medical Evaluation Form (Exhibit).
Title of that Medical Form is All Medical Conditions. On that form DMV
6
7
8
9
10
11
demanded
Medical,
Psychological,
Neurological,
Drug
addition,
alcohol
12
13
or mental conditions, and/or drug and/or alcohol use, and to release any related
14
15
16
Vehicles.
17
and
18
19
20
21
abuse, and to use the same in determining whether I have the ability to operate
22
23
24
12. On the Medical form (P2), the DMV stated misleading and suggestive
25
26
The Department of Motor Vehicles record indicate your patient may have a
27
condition that could affect the safe operation of a motor vehicle. . With your
28
1
2
3
13. Not only the instructions, but also the questions on the Medical Evaluation
has only three checkboxes, i) Mild, ii) Moderate and iii) Severe. There is no check
box labeled None where a doctor could indicate that a patient does not have
10
11
12
13
Reexamination. The DMV denied the request. Further, the DMV officer stated
14
that even if you successfully complete Reexamination, the DMV is not required
15
16
17
15. Further, the DMV demands Reexamination at plaintiffs expense that could cost
18
19
20
21
22
23
B. The DMVs Arbitrary Order to Suspend Driving License - Mar 27, 2012
16. On March 28, 2012 plaintiff received an Order dated March 27, 2012 suspending
his Driving License. In that order, the DMV checked two check boxes;
24
25
The suspension of your driving privileges effective February 25, 2012 shall
26
27
28
Plaintiffs Reply Brief Rehan Sheikh v. [DMV]
P a g e |5
1
2
3
17. In its order, the DMV did not state any reason at all for Driving License
4
5
8
9
10
11
C. The DMVs Verbal Demand for Medical Examination Sep 06, 2014
19. Plaintiff applied for renewal of California Identification Card. The DMV office
12
again asked that plaintiff complete a five page form (exhibit). On that day, the
13
14
15
IV.
ARGUMENTS
16
17
18
20. The DMVs arbitrary demand for Medical, Psychological, Neurological, Drug,
19
Alcohol related records, chemical and blood tests is intrusive, invades privacy,
20
21
22
23
and invades body integrity. The DMVs demand for Reexamination constitutes
unreasonable searches in violation of Fourth, and Fifth Amendment.
21. Implicit in the Fourth Amendment's protection from unreasonable searches and
24
25
26
27
28
which "is as important and as imperative as are the guaranties of the other
fundamental rights of the individual citizen ... Ker v. California, 374 US 23
Plaintiffs Reply Brief Rehan Sheikh v. [DMV]
P a g e |6
1
2
3
4
5
(1963).
22. Likewise the Fourth Amendment recognizes that right when it guarantees the
right of the people to be secure "in their persons."
6
7
8
9
10
that the administration of the blood test in this case was free of the
11
12
13
14
15
16
23. The values protected by the Fourth Amendment thus substantially overlap those
the Fifth Amendment helps to protect.
17
Thus, the Fifth Amendment marks "a zone of privacy" which the
18
19
Amendment recognizes that right when it guarantees the right of the people
20
21
22
23
24
25
history of the Fifth Amendment. Such situations call to mind the principle
26
that the protection of the privilege `is as broad as the mischief against which it
27
28
Plaintiffs Reply Brief Rehan Sheikh v. [DMV]
P a g e |7
1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
(exhibits- submitted Aug 06, 2014- District Court Docket#40). Without alleging
additional accusation of Lack of Knowledge or skill, and without demanding
Reexamination,; that declaration stated ;
1. Im a senior legal analyst at the Department of Motor Vehicels.
10
11
12
13
14
15
paid his fine for his August 11, 20111Taffic citation (No. i\158647),
16
and that he has not appeared in the San Joaquin County Superior
17
18
4. When Plaintiff pays his traffic 1ine and when he appears in court, the
19
San Joaquin County Superior Court -will notify the DMV and
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States
of America and the State of California that the foregoing is true and
correct and that this declaration was executed on August 6, 2014, at
Sacramento, California.
25. The DMV and the Department of Justice issued the following letters (exhibit);
a. May 6, 2014
1
2
3
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
26. Recently plaintiff accidently received a copy of the Public record and the DMV
report (exhibit) where the DMV alleged three accusations;
i.
14
ii.
15
iii.
16
17
27. Plaintiff wrote a letter dated July 31 (docket 21-2) , The letter stated,
In the above referenced matter, the Driving License Records show an
18
19
accusations?
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiffs Reply Brief Rehan Sheikh v. [DMV]
P a g e |9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
hearing first before a Medical Board Judge and then a second hearing before
Members of the Medical Board. The Rights embedded in the Driving License also
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
stated that the Board has Burden of Proof to suspend a license and the Burden
18
was higher than the civil cases. She mentioned that (evidentiary) standard is 60-
19
20
21
22
23
If DMV alleges that a Driver did not appear before a third party, the DMV must
24
prove its accusations and their relevance. This is the process widely accepted in
25
26
27
28
Plaintiffs Reply Brief Rehan Sheikh v. [DMV]
P a g e | 10
1
2
3
32. The charter of Magna Carta affirmed judicial principles. In order to (re)affirm
6
7
8
9
33. The principle was correctly affirmed by California Senator Darrell Steinberg -
10
Innocent until Proven Guilty in the matter of license suspension (video link2):
11
12
Not trying to expel (a senator) because he is not tried yet and under our
13
14
15
Senator was tried and convicted by Jury of his peers but he still has Right to
16
appeal. To expel them, you have to give them a last hearing before a Judge.
17
18
19
20
Constitution
21
22
34. DMVs argument to suspend driving license for an alleged Police Order, without
23
Due Diligence by DMV, would undermine our system of checks and balances.
24
35. Now this is a judicial fact that California Police issue tickets and random orders
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
California (June 2015). While driving his car, an old ex cop Mr. Orr was
and finally police demanded that the DMV revoke his driving license. In that
7
8
matter involving officer Orr the documents were presented showing that police
10
11
12
13
36. In order to prevent erroneous deprivation, the DMV can perform its own Due
14
15
16
centralization of power; even more important than the Bill of Rights itself.
17
18
19
he said. Once power is centralized in one person, or one part [of government],
20
21
G. Suspension of Driving License for FTA and FTP is without
22
23
37. Late night TV host John Oliver presented an 18 minute episode including a brief
24
25
section on suspension of driving license for Failure to Pay; (video link 3);
26
27
28
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ry9EM61aKCM&list=PLcmwDdyPFLQ-o8QuUip_p4RhFH0bdfnjR&index=1
1
2
3
If you loose driving license, it affects every thing. Most American drive to work
and if you cannot do that you got a problem. John Oliver cited a a particular
survey that found that 64% of the people who lost driving license lost their job
6
7
which does not help anyone. You need them to pay their fine but you are
taking away their means of paying it. That is the most self defeating idea
since
10
11
12
13
14
15
38. The Courts have eliminated barriers on licenses in this New Era.
In Arizona Dream Act Coalition v Brewer, 757 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2014),
the Court considered fundamental Rights, irreparable harm and eliminated
state law barriers on driving license.
In re Garcia, 315 P. 3d 117 (California Supreme Court, 2014), the
16
17
18
19
Security number and lack of documentation. The Court granted license. The
20
Court noted this is a case of first impression, as we are not aware of any other jurisdiction
21
that has ever knowingly admitted an undocumented alien to the practice of law.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
39. DMVs singles out driver based on drivers ability to pay. DMV singled out
3
4
40. Actually state would gain significantly more in taxes by issuing driving license
7
8
which benefits state economies rather than denying license for failure or
10
11
wages increase, they seek work compatible with their skill level, and they
12
enhance their skills to obtain higher wages, all of which benefits State
13
14
Brief of Amicus States dated Mar 12, 2015 (P5-line 1) State of Texas v
15
16
41. Criteria for driving license is ability to safely drive car. California issued license
17
18
19
20
42. In Driver handbook (P1), Mr. Kelly listed criteria of safe driving that stated;
21
22
California is safer when all motorists pass written and driving tests and
23
24
25
26
27
4
28
AB 60 Analysis
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140AB60
Plaintiffs Reply Brief Rehan Sheikh v. [DMV]
P a g e | 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
For lack of written Notice of Accusation and for lack of hearing, plaintiff has no
10
11
44. The bare minimum requirement of the Due Process clause mandates that the
DMV issue written Notice of all of its accusations.
12
13
Many controversies have raged about the cryptic and abstract words of the
14
Due Process Clause but there can be no doubt that at a minimum they require
15
16
notice and opportunity for hearing appropriate to the nature of the case.
17
Mullane, Special Guardian, v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., Trustee, et
18
19
20
45. The Notice of accusations is not a mere gesture and must reasonably inform
plaintiff of the pendency of an action and an opportunity to present objections.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
criterion is not the possibility of conceivable injury but the just and
with which the statute deals." But when notice is a person's due, process
Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., Trustee, et al. 339 U.S. 306 (1950)
46. The DMV suspended plaintiffs Driving License, published its accusations on its
public report without a Notice and without any hearing causing undue injury.
10
The DMV continues to suspend plaintiffs driving license since 2011. On such a
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
charges could seriously damage the students' standing with their fellow
18
pupils and their teachers as well as interfere with later opportunities for
19
20
21
22
47. Plaintiff is improperly deprived of his Driving License in violation of the Due
23
Process Clause(s). "[T]he Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiffs Reply Brief Rehan Sheikh v. [DMV]
P a g e | 16
1
2
3
action is the great purpose of this clause. Wilwording v. Swenson, 502 F.2d 844,
5
6
7
48. The DMVs order to suspend Driving license is arbitrary, capricious, vague
atrocious and shocks the conscious. In Bixby v. Pierno, 481 P. 2d 242, 4 Cal.3d
130, 151 (California Supreme Court, 1971) the Court characterized as arbitrary
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Television & Appliance Rental, Inc., 944 F.2d 597, 603 (9th Cir. 1991). Because
17
18
19
20
50. Plaintiffs Constitutional Right to liberty, interstate travel, and Right to pursuit
21
22
23
24
25
irreparable injury.
26
51. Plaintiff risks harm from potential prosecution for Driving without a Driving
27
28
Plaintiffs Reply Brief Rehan Sheikh v. [DMV]
P a g e | 17
1
2
3
irreparable injury. See Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705, 712 (1977) (holding
6
7
merely for driving to a grocery store. In 2012 California police took plaintiffs
car and never returned. California police arrested plaintiff and deprived him of
food and insulin. Plaintiff risks prosecution merely for driving to a doctors office
10
11
12
13
for a medical examination or risks his health for not doing so.
52. Courts have long recognized that the ability to work often depends on the ability
to drive. Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535, 539 (1971) (noting that possession [of a
14
15
an engineer in the fields of software and internet engineering and worked in the
16
San Francisco bay area. Now Plaintiff cannot even attempt to find work for lack
17
of Driving License.
18
19
53. In Arizona Dream Act Coalition v Brewer, 757 F.3d 1053 (2014), the Court
20
considered irreparable and granted injunction. The Court noted that plaintiff
21
were likely to suffer irreparable harm unless defendants policy was enjoined,
22
and that both the balance of equities and the public interest favored an
23
injunction.
24
25
26
27
age and fragile socioeconomic position. Setbacks early in their careers are
28
likely to haunt Plaintiffs for the rest of their lives. Thus, "a delay, even if only
Plaintiffs Reply Brief Rehan Sheikh v. [DMV]
P a g e | 18
1
2
3
a few months, pending trial represents ... productive time irretrievably lost" to
these young Plaintiffs. Chalk 840 F.2d 701 (1988). Plaintiffs' entire careers
6
7
ability to drive, and that this (in turn) hinders Plaintiffs' ability to work and
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
V.
PRAYER
54. Plaintiff respectfully Prays before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that;
a. The DMV arbitrary demand for Reexamination constituted violation of
Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
b. The Court invalidate DMVs Orders of Suspension and issue an Injunction
to restore plaintiffs driving license.
c. The Court grant any other relief available at the discretion of the Court.
Respectfully Submitted;
22
23
24
25
---------------------------------Rehan Sheikh
26
27
Plaintiff
28
Plaintiffs Reply Brief Rehan Sheikh v. [DMV]
P a g e | 19
EXHIBIT
ORDER OF SUSPENSION
PLEASE SHOW THIS NUHBER ON
YOUR CORRESIP'ONDENCE
08981120511D3024994SHEOI0412
REHAN AVVUB SHEIKH
1219 W EL MONTE ST
STOCKTON, CALIFORNIA 95207
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
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
DEVICE (lID), OR AFTER REFUSING TO OBEY THE LAWFUL ORDER OF A PEACE OFFICER, OR WHILE
ATTEMPTING TO EVADE A PEACE OFFICER. CONVICTION CAN MEAN JAIL, A FII~E OR INSTALLATION OF
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.
ENCLOSURES
EXHIBIT
EXHIBIT
September 6, 2014
DRIVER MEDICAL EVALUATION
EXHIBIT
EXHIBIT
1 of 2
2 of 2
514/2015
1I0st Used
Online
Hill Code
Type
Activity Check
Reference:
Start Date:
End
Weight
Height
MALE
BLACK
Name:
Address:
New MVR
Sex:
Lyes
llair:
DJ
License:
Dale
MVR:
DO[3:
Iss Datc 01/09/2007
L:xp Date: 01/0912012
1651bs.
5' I0"
BLACK
46
Age:
Failures To Appear
Seq #: II
A\:cidents
rVPE
VIOL
CONV
ACD
,\VI)
VIC
FoeA nON
nCKFI
I'LATE
elflS
OB!II!20 II
osm12012
M"
MAl)
STO(,KT()~
AI58M7
\X()[)(,46 I
FTA
02/1oi2012
STOCKTON
A I 5628]
5WAV921
[)['SCRIPTlON
0,10
UE",
405t)!):'
B2fl
DB09
FTA
B74
DEO)
Fl"A
MI6
MAI6
FIA
MI6
MA H,
FTA
MJ4
MI.[)~
21701
ITA
NU4
M("04
FTA
S94
SA02
2:!])O
~OTICE
TO D!V1V-FA1LL'RE TO APPEAR
1,1601/\ DRIVING
P"j
N
N
OIWIHII,
III;IH II
(II.-IHIHII
I :--'[),IHrt.
02!2~!20 I',:
;LSPEK~IOl\
CODE
A \D
DESCRlI'110"
241
VG09
<iJ8
[1002
,,;uSPl=.NSlON
lO/23J20 12
11/22/2012
.. VERBAL \01 1("1e
IlOCI..'\1E~T
ON I'll E
Issue: 01/0912007
Expire: Oll09f2012
Status:
SUSPENI)I;()
S'lJ',~I)I;N'I)I':I)
,_.
Class: ('
NO"l-COMMERClAL
I.iews\: Status b.planatilln: MANDA lORY SUSP/REVK
I.icensc Status Explanatioll: D1SCIUTIONAR Y SUSPIREVK
License IDENTIFICATION Issue: 11118/2014
Expire: 0110912020 Stalus VALID
Class:
REGULAR
Till:, "'CI~NSf:' NUMBER OF TIIl~ SLJ13JL':CT ABOVE WAS ClII:CKED FOR CllANeiLS OR EVE"lTS I'OSTI:I) TO Till
DRIVING RECOR!) SINCl: TilE I.AST MVR WAS ORDERED.
CHANGES OR EVENTS HA VI: BEEN REPORTED.
CHANGES OR EVENTS THAT TRIGGER AN MVR ORDER CAN INCLUDE, BUT MA Y NOT BE LIMITED TO CUNVICTIONS,
DUPLICATE COPY
without highlighting records
EXHIBIT
1 of 2
2 of 2
514/2015
1I0st Used
Online
Hill Code
Type
Activity Check
Reference:
Start Date:
End
Weight
Height
MALE
BLACK
Name:
Address:
New MVR
Sex:
Lyes
llair:
DJ
License:
Dale
MVR:
DO[3:
Iss Datc 01/09/2007
L:xp Date: 01/0912012
1651bs.
5' I0"
BLACK
46
Age:
Failures To Appear
Seq #: II
A\:cidents
rVPE
VIOL
CONV
ACD
,\VI)
VIC
FoeA nON
nCKFI
I'LATE
elflS
OB!II!20 II
osm12012
M"
MAl)
STO(,KT()~
AI58M7
\X()[)(,46 I
FTA
02/1oi2012
STOCKTON
A I 5628]
5WAV921
[)['SCRIPTlON
0,10
UE",
405t)!):'
B2fl
DB09
FTA
B74
DEO)
Fl"A
MI6
MAI6
FIA
MI6
MA H,
FTA
MJ4
MI.[)~
21701
ITA
NU4
M("04
FTA
S94
SA02
2:!])O
~OTICE
TO D!V1V-FA1LL'RE TO APPEAR
1,1601/\ DRIVING
P"j
N
N
OIWIHII,
III;IH II
(II.-IHIHII
I :--'[),IHrt.
02!2~!20 I',:
;LSPEK~IOl\
CODE
A \D
DESCRlI'110"
241
VG09
<iJ8
[1002
,,;uSPl=.NSlON
lO/23J20 12
11/22/2012
.. VERBAL \01 1("1e
IlOCI..'\1E~T
ON I'll E
Issue: 01/0912007
Expire: Oll09f2012
Status:
SUSPENI)I;()
S'lJ',~I)I;N'I)I':I)
,_.
Class: ('
NO"l-COMMERClAL
I.iews\: Status b.planatilln: MANDA lORY SUSP/REVK
I.icensc Status Explanatioll: D1SCIUTIONAR Y SUSPIREVK
License IDENTIFICATION Issue: 11118/2014
Expire: 0110912020 Stalus VALID
Class:
REGULAR
Till:, "'CI~NSf:' NUMBER OF TIIl~ SLJ13JL':CT ABOVE WAS ClII:CKED FOR CllANeiLS OR EVE"lTS I'OSTI:I) TO Till
DRIVING RECOR!) SINCl: TilE I.AST MVR WAS ORDERED.
CHANGES OR EVENTS HA VI: BEEN REPORTED.
CHANGES OR EVENTS THAT TRIGGER AN MVR ORDER CAN INCLUDE, BUT MA Y NOT BE LIMITED TO CUNVICTIONS,
EXHIBIT
7
8
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
RERAN SHEIKH,
2:14-cv-751 GEB AC PS
20
21
22
I.
23
2.
On At1gust 6, 2014, l retrieved Plaintiff Rehan Sheikh's driving record using the
24
California Department of Motor Vehicle's ("DMV") computer system. Plaintiff's driving record
25
contains information regarding his traffic citation, conviction, and fine payment history as
26
reported by law enforcement agencies and California Superior Courts. Attached as Exhibit 1 is a
27
28
I
Second Declaration of Sharon Robinson in Suppmi of Motion to Dismiss for Mootness and Standing (Rule 12(b)(J ))
and Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Rule 12(b)(6) (2:14-cv-751 GEB AC PS)
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
Counly Superior Court -will notify the DMV and Plaintiffs driving record will be updated to
I declare under penalty ofpet:jury 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
\0
1\
\2
Sharon Robinson
Declarant
13
Signature
14
\5
\6
17
SA2014ll5505
95ll392l.doc
\8
19
20
2\
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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)
PO BOX 932382
SACRAMENTO, CA 942:3238:?0
(916) 6576469
May 6, 2014
DL# D3024994
l'f' . .
'l 14
( 'r'
I C'J'l"j)
1C" j) ,S-"
(",.,u.lorma
"':.
""I/~
.:, J I..
On or abDut August 11,2011, you were cited for Vehid(,' Code violations. You fhilcd to
appear ("FT/\,') in the Stockton Superior Court to address
al
violations.
a result, the
DMV served an Order of Suspension datt~d December 5, 11 which is enclosed as J.':xhibit
'1'his letter nOli tied you that your license \vould be suspended on
20
DMV
served a sccond letter also datcd December 5,
] 1, which is
as Exhibil
sti.lted that the FTA was in reference to Stockton Superior Court d()ck(.~t number
alleged violations of Vehicle: Code sections 16028A, 40508A,
and 40509,5,
January 3, 201 you visited the Stockton DMV branch and inquired about
your driver's license, Y()u were verbally inforlned that you could not rCllcwyour lic(;;,llse bCl'ctLlSe
of the FTA in uccocchmc(;;; with Vehiel\;' Code section 1
You signed
this verbal
notice at 16:49 on January 2012. 'rhis verbal notice is
as Exhibit C
()n
Since then, the DMV s records show that you have clear(~d this FTA 1Lovvcver, the
DMV's records show that you havel1tilcd 10 pay ("F'rp") the
ttl!' your
8,2011,
Vehicle Code violations. Th~., DMV served an Order of Suspension
October
201
f()r this FTP, This Order of Suspension is endosed as Exhibit D, 'I'be
California Relay Telephone Service for the deaf 01 heanng Irnp... tred fWIn TDD Phone,; 1800,'135-2929; front V()I~i:l Ptlones 1 ,80()- -r:>52922
DMVW~ll
FAILURE TO APPEAR
.FEHRUARY l(), 2012 VF:HICL~: CODE V10l"ATJONS
On or about February 16, 201 you were cited by the Stockton Pol
Department for
DMV's r<..~cords show that you
speeding, traffic light violations and following too closely.
failed 10 appt~ar for this citation. The DMV served an Order of Suspension dated October
20 I which is enclosed as Exhibit D.
DMV served a second letter
dated October
'rhi8 letter nolitied you that you had to clear
FTA with
20 I which is enclosed as Exhibit
for al
,inlatiuns Vehicle Code
the Stockton Superior Court docket number A I
sections 14601A, 21453A, 21703, 22350, 16028A, 21453A, and 1806A 'fhe dfective datc of
suspensi<m for the FTP was November
2012. (Sec Exhibit
According ttl tbl:! DMV's
records, you have not dearl.'.,d this FTA.
CONCLIJSION
In smnrnury, you willnced to do the following to remove the
10 renew your driver's lic(;'nse:
I. Resolve the tint' for the Vehidc Code violations
8,2011. This will need to hi; addresst!d with the Stockton
for suspension
on or about August
Please
n~issuance
Sal~~ty
Office
Rehan Sheikh
1219 W El Monte Street, Stockton, CA 95207
Phone 209.475.1263 Email; rehansheikh@yahoo.com
Date: June 20, 2014
Matthew Besmer,
Deputy Attorney General
2550 Maripose Mall, Room 5090
Fresno, CA 93721
Matthew.Besmer@doj.ca.gov
Subject:
http://www.Physicianforfairness.com
http://www.facebook.com/PhysiciansForFairness
April25,2014
DL#D3024994
The Driver Safety Appeals & Court Review Unit would like to provide you with information
regarding the status of your driving privilege and what you need to do in order to clear two
suspensions and renew your California Driver License.
Our records reveal that at 4:49 PM on January 3,2012, you attempted to renew your license at
the Stockton DMV field office; how'ever, you ll'ere informed by the DMV employee that your
driving privilege was being suspended the following day for failing to appear in court regarding
a stop sign citation you received on August 1 1, 201 l. This suspension prevented you from
renewing your license until you had cleared the suspension for failure to appear.
At 8:30 PM on February 76,2072, you were stopped by the Stockton Police Department for
speeding, traffic light violations and following too closely. The police officer also submitted
request for priority reexamination and served you with a notice that you had five (5) working
days to contact the local Driver Safety Office and schedule a reexamination or your driving
privilege would be suspended pursuant to Section 12819 of the Vehicle Code. On February 25,
2012, your driving privilege was suspended for failing to schedule a reexamination. On March
1,2072, you contacted the Sacramento Driver Safety Office and scheduled a reexamination for
March 26,2012 at2:30 PM; however, you failed to appear and the suspension remains in effect.
On November 22,2012, your driving privilege was suspended pursuant to Section 13365 of the
Vehicle Code for failing to appear in court for the traffic citations you received on February 16,
2012. That suspension currently remains in effect.
In order to end the suspensions currently in effect and renew your driving privilege, you will
need to do the following:
(209) 468-2966 and clear the Failure to Appear
(FTA) in corurection with the 0211612012 traffic citation. You will also need to clear a
Failure to Pay Fine (FTP) with the Stockton Superior Court in connection with the stop
sign citation of 08/1 112011.
FTA and FTP are cleared with the Stockton Superior Court, you will need to
contact the Stockton Driver Safety Office at QA\ 948-7115 to schedule an interview to
2) Once the
California Relay Telephone Service for the deaf or hearing impaired from TDD Phones: 1-800-735-2929; from Volce Phones: 1-800-735-2922
DL 900 (REV. 122010) WEB NET
The Department of Motor Vehicle's goal is that you be afforded an opportunity to clear these
suspensions, complete the reexamination and renew your California Driver License in order to
drive legally and safely. I hope you find this information helpful in restoring your driving
privilege.
If you have
z//
Sincerely,
Rehan Sheikh
Phone 209.475.1263 Email; rehansheikh@yahoo.com
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:
Ref:
2
3
REHAN SHEIKH
5
6
7
8
9
SACRAMENTO DIVISION
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
PLAINTIFFS DECLARATION
Brian Kelly
Secretary, California State Transportation
Agency
Defendant
Mark Tweety,
Manager, Department of Motor Vehicles
Defendant
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
b. The DMV did not give me a proof of my appearance.
28
1
2
3
4
5
3. Between Dec 05, 2011 and February 28, 2012, on two or more occasions, I appeared before
the County of San Joaquin Superior Court. On each occasion,
a. The Court staff (or Court) did not remove the alleged Failure to Appear.
6
b. The Court staff (or Court) did not give me a proof of my appearance.
7
8
9
On my last appearance, the Court staff scheduled a hearing dated February 29, 2012.
4. On or around February 29, I appeared before the Court to address traffic citations dated
10
August 11, 2011 and traffic citations dated Feb 16, 2012.
11
12
13
5. On or around May 23, 2012, I appeared before the Court and a bench trial was held to
14
determine whether plaintiff completely stopped on the stop sign near his residence.
15
16
17
18
19
20
a. The Court announced to issue its opinion. I did not receive Courts opinion.
b. The Court did not give me any proof of my appearance.
6. On or around March 6, 2012, I again appeared before the Court to address traffic citations
dated February 16, 2012. The California Department of Justice withdrew its traffic citation.
The Court affixed its Stamp and Signature on the official document. (Exhibit).
21
22
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the forgoing is
23
24
25
26
Rehan Sheikh
27
28
PLAINTIFFS DECLARATION (On his Appearances)
Page | 2