You are on page 1of 10

5

10
15
20
25
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
REHAN SHEIKH, In Pro Pel'
1219 W,EI Monte Street
Stockton, California 95207
Telephone: (209) 475.1263
rehansheikh(iiJyahoo.com
UNITED DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SACRAMENTO DIVISION
CASE NO;
REHAN SHEIKl!
Plaintitl
MULTIPLE TO REN(;:W
v.
CALIIi'ORNIA DRIVING IACENSE
Brian Kelly
Secretary, California State Transportation
Agency
llEFENDANTS VIOLATEIl .1)IAINTIF.F'S
Defendant
RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS IN VIOI,ATION
and
OF THEJ;'OIJRTEENTH OF
Mark'l'weety
Manager, Department of Motor Vehicles THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
Defendant
COMPLAINT FOIl IN.llJNCTIVE RELIEF
AND DECLAI{ATORY  
Complaint fbr Declaratory and Injunctive Relict; Rohan Sheikh v Secretary California State Transportation Agency
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

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief; Rehan Sheikh v Secretary California State Transportation Agency
P a g e | 2

Plaintiff Rehan Sheikh, brings the following complaint for a Declaratory Relief that the named
defendants violated his Constitutional Right to Due Process in violation of the Fourteenth
Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Plaintiff also seeks an injunctive relief
mandating the defendants to renew his driving license.
I. JURISDICTION
1. The case presents federal question arising under 42. U.S.C. § 1983; The Court has jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343.
2. Venue is proper in this Court as defendants maintain offices within J urisdiction of this Court.
II. THE PARTIES
PLAINTIFF
3. Plaintiff is entitled to protection of life, liberty, property and pursuit of happiness. Plaintiff is
entitled to all the Rights and Protections as affirmed by the Constitution of the United States.
4. Plaintiff has a liberty interest in pursuing renewal of his driving license. People of the United
States are free to be able to drive to work, school, church and to places of recreation.
DEFENDANTS
5. Brian Kelly is Secretary, California State Transportation Agency.
a. Secretary is responsible for California State Transportation Agency and all of its
functions including but not limited to renewal of plaintiff’s driving license. Secretary
performs such licensing functions via Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV).
b. Secretary has a ministerial duty to renew driving license of plaintiff.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief; Rehan Sheikh v Secretary California State Transportation Agency
P a g e | 3

c. Secretary is responsible for hiring and training qualified staff to reliably and faithfully
execute renewal of plaintiff’s driving license.
d. Secretary is responsible for conception, enactment and execution of Due Process
complaint policies and procedures for issuance and renewal of driving licenses.
6. Defendants are sued in their official capacity and under color of state law. Defendants are
subject to the jurisdiction of this court under Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908).
III. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
7. Several years ago, California issued a driving license to plaintiff. The license was issued on a
credit card sized plastic card that was set to expire in J anuary 2012.
A. First Refusal to Renew Driving License (January 2012)
8. On or around J anuary 4, 2012, Plaintiff applied for renewal of his driving license at the
Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) office in Stockton. The DMV denied to renew Plaintiff’s
driving license.
9. The DMV verbally informed plaintiff that ‘an unidentified third party’ informed DMV about
plaintiff’s ‘Failure to Appear’ (FTA) and because of that alleged FTA, DMV was not going to
renew plaintiff’s driving license.
10. The DMV declined to state when and where was that ‘Failure to Appear’ and stated that DMV
does not maintain such information. DMV refused to reveal the identity of the third party who
informed DMV about plaintiff’s Failure to Appear. On Plaintiff’s inquiry, the DMV stated that
the DMV does NOT have a burden of proof to demonstrate a ‘Failure to Appear’. DMV stated
that the Burden of Proof was on plaintiff to demonstrate that there was no Failure to Appear.
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

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief; Rehan Sheikh v Secretary California State Transportation Agency
P a g e | 4

11. The DMV did not issue a written notice stating reason for denying renewal of driving license.
The DMV did not advise plaintiff of the availability of any remedial procedures.
12. Plaintiff requested the DMV for a Pre-Deprivation administrative hearing. The DMV denied
plaintiff’s request..
B. Second Refusal to Renew Driving License (February 2012)
13. On or around February 29, 2012, Plaintiff again applied for renewal of his driving license at the
Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) office in Stockton. Then the DMV denied to renew
Plaintiff’s driving license for another excuse.
14. On that occasion, the DMV stated that there was a ‘block’ and because of that alleged ‘block’,
the DMV would not renew plaintiff’s driving license. The DMV office supervisor said that she
could not give any reason for the ‘block’ nor she could renew the license.
15. The DMV did not issue a written notice of denial stating the reason for the denial. DMV did not
advise plaintiff of his Rights to Appeal the denial of license. Plaintiff requested a Post
Deprivation administrative hearing and the DMV denied his request. On plaintiff’s multiple
requests DMV office Supervisor gave a phone number for a DMV office in Sacramento.
16. Plaintiff called the DMV Sacramento office and spoke with Mr. Mark Tweety who identified
himself as a Manager at DMV. Plaintiff explained DMV manager about adverse impact on life
because of non-renewal of his driving license. Mr. Tweety did not care at all about impact on
plaintiff’s life and stated, this is not important for you to drive.
17. Plaintiff reminded Mr. Tweety of his Right to Due Process and requested a good cause for
denial. Mr. Tweety stated that license is a ‘Contractual Agreement’ (without any explanation).
Mr. Tweety also said, there is no Due Process available for denial of driving license.
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

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief; Rehan Sheikh v Secretary California State Transportation Agency
P a g e | 5

C. Third Refusal to Renew Driving License (March 2012)
18. On or around March 23, 2012 Mr. Tweety called the plaintiff. Mr. Tweety mentioned that he
was out to another facility that morning. Mr .Tweety stated that some of the information
relevant to non-renewal of plaintiff’s license does not seem to align. Mr. Tweety asked plaintiff
to come to DMV Sacramento office.
19. On or around March 27, 2012, Plaintiff went to the DMV office in Sacramento, California and
was asked to meet a senior DMV officer Darryl Mickens. Plaintiff requested renewal of his
driving license, DMV officer again denied to renew plaintiff’s driving license.
20. The DMV stated that a third party Police department had filed a report and because of that
report, DMV was not going to renew plaintiff’s driving license. The DMV did not state
relevance of the alleged report from a third party police department to the non-renewal of
plaintiff’s driving license.
21. The DMV did not issue a written notice stating reason for denying renewal of plaintiff’s driving
license. The DMV did not advise plaintiff of the availability of any remedial procedures.
22. The Plaintiff requested a Post Deprivation administrative hearing. The DMV denied plaintiff’s
request for administrative hearing.
COUNT 1
VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS AND SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS
(January 2012)
23. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 – 22.
24. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the state of California from
depriving individuals of "life, liberty or property without due process of law."
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

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief; Rehan Sheikh v Secretary California State Transportation Agency
P a g e | 6

25. The DMV improperly relied on unverified third party information for the alleged ‘Failure to
Appear’ and for denying renewal of plaintiff’s driving license. DMV had a ministerial duty to
verify the validity of third party information before the denial. The DMV did not demonstrate
the relevance of the alleged ‘Failure to Appear’ to the non-renewal of plaintiff’s driving license.
26. The DMV improperly claimed that the DMV does not have a Burden of Proof for alleging
Failure to Appear and for denying renewal of plaintiff’s driving license. DMV has a Burden of
Proof for its allegation of Failure to Appear. The DMV’s assertion would place an unbearable
burden on plaintiff to prove that there was no ‘Failure to Appear’.
27. The DMV had a mandatory duty to issue a written notice of denial stating the reason for the
denial. The DMV did not issue a written notice stating reason for the denial. Unless DMV could
give any specific details on the alleged ‘Failure to Appear’, the plaintiff could not take any
action to remedy the situation.
28. Each of the above referenced actions or inactions of the defendants violated plaintiff’s
Constitutional Rights including, but not limited to, Right to Due Process in violation of
Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
COUNT 2
VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS AND SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS
(January 2012)
29. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 – 22.
30. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the state of California from
depriving individuals of "life, liberty or property without due process of law."
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

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief; Rehan Sheikh v Secretary California State Transportation Agency
P a g e | 7

31. The plaintiff requested the DMV for a Pre-Deprivation administrative hearing and the DMV
denied plaintiff’s request. The DMV did not advise plaintiff of the availability of any alternative
remedial process. The DMV had a Constitutional duty to offer, a remedial procedure, such as
an administrative hearing. In the absence of an administrative hearing or any remedial process,
there was no possibility for the plaintiff to successfully pursue renewal of his driving license.
32. Each of the above referenced actions or inactions of the defendants violated plaintiff’s
Constitutional Rights including, but not limited to, Right to Due Process in violation of
Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
33. Defendant has committed the acts alleged herein oppressively, recklessly, and outrageously.
Defendant’s conduct shocks the conscience. Defendant has acted with conscious disregard for
Plaintiff’s fundamental Constitutional Rights.
COUNT 3
VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS AND SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS
(February 2012)
34. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 – 22.
35. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the state of California from
depriving individuals of "life, liberty or property without due process of law."
36. The DMV generally stated that it could not renew the driving license because of a ‘block’
without stating any reason for the ‘block’. The DMV did not issue a written notice stating a
reason for the ‘block’ or for the denial. The DMV had a mandatory duty to issue a written
notice of denial stating the reason for the denial. Unless DMV could give any specific details on
the alleged ‘block’, the plaintiff could not take any action to remedy the situation.
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

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief; Rehan Sheikh v Secretary California State Transportation Agency
P a g e | 8

37. Each of the above referenced actions or inactions of the defendants violated plaintiff’s
Constitutional Rights including, but not limited to, Right to Due Process in violation of
Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
COUNT 4
VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS AND SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS
(MARCH 2012)
38. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 – 22.
39. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the state of California from
depriving individuals of "life, liberty or property without due process of law."
40. The DMV verbally denied renewal of plaintiff’s driving license by generally citing a police
report. The DMV improperly relied on unverified and/or hearsay third party information for the
denial. The DMV did not demonstrate relevance of the alleged police report to the non-renewal
of plaintiff’s driving license.
41. The DMV had a mandatory duty to issue a written notice of denial stating the specific reason
for denying renewal of plaintiff’s driving license. The DMV did not issue a written notice of
denial stating the reasons for the denial. Without a written notice with specific reason for the
denial, there was no possibility for the plaintiff to successfully purse renewal of his driving
license.
42. Each of the above referenced actions or inactions of the defendants violated plaintiff’s
Constitutional Rights including, but not limited to, Right to Due Process in violation of
Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

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

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief; Rehan Sheikh v Secretary California State Transportation Agency
P a g e | 9

COUNT 5
VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS AND SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS
(MARCH 2012)
43. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 – 22.
44. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the state of California from
depriving individuals of "life, liberty or property without due process of law."
45. Plaintiff requested DMV for Post Deprivation administrative hearing and the DMV denied
Plaintiff’s request. The DMV did not advise plaintiff of the availability of any alternative
remedial process. The DMV had a Constitutional duty to offer, a remedial procedure, such as
an administrative hearing. In the absence of an administrative hearing or any remedial process,
there was no possibility for the plaintiff to successfully pursue renewal of his driving license.
46. Each of the above referenced actions or inactions of the defendants violated plaintiff’s
Constitutional Rights including, but not limited to, Right to Due Process in violation of
Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
47. Defendant has committed the acts alleged herein oppressively, recklessly, and outrageously.
Defendant’s conduct shocks the conscience. Defendant has acted with conscious disregard for
Plaintiff’s fundamental Constitutional Rights.
//
//









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

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief; Rehan Sheikh v Secretary California State Transportation Agency
P a g e | 10

48. WHEREFORE, the plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court issue the following relief;
a. Declare that the above named defendants violated plaintiff’s Right to Due Process for
each of the above referenced allegations.
b. Issue an injunctive relief ordering the defendant to renew plaintiff’s driving license.
c. Permanently enjoin defendants from enforcing such policies and procedures as declared
unconstitutional or burdensome by this Court.
d. Award cost and fees
e. Grant such relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully Submitted;

COPY
----------------------------------
Date: March 24, 2014 Rehan Sheikh
Plaintiff