No:

16 - 178

In The
Supreme Court of the United States
Rehan Sheikh
v.

Petitioner,

Brian Kelly, Secretary California State

Transportation Agency; Mark Tweety Manager
Department of Motor Vehicles
Respondent
On Petition for A Writ of Certiorari
To the United States Court of Appeals
For the Ninth Circuit

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Rehan Sheikh
1219 W El Monte St
Stockton CA 95207
rehansheikh@yahoo.com

QUESTIONS PRESENTED
1. Without stating any reason, California
DMV issued an ORDER dated March 27,
2012 and suspended petitioners Driving
License. The DMV did not issue any Notice
or accusation before or after suspension.
The DMV denied both pre-deprivation and
post deprivation hearing.
i) Does the DMV has a duty to issue a
Notice

of

accusation

before

or

after

suspension?
ii) Does the DMV has a duty to grant predeprivation or post deprivation hearing on
suspension of Driving License.

ii

2. California

issued

an

anonymous

and

unsigned order dated Dec 5, 2011 and

suspended petitioners Driving License. The
DMV falsely stated a Failure to Appear
(FTA) or a Failure to Pay (FTP) before
some unspecified third party. The DMV did
not release a copy of information that it
received from the third party. The DMV did
not issue any Notice of accusations. The
DMV

denies

statements

or

Burden

to

accusations.

prove
The

its
DMV

denies pre-deprivation or post deprivation

hearing.

The

plaintiff

contested

such

burdensome policies and submitted legal

arguments. No United States Judge heard
or ruled on any of petitioners arguments.
i) Does petitioner has Right to contest
such burdensome policies.
ii) Does petitioner has Right to a Fair Trial
before state agencies?

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUESTIONS PRESENTED

TABLE OF CONTENTS

iii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

[ NO ] OPINION BELOW

JURISDICTION

STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

INTRODUCTION

STATEMENTS

REASONS FOR GRANTING THIS PETITION

14

I. FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS DEPEND ON

AVAILABILITY OF DUE PROCESS...................... 14
II.
FUNDAMENTAL ELEMENTS OF A FAIR
TRIAL AND DUE PROCESS ARE ABSENT ....... 16
III. UNITED STATES SHOULD GRANT
CALIFORNIA RESIDENTS RIGHT TO CONTEST
DRIVING LICENSE POLICIES AS IT GRANTED
TO ARIZONA RESIDENTS ...................................... 20
IV. UNIED STAES SHOULD CONSIDER
IRREPARABLE HARM TO CALIFORNIA
RESIDENTS ................................................................. 26
V.
UNITED STATES SHOULD RESTORE
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ....................................... 29
CONCLUSION

29

iv

LIST OF APPENDIXES
Appendix A Suspension Order - Mar 27, 2012...1a
Appendix B Suspension Order - Dec 5, 2011..2a
Appendix C Ninth Circuit Memorandum.3a
Appendix D District Court Order .6a
Appendix E- First Amended Complaint .8a

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
UNITED STATES CASES
Aptheker v. Secretary of State,
378 US 500 (1964) ..................................................... 15
Arizona Dream Act Coalition v Brewer,
757 F.3d 1053 (2014) ........................................... 25, 28
Edwards v. California,
314 U.S. 160 (1941) ................................................... 15
Goldberg v. Kelly,
397 U.S. 254 (1970) ................................................... 22
Kent v. Dulles,
357 U.S. 116 (1958) ................................................... 15
Orr v. Superior Court,
77 Cal. Rptr. 816, 454 P.2d 712
(1969) ............................................................................ 21
Schechter v. Killingsworth,
93 Ariz. 273, 380 P.2d 136 (1963) .......................... 21
Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners,
353 U.S. 232 (1957) .................................................. 10
Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp.,
395 U.S. 337 (1969) ................................................... 22
State of Texas v United States 5th
Circuit - Case No; 15-40238..................................... 26
United States v. Guest,
383 U.S. 745 (1966) ............................................. 15, 21

vi

UNITED STATES STATUTES

28 U.S.C. 1254(1) ............................................................ 1
42. U.S.C. 1983 .............................................................. 12

OTHER AUTHORITIES
California Assembly Bill 60 (2013) .............................. 29
California Assembly passed Resolution
ACR 76 - 800th Anniversary of
Magna Carta ............................................................... 20

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Petitioner is a victim of Californias selective
policy of driving license suspension. California issued
two orders (appendix) to suspend Driving License
without any Notice of accusations and without any
hearing before or after suspension. Petitioner has no
possibility to restore his driving license.
Petitioner, respectfully petitions this Court to
issue a writ of Certiorari and grant a merit hearing.
[ NO ] OPINION BELOW
The District Judge denied hearing and denied
opinion (appendix). The Court of Appeals denied
hearing and denied opinion (appendix).
The lower Court(s) denied ruling on any of
Petitioners specific Motions and arguments resulting
in disturbing miscarriage of justice.
JURISDICTION
The Circuit Court denied a timely petition for
rehearing on Feb 25, 2016 and issued Mandate on
March 7, 2016. The jurisdiction of this Court is
invoked under 28 U.S.C. 1254(1).
STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED
Title 42. U.S.C. 1983; Every person who,
under color or any statute, ordinance, regulation,
custom or usage, of any State of Territory, subjects ...

2
any citizen of the United States ... to the deprivation
of any rights, privileges or immunities secured by the
Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party
injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other
proper proceeding for redress.
INTRODUCTION
Petitioner is an Engineer who worked with a
networking technology company. Petitioner had a
valid California Driving License until suspension.
The DMVs driving records indicate that petitioner
never had any accident. Although California
Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) is assumed to
be an independent agency; the DMV received some
information, secret or otherwise, and suspended
petitioners driving license without its independent
verification. The information received is neither
labeled Accusations' nor order by the DMV.
DMVs First Order of Suspension (Anonymous)
The DMV issued first anonymous, & unsigned
Order (dated Dec 5, 2011) to suspend plaintiffs
Driving License falsely stating an alleged Failure to
Appear (FTA) and no Failure to Pay (FTP). All of the
DMVs accusations are contested as there was no
Failure to Appear (FTA) or an alleged Failure to Pay
(FTP). Californias Policy to suspend Driving License
is based on mere supposition and is contested.
The DMV refused to show any information that it
received form any third party. Further, The DMV
claims that it does not have Burden to prove any of
its accusations placing an unbearable burden on
plaintiff. A senior DMV Manager specifically stated

3
that there is no Due Process on driving license
suspension.
Right to Contest Californias Policies
Petitioner
presented
comprehensive
legal
arguments to contest DMVs burdensome policies to
suspend Driving Licenses merely for a supposed
Failure to Appear or for a supposed Failure to Pay,
The DMV was not able to present opposition and the
matter is ripe for default judgment.
Petitioner filed a complaint in the district Court.
Petitioner filed a Motion that defendants violated his
Right to Due Process by suspending license without a
notice and without hearing. Magistrate judge denied
to rule on that Motion and claimed that the Motion is
premature without stating when the Motion will be
mature and dismissed the case without discovery and
without further proceedings. Petitioner filed several
specific Motion(s) and all are pending ruling. Without
ruling on those Motion(s), a fair trial is impossible.
DMVs Second Order of Suspension (without stating
any Reason)
On or around Feb 16, 2012 petitioner was
subjected to police misconduct. Without stating any
cause, the police took plaintiffs car and never
returned. Police kept plaintiff in custody and was
repeatedly threatened and intimidated merely for
exercising his Constitutional Right to remain silent.
While in custody, Petitioner was deprived of insulin
for days despite requests. Even after release,
petitioner received a threatening email directly from
the San Joaquin county undersheriff.

4
After the incident, the DMV claimed to receive
information from California Department of Justice;
that the DMV labeled as Police Repot. .The DMV
issued second Order (March 27, 2012) to suspend
plaintiffs Driving License without stating any cause,
without any accusations, without pre deprivation and
without post deprivation hearing.
STATEMENTS
1. The Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV)
issued an unsigned & anonymous order dated
December 5, 2011, and suspended plaintiffs
driving license effectively January 4, 2012
without any pre deprivation hearing. Without
specifying, the DMV assumed that plaintiff
Failed to Appear or Failure to Pay fine (FTP).
The DMV refuses to share a copy of the
information that it received from the third
party.
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 his driving license.
Defendants did not remove their allegations
of failure to appear and did not restore
plaintiffs driving license.
3. Plaintiff repeatedly went to the DMV office.
On that occasion the DMV Stockton office
stated that the driving license was blocked
by the DMV Sacramento office.
4. 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

5
adverse impact on life because of non-renewal
of his driving license. Mr. Tweety did not care
at all about impact on plaintiffs life and
stated, this is not important for you to
drive.
5. 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.
6. On or around March 23, 2012 Mr. Tweety
called 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 plaintiffs license
does not seem to align. Mr. Tweety asked
plaintiff to come to DMV office in Sacramento.
Demand for Reexamination- Mar 26, 2012
7. On or around March 26, 2012, Plaintiff went to
the DMV office in Sacramento, California and
was asked to meet a senior DMV officer
Darryl Mickens. The DMV demanded written
test, Driving test and that plaintiff provide
complete information on a five page pre typed
Driver Medical Evaluation Form (exhibitNinth Circuit Reply Brief). Title of that
Medical Form is All Medical Conditions.
On that form DMV demanded Medical,
Psychological, Neurological, Drug addition,
alcohol addiction, chemical and blood tests.
8. The
DMVs
Medical
Form
mandates
authorization (P1) that stated;
I hereby authorize my medical professional or

6
hospital to answer any questions from the
Department of Motor Vehicles, or its employees,
relating to my physical, or mental conditions,
and/or drug and/or alcohol use, and to release
any related information or records to the
Departmental of Motor Vehicles or its
employees. Any expenses involved is to be
charged to me and not to the Department of
Motor Vehicles. and
I hereby authorize the Department of Motor
Vehicles to receive any information relating to
my physical or mental condition, and/or drug
and/or alcohol use or abuse, and to use the
same in determining whether I have the ability
to operate motor vehicles safely.
9. On the Medical form (P2), the DMV stated
misleading and suggestive instructions
to the Medical Professionals that stated;
The Department of Motor Vehicles record
indicate your patient may have a condition
that could affect the safe operation of a motor
vehicle. . With your assistance, the
department hopes to resolve the matter with a
minimum of inconvenience to all concerned
Your experience and knowledge of the patients
condition, result of medical examinations and
treatment plans, will be of great value in
assisting the department to determine a proper
licensing decision.
10. Not only the instructions, but also the
questions on the Medical Evaluation Form
are also misleading; e.g. Question 8 Levels
of Functional Impairment has only three
checkboxes, i) Mild, ii) Moderate and iii)
Severe. There is no check box labeled None

7
where a doctor could indicate that a patient
does not have any functional impairment.
11. Plaintiff requested hearing to determine if
there is a good cause for Reexamination. The
DMV denied the request. Further, the DMV
officer stated that even if you successfully
complete Reexamination, the DMV is not
required to issue driving license.
12. Further, the DMV demands Reexamination at
plaintiffs expense that could cost tens of
thousand dollars or more. The DMVs demand
for Reexamination at plaintiffs expense
places an unbearable burden on plaintiff.
Arbitrary Order of Suspension-Mar 27,
2012
13. On March 28, 2012 plaintiff received an
Order dated March 27, 2012 suspending his
Driving License. In its order, the DMV did not
state any reason at all for Driving License
Suspension and indefinitely suspended
plaintiffs Driving License In that order, the
DMV also checked two check boxes;
No Action is warranted at this time.
The suspension of your driving
privileges effective February 25, 2012
shall remain in affect until successful
completion of reexamination process.
Demand for Reexamination- Sep 06, 2014
14. Plaintiff applied for renewal of California
Identification Card. The DMV office again
asked that plaintiff complete a five page form
(exhibit- Ninth Circuit Reply Brief). On that
day, the DMV denied renewal of plaintiffs
identity card.

8
15. Plaintiff filed a complaint with the District
Court alleging following five Counts of
violation of Due Process (42. U.S.C. 1983 ).
Count I. January 2012
i. Defendants denied renewal of plaintiff
driving license without a written Notice
of Denial.
Count 2 - January 2012
i. Defendants denied plaintiffs request for
pre-deprivation hearing
Count 3 - February 2012
i. Defendants denied renewal of plaintiff
driving license without a written Notice
of Denial.
Count 4 - March 2012
i. Defendants denied renewal of plaintiff
driving license without a written Notice
of Denial.
Count 5 - March 2012
i. Defendants denied plaintiffs request for
post-deprivation hearing
Plaintiff submitted a First Amended
Complaint (Docket #32) adding Sixth cause of
Due Process Violation that stated;
Count 6 December 2011
i. Defendants suspended plaintiffs
driving license without predeprivation hearing.
The Magistrate Judge mistakenly noted
(Recommendations #44 at P6, line 24),
Plaintiff first asserts that his due
process rights were violated because he
did not receive notice of the license
suspension.
16. The Magistrate Judge applied a legal
standard that stated (Docket#44 -P4),

9
Thus, a defendants Rule 12(b)(6) motion
challenges the courts ability to grant any relief
on the plaintiffs claims even if the plaintiffs
allegations are true. The case was dismissed
without merit hearing.
17. Petitioner received a copy of the public record
and the DMV report (exhibit- Ninth Circuit
Reply Brief) where the DMV alleged three
accusations;
i. Failure to Appear (FTA)
ii. Failure to Pay (FTP) or unpaid fine
iii. Lack of Knowledge or skill
18. For lack of a written Notice of Accusation and
for lack of a hearing, plaintiff has no
opportunity to contest such accusation.
19. Even before any judicial finding, the DMV
published the above referenced accusations
including Lack of Knowledge or skill on its
public reports to auto insurance corporations.
As a result, most reputable providers denied
insurance or quoted significantly higher
premiums making insurance more expensive.
20. The DMV does not offer any process to
challenge suspension of driving license.
The DMV denied all of plaintiffs requests for
any hearing. In the hearing the Magistrate
Judge inquired (Transcript P12) ;
The Court: If Mr. Sheikh want to
challenge the suspension itself, saying
you were, you know, wrong to do it, you
cant make me go clear up these things
because I should never have been
suspended. Where, and when, and how
did the department notify him how to do
that?
Defendants were unable to answer that question.

10
Whether California should have a process to
challenge suspension of driving license, in
order to meet the Due Process Clause, is a
point of fundamental importance and needs
ruling.
21. 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, is at the other
end of the scale. The federal courts are
concerned when such requirements are not
applied to all applicants.
A state cannot exclude a person from [driving
license] in a manner or for reasons that
contravene the due process or equal protection
clauses. Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners,
353 U.S. 232 (1957).
22. DMV denied discovery and denied to produce
document or information that it received from
third party on alleged Failure to Appear.
MOTION TO COMPEL ADMISSION
23. In order to resolve defendants unspecified
allegations of Failure to Appear, on or around
July 9, 2014 petitioner filed a Request for
admission, and Motion to Compel, that stated
that plaintiff had not missed any hearing.
Defendants were not able to point to any
court hearing that plaintiff had missed.
MOTION TO DECLARE VIOLATION OF
THE DUE PROCESS
24. On July 14, 2014 petitioner filed a Motion for
Declaratory Relief that defendants violated
petitioners Right to Due Process by failing to

11
issue a written Notice and failed to grant predeprivation and post deprivation hearing.
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 me pre-deprivation
and post-deprivation.
The Magistrate Judge knew that the due
process requires a notice and a hearing but she
denied ruling.
25. 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)
Magistrate Judge: 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.
26. Plaintiff is without his driving license for
years now. During that time, plaintiff was
threatened, imprisoned, interrogated, and
was exposed to life threatening circumstances

12
by the individuals working under color of
state law.
MOTION TO STRIKE ANONYMOUS
UNSIGNED ORDER OF SUSPENSION
27. On or around July 22, 2015 petitioner had
submitted the Motion that is pending ruling.
Defendants were not able to present any
merit opposition. The Court can strike such
anonymous orders unlawful or the court can
declare such orders lawful to equally benefit
everyone.
28. Petitioner has a Right ot know who
suspended his Driving License and seek
reconsideration. An unsigned order is
insufficient on its face and regardless of the
underlying facts, can never be effective.
Hence must be stricken as an unlawful order.
An unsigned written order is simply not
effective as an order.
United States v. Ceraso, 355 F. Supp. 126 Dist. Court, MD Pennsylvania 1973
MOTION TO STRIKE ARBITRARY
ORDER OF SUSPENSION and arbitrary
DEMAND FOR REEXAMINATION
29. DMVs order of suspension dated March 27,
2012 did not state any reason for suspension
and indefinitely suspended Driving License.
The DMV did not file any accusation nor
offered any hearing before or after
suspension. In that order, the DMV checked
two check boxes;
No Action is warranted at this time.
The suspension of your driving
privileges effective February 25, 2012

13
shall remain in affect until successful
completion of reexamination process.
30. 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 (Supreme
Court of California 1971) the Court
characterized as arbitrary and capricious
any administrative decision which has no
reasonable basis in law or no substantial
basis in fact.
31. Petitioner filed a Motion dated Sep 28, 2015
to strike such order. Petitioner also sought a
declaratory relief that Californias arbitrary
demand for Reexamination, an unsettled term
and its demand for intrusive Medical Exams
constitutes violation of the Fourth and Fifth
Amendments of the Constitution. In
opposition, Defendants only ask the Court to
deny Petitioners Right to contest their
order(s) of suspension [and deny Access to
Justice].
MOTION TO DECLARE DEFENDANTS
BURDEN OF PROOF
32. On or around July 31, 2015 petitioner filed a
Motion for Declaratory Relief that defendants
have Burden to prove their accusations. No
United States Judge heard that Motion.

14
REASONS FOR GRANTING THIS PETITION
I.

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS DEPEND

ON
AVAILABILITY
OF
DUE
PROCESS

33. 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 by constitutionally
appropriate procedures. The status of a
driver's license as a right deserving of
constitutional protections was first most
clearly stated in Wall v. King, 206 F.2d 878
(1st Cir., 1953):
We have no doubt that the freedom to
make use of one's own property, here a
motor vehicle, as a means of getting
about from place to place, whether in
pursuit of business or pleasure, is a
liberty which under the Fourteenth
Amendment cannot be denied or
curtailed by a state without due process
of law. 206 F.2d at 882
34. "The right to travel is a part of the `liberty' of
which the citizen cannot be deprived without
due process of law under the Fifth
Amendment," Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116
(1958) . In Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378
US 500 (1964), the Supreme Court struck
down a federal statute forbidding members of
Communist organizations to obtain passports.
Both the majority and dissenting opinions

15
affirmed the principle that the right to travel
is an aspect of the liberty guaranteed by the
Due Process Clause. In Edwards v. California,
314 U.S. 160 (1941) invalidating a California
law which impeded the free interstate
passage of the indigent, the Court based its
reaffirmation of the federal right of interstate
travel upon the Commerce Clause.
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).
35. In Shapiro, supra, the right of interstate
travel was held so crucial that any
infringement upon it must be judged by
the stricter standard of whether it
promotes a compelling state interest, A
complete prohibition on interstate travel is
not necessary to the application of the
stricter standard mentioned in Shapiro. In
his concurring opinion, Mr. Justice Stewart
compared the right to interstate travel to that
of association, terming it a virtually
unconditional right.

16
II.

FUNDAMENTAL ELEMENTS OF A
FAIR TRIAL AND DUE PROCESS
ARE ABSENT
36. California is denying all possible elements of
a fair trial and a Due Process. California only
offers orders of suspension without any
process.
NO NOTICE OF ACCUSATIONS
37. In order to prevent erroneous deprivation of
license, defendants had a duty to issue a
Notice before issuing an order to suspend
drivng license. The Notice of accusations is
not a mere gesture and must reasonably
inform plaintiff of the pendency of an action
and an opportunity to present objections.
An elementary and fundamental requirement
of due process in any proceeding which is to be
accorded finality is notice reasonably
calculated, under all the circumstances, to
apprise interested parties of the pendency of
the action and afford them an opportunity to
present their objections.(citations omitted).
The notice must be of such nature as
reasonably to convey the required
information, and it must afford a reasonable
time for those interested to make their
appearance, "The criterion is not the
possibility of conceivable injury but the just
and reasonable character of the requirements,
having reference to the subject with which the
statute deals." But when notice is a person's
due, process which is a mere gesture is not due
process. Mullane, Special Guardian, v.

17
Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., Trustee,
et al. 339 U.S. 306 (1950)
NO RIGHT TO DISCOVERY
38. The DMV denied a copy of information that it
received from any third party before
suspending license for an alleged Failure to
Appear (FTA) or Failure to Pay (FTP).
NO RIGHT TO CONTEST ACCUSATION
39. California is denying Petitioners Right to
contest statements or accusations.
GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT
40. California incorrectly assumes that a person
who is alleged of Failed to Appear is Guilty of
accusations until the person can prove it
otherwise. California does not offer any mean
to prevent erroneous deprivation of licenses.
NO BURDEN OF PROOF
41. The DMV incorrectly claims that it does not
have Burden to Proof to suspend license(s).
This has long been established that outcome
of the case rests with the Burden of Proof.
The moving party that is, the party
asserting the claim or making the chargesgenerally has the burden of proof in an
administrative hearing. Schaffer v. Weast,
546 US 49 (2005); Brown v. City of Los
Angeles, 102 CA4th 155 (2002); Parker v City
of Fountain Valley, 127 CA3d 99 (1981). In
proceeding to revoke [license], burden of proof
never shifts to license holder Schireson v.
Walsh, 354 Ill. 40, 187 N.E. 921 (1933).
42. If DMV alleges that a Driver did not appear
before a third party, the DMV must prove its
accusations and their relevance. This is the
process widely accepted in modern civilized

18
countries as people have fundamental Rights
associated with their driving licenses. In
order to deceptively shift its Burden of Proof,
the DMV suspended plaintiffs Driving
Licenses without any process at all.
43. The charter of Magna Carta affirmed some of
the judicial principles. In order to (re)affirm
such principles of liberty, in July 2015,
California Assembly passed Resolution ACR
76 -800th Anniversary of Magna Carta. (Bill
Analysis1).
44. Petitioner submitted a Motion requesting the
Court to declare that defendants have Burden
to prove their accusations. No United States
Judge heard or ruled on that Motion.
NO RIGHT TO A HEARING
45. California is denying Right to hearing both
before or after suspension of license.
WHAT CALIFORNIA OFFERS
46. Only process California provided to
petitioner is an order of suspension without
stating any reason and another anonymous
unsigned order of suspension.
47. Previously this Court had noted that the bare
minimum requirement of the Due Process
clause mandates that the DMV issue written
Notice of its accusations.
Many controversies have raged about the
cryptic and abstract words of the Due Process
1

Bill Analysis of ACR 76800th Anniversary of Magna Carta

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billAnalysisClient.xhtm
l?bill_id=201520160ACR76

19
Clause but there can be no doubt that at a
minimum they require that deprivation of life,
liberty or property by adjudication be
preceded by notice and opportunity for
hearing appropriate to the nature of the case.
Mullane, Special Guardian, v. Central
Hanover Bank & Trust Co., Trustee, et al. 339
U.S. 306 (1950)
48. "[T]he Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment was intended to prevent
government `from abusing [its] power, or
employing it as an instrument of oppression."
DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of
Social Services, 489 U.S., at 196 (quoting
Davidson v. Cannon, 474 U.S. 344 (1986) )
Collins v. City of Harker Heights, 503 U.S.
115 (1992). Clear and central purpose of this
amendment was to eliminate all official state
sources of invidious racial discrimination in
states. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)
49. Protection of individuals against arbitrary
government action is the great purpose of this
clause. Wilwording v. Swenson, 502 F.2d 844,
(8th Cir. 1974). The purpose of this clause is
not to protect an accused against a proper
conviction but against an unfair conviction.
Adamson v. People of State of California, 332
U.S. 46 (1947).

20

III. UNITED

STATES SHOULD GRANT

CALIFORNIA RESIDENTS RIGHT TO
CONTEST
DRIVING
LICENSE
POLICIES
AS
IT
GRANTED
TO
ARIZONA RESIDENTS
50. Recently the United States granted Arizona
Residents Right to contest policies to deny
driving licenses to those who did not have
Driving License and granted Certiorari. The
Ninth Circuit Court granted hearing,
considered irreparable harm and issued a 40
page opinion (Arizona Dream Act Coalition v
Janice Brewer). Petitioner is merely asking for
a similar Right to contest policies to suspend
Driving License in California drivers who are
already licensed.
51. Suspending plaintiffs driving license merely
for a perceived failure to appear before a
third party county court does not make our
roads safer. Suspension of driving license
would only make it cumbersome and
expensive for the plaintiff to travel to the
court. DMV was unable to produce any court
order that mandated suspension of plaintiffs
driving license. The courts have adequate
procedures available to compel attendance of
individuals in the court. Whether Californias
claim to collect money or fine from plaintiff is
valid or not, it does not outweigh plaintiffs
rights to property, liberty and interstate
travel.
52. California has begun to issue driving licenses
to illegal immigrants so that they could
legally drive. California determined that their
interest in driving licenses outweighed the
States perceived interest in enforcing laws

21
such as Failure to Appear (before authorities)
and Failure to Pay (fees and fines). California
legislated to issue driving licenses to illegal
immigrants (or yet to be United States
Citizens) because todays social and economic
circumstances have made driver's license a
necessity. In the public interest the State may
make and enforce regulations reasonably
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
53. "[T]he right of the States in this mode to
impede or embarrass the constitutional
operations of that government, or the rights
which its citizens hold under it, has been
uniformly denied." United States v. Guest,
383 U.S. 745 (1966). The Arizona Supreme
Court interpreted its act to require presuspension hearings to determine reasonable
possibility of a damage judgment in Schechter
v. Killingsworth, 93 Ariz. 273, 380 P.2d 136
(1963). Thus, since 1963 the Arizona Highway
Department has been granting hearings
before suspension to those persons so
requesting. California Supreme Court found
it necessary to review its act in order to make
explicit the requirement that fault and
potential liability 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
action, based on a finding of potential
culpability, would then be subject to later
court review. Petitioner seeks no more than
this in the present case.

22
54. The lack of due process in plaintiffs case
is more flagrant; Plaintiff has no
opportunity for any hearing either before or
after suspension of his driving license.
Plaintiff now asks that his right to drive a
car, necessary to his essential life activities,
receive the same due process protections.
55. There are exceptional challenges of Due
process violations on Californias policies of
Driving License suspension. On or around
June 6, 2015 Judicial council of California
published rules to allow Ticketed Drivers to
contest traffic infractions. In addition a
Report was submitted to the Judicial council
for a special hearing on June 8, 2015. Prior to
the 27 page report dated June 4, 2015 by the
Judicial Council of California - Rules and
Projects
Committee,
Civil
Rights
organizations, Attorneys and Judges pointed
to specific violations of Due Process Clause(s)
and submitted legal arguments yet such
procedural
(un)fairness
continues.
An
attorney wrote (P25),
The Rule should not include an
exception that swallows the rule.
56. Initially, the report stated Rationale for
Recommendations (P3);
Recent criticisms aimed at state traffic
infraction laws have raised significant
concerns about procedural fairness in traffic
infraction proceedings.
57. Californias Random policies 2, labeled as FTA
2 TV Host John OliverDriving License Municipal ViolationsLife, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ry9EM61aKCM&list=PLcm

23
and FTP, are meant to collect money for
private third parties without regard to the
mandated Due Process. Those private third
parties are artfully labeled as traffic court. If
Driving License suspension is a mechanism to
resolve third party payments, then Equal
Protection Clause mandates that such
opportunity should be uniformly available. A
number of third parties including San
Joaquin County Failed to Pay money to
plaintiff. DMV does not offer such services to
plaintiff.
58. Plaintiff has fundamental Rights associated
with his Driving License. A third party, lacks
standing in the matter that involves plaintiff
and DMV. The Due Process clause(s) mandate
procedures to prevent erroneous deprivation.
Driving license suspension mandates a
hearing by DMV in order to avoid mistakes or
political bias of any third party.
59. This is not possible to fairly implement a
policy of driving license suspension for a
supposed Failure to Appear before a traffic
court because i) the court do not issue any
proof of attendance and ii) if a driver can
somehow present a proof, as Plaintiff did, yet
the DMV continues to suspend license.
60. The DMV does not uniformly suspend Driving
licenses of Drivers who Fail to Appear (FTA)
at the County Court. Petitioner has pointed to

wDdyPFLQ-o8QuUip_p4RhFH0bdfnjR or
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x38cfoj_last-week-tonightwith-john-oliver-municipal-violations-hbo_fun

24
numerous individuals who Failed to Appear
yet their Driving License was not suspended.
61. Late night TV host John Oliver presented an
18 minute episode including a brief section on
suspension of driving license for Failure to
Pay; (video link 3) that starts with the
following statement;
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 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
62. California Medical Board grants hearing on
suspension of License when physicians are
accused of Failure to Pay to a third party.
63. 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 Supreme Court of
California eliminated barriers on Attorneys
John Oliver Revoking License for Failure to Pay.Series of clips
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ry9EM61aKCM&list=PLcm
wDdyPFLQ-o8QuUip_p4RhFH0bdfnjR&index=1
3

John Oliver - Brief version (29 seconds)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ry9EM61aKCM

25
license. There were questions of incorrectly
completing the application form, lack of Social
Security number and lack of documentation.
The Court granted license. The Court noted
this is a case of first impression, as we are not
aware of any other jurisdiction that has ever
knowingly admitted an undocumented alien to
the practice of law.
In Perry v. Brown, 671 F. 3d 1052 (9th
Circuit 2012), this Court eliminated barriers
on marriage license and noted;
The People may not employ the initiative
power to single out a disfavored group
for unequal treatment and strip them,
without a legitimate justification, of a
right as important as the right to marry.
64. DMVs singles out driver based on drivers
ability to pay.
65. DMV singled out plaintiff potentially for
mismatched documents between the DMV
and the third party. Such minor
undocumented status cannot be a barrier to
plaintiffs driving license.
66. Actually state would gain significantly more
in taxes by issuing driving license which
benefits state economies rather than denying
license for failure or inability to pay.
Recently, California filed An Amicus Brief
that stated;
When immigrants are able to work
legallyeven for a limited timetheir
wages increase, they seek work
compatible with their skill level, and
they enhance their skills to obtain higher
wages, all of which benefits State
economies by increasing income and

26
growing the tax base.
Brief of Amicus States dated Mar 12,
2015 (P5-line 1) State of Texas v
United States 5th Circuit - Case No; 1540238
67. Criteria for driving license is ability to safely
drive car. California issued license to illegal
or undocumented aliens who didnt appear
before united states authorities and didnt
pay. California Assembly Bill 60 (2013)
eliminated numerous barriers and promoted
safe driving by issuing licenses. (see Bill
Analysis4).
68. Plaintiff has already met the criteria as set by
defendants. In Driver handbook (P1-exhibit
Ninth Circuit Reply Brief), Mr. Kelly listed
criteria of safe driving that stated;
California is safer when all motorists pass
written and driving tests and obtain proof
of insurance and a driver license.

IV. UNIED

STAES SHOULD CONSIDER

IRREPARABLE HARM TO CALIFORNIA
RESIDENTS

69. Plaintiffs Constitutional Right to liberty,

interstate travel, and Right to pursuit of
happiness depend on his Driving License.
Deprivation of plaintiffs Driving License is
not accompanied by constitutionally
mandated procedural protection. Defendants
violation of Plaintiffs constitutional rights,
alone, constitutes an irreparable injury.
AB 60 Analysis
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.xhtml?b
ill_id=201320140AB60
4

27
70. 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 drivers license]
may become essential in the pursuit of a
livelihood). Plaintiff is an engineer in the
fields of software and internet engineering
and worked in the San Francisco bay area.
Now Plaintiff cannot even attempt to find
work for lack of Driving License.
71. Plaintiff risks harm from potential
prosecution for Driving without a Driving
License. It is well settled that risk of
prosecution is sufficient to establish
irreparable injury. See Wooley v. Maynard,
430 U.S. 705, 712 (1977) (holding that
plaintiffs had demonstrated harms sufficient
to justify injunctive relief to redress threat of
prosecution for use of automobile). Plaintiff
risks prosecution 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 for a
medical examination or risks his health for
not doing so.
72. In Arizona Dream Act Coalition v Brewer,
757 F.3d 1053 (2014), the Court considered
irreparable and granted injunction. The Court
noted that plaintiff were likely to suffer
irreparable harm unless defendants policy
was enjoined, and that both the balance of
equities and the public interest favored an
injunction. This Court also noted;
The irreparable nature of Plaintiffs' injury

28
is heightened by Plaintiffs' young age and
fragile socioeconomic position. Setbacks
early in their careers are likely to haunt
Plaintiffs for the rest of their lives. Thus, "a
delay, even if only a few months, pending
trial represents ... productive time
irretrievably lost" to these young
Plaintiffs. Chalk 840 F.2d 701 (1988).
Plaintiffs' entire careers may be constrained
by professional opportunities they are
denied today. And
There can be no serious dispute that
Defendants' policy hinders Plaintiffs'
ability to drive, and that this (in turn)
hinders Plaintiffs' ability to work and
engage in other everyday activities. No
award of damages can compensate
Plaintiffs' for the myriad personal and
professional harms caused by their inability
to obtain driver's licenses. Thus, Plaintiffs
are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the
absence of an injunction.
73. The balance of equities and public interest
considerations tip sharply in favor of Plaintiff.
A preliminary injunction would serve the
public interest by permitting plaintiff to
participate in society and contribute to
California. An injunction will protect Public
and will benefit all California drivers. Indeed,
it is always in the public interest to prevent
the violation of a partys Constitutional
rights. Sammartano v. First Judicial Dist.
Ct., 303 F.3d 959, 974 (9th Cir. 2002).

29
V.

UNITED
STATES
SHOULD
RESTORE
FUNDAMENTAL
RIGHTS
74. Since California does not offer any process,
the United States should perform its duty to
restore petitioners driving license and
fundamental Rights.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, this Court should grant
the petition for writ of certiorari.
Respectfully Submitted,
Rehan Sheikh
1219 W El Monte Street
Stockton, California 95207
rehansheikh@yahoo.com
Date: May 24, 2016

1a
APPENDIX A
Order of Suspension without stating any reason

2a
APPENDIX B
Order of Suspension - Anonymous, unsigned
Stiltll of California

Businllss, Trilnsportation. and Housing Agllncy

DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES

LICENSING OPERATIONS DIVISION
P,O. lOX 942890, HAIL STATION J-233
SACRAHENTO, CA. 94290-0001
(916) 657-6525

DEC 05# 2011

ORDER OF SUSPENSION

08981120511D3024994SHEOI0412
REHAN AVVUB SHEIKH
1219 W EL MONTE ST
STOCKTON, CALIFORNIA 95207

PLEASE SHOW THIS NUHBER ON

YOUR CORRESIP'ONDENCE

DRIVERS LICENSE NO, D

YOUR DRIVING PRIVILEGE IS SUSPENDED AS OF JAN 04, 2012.

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
PURSUANT TO SECTION 42003(A) V.C. (SEE ENCLOSED LETTER).
THE SUSPENSION WILL REMAIN IN EFFECT UNTIL ALL FAILURES-TO-'APPEAR (FTA'S) AND FAILURES-TOPAY-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
REVOKED, IN VIOLATION OF A RESTRICTION REQUIRING USE OF A COURT-ORDERED IGNITION INTERLOCK
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
AN lID IF YOU DO NOT HAVE ONE.
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.
DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES

ENCLOSURES

3a

APPENDIX C
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
___________________

No. 14 - 16858

___________________
REHAN SHEIKH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.

BRIAN KELLY, Secretary, California State

Transportation Agency;
MARK TWEETY, Manager, Department of Motor
Vehicles, Defendants - Appellees.
D.C. No. 2:14-cv-00751-GEB-AC
___________________
Dec 17, 2015
___________________

MEMORANDUM 1
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Garland E. Burrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 9, 2015**
1 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not
precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for
decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

4a

Before: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA,

Circuit Judges.
Rehan Sheikh appeals pro se from the district
courts judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. 1983
action alleging due process violations in connection
with the defendants denial of his application to
renew his drivers license. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. 1291. We review de novo, N. Cty.
Cmty. Alliance, Inc. v. Salazar, 573 F.3d 738, 741
(9th Cir. 2009) (dismissal for failure to state a claim
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Sheikhs
action because Sheikh failed to allege facts sufficient
to show any due process violation. See Brittain v.
Hansen, 451 F.3d 982, 1000 (9th Cir. 2006)
(procedural due process claims are subject to a
balancing test); see also People v. Bailey, 184 Cal.
Rptr. 608, 609-10 (Ct. App.1982) (finding that the
suspension of a drivers license for failure to appear
at a court hearing for traffic violations did not
require a separate hearing because the appellant had
an opportunity to be heard at the underlying
hearing). We do not consider matters not specifically
and distinctly raised and arguedin the opening brief,
or arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See
Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir.
2009) (per curiam).
Defendants motion for judicial notice, filed on April
30, 2015, is denied as unnecessary. Sheikhs motions
for preliminary injunctions, filed on July 22, 2015
and September 28, 2015, are denied.

AFFIRMED

5a

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
___________________

No. 14 - 16858

___________________
REHAN SHEIKH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.

BRIAN KELLY, Secretary, California State

Transportation Agency;
MARK TWEETY, Manager, Department of Motor
Vehicles, Defendants - Appellees.
D.C. No. 2:14-cv-00751-GEB-AC
___________________
Feb 25, 2016
___________________

[Denying Motion Rehearing]

Before: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA,
Circuit Judges.
Sheikhs petition for panel rehearing is denied. No
further filings will be entertained in this closed case.

6a

APPENDIX D
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
___________________
No. C- 02-14 - 00751 GEB AC
___________________
REHAN SHEIKH,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
BRIAN KELLY and MARK TWEETY
Defendant ___________________
Sep 9, 2014
___________________
ORDER
Plaintiff is proceeding in this action in pro per. The
matter was referred to a United States Magistrate
Judge pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21).
On August 22, 2014, the magistrate judge filed
findings and recommendations herein which were
served on all parties and which contained notice to
all parties that any objections to the findings and
recommendations were to be filed within fourteen
days. Plaintiff has filed objections to the findings and
recommendations. ECF No. 44.

7a
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.
636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this court has
conducted a de novo review of this case. Having
carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the
findings and recommendations to be supported by
the record and by proper analysis.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations filed August
22, 2014, are adopted in full;
2. Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF
No. 33) is denied as premature; and
3. Defendants Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 20) is
granted without leave to amend.

Garland E. Burrell
Senior United States District Judge

8a

APPENDIX E
Rehan Sheikh
1219 W. El Monte Street
Stockton, California 95207
Telephone:
(209) 475.1263
rehansheikh@yahoo.com
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SACRAMENTO DIVISION
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Case No. 2: 14 CV- 7 5 1 GEB AC PS
Judge: Hon. Garland E. Burrell
Rehan Sheikh,
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
Brian Kelly
)
Secretary, California State
)
Transportation Agency
)
Defendant
)
And
Mark Tweety, Manager,
Department of Motor Vehicles
Defendant
______________________________)
1. Suspension of Driving License
2. Multiple Refusal(s) to Renew California Driving
License

------- First Amended Complaint (FAC) -------

9a
Defendants Violated Plaintiffs Right to Due Process In
Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United
States Constitution
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND
DECLARATORY RELIEF
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.

1.

I. JURISDICTION

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 Jurisdiction 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.
------- First Amended Complaint (FAC) -------

10 a
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 plaintiffs 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.
c.
Secretary is responsible for hiring and
training qualified staff to reliably and
faithfully execute renewal of plaintiffs
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).

------- First Amended Complaint (FAC) -------

11 a
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 January 2012.
A. [Automatic] Suspension of Driving
License without Pre Deprivation
Hearing
8.
The defendants sent an ORDER OF
SUSPENSION to plaintiff via software program.
That Order dated Dec 05, 2011, stated;
YOUR DRIVING PRIVILEGE IS SUSPENDED
AS OF JAN 04, 2012. &
The suspension will remain in effect until all
Failures to Appear (FTA) and Failures to Pay a
fine pursuant to section 42003(A) have been
removed from your record.
a.
The Order of Suspension Failed to State
(FTS) the name of the Judge who signed
the order of suspension.
b.
The Order of Suspension Failed to State
(FTS) the name of any Bureaucrat who
was authorized to sign such an order.
c.
The Order of Suspension Failed to State
(FTS) the emergency that mandated
suspension of plaintiffs driving license
without any pre deprivation hearing
before a Court of law.
9.

Since the underlying causes (allegations) of

suspension were disputed, on or around January
3, 2012, Plaintiff, requested the DMV for an
administrative hearing.
a.
The defendants denied administrative
------- First Amended Complaint (FAC) -------

12 a
hearing to plaintiff.
b.
The defendants continue to deny
administrative hearing or any procedure
that could result in restoration of
plaintiffs driving license.
B. First Refusal to Renew Driving
License (January 2012)
10. On or around January 3, 2012, Plaintiff
applied for renewal of his driving license at the
Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) office in
Stockton. The DMV denied to renew Plaintiffs
driving license.
11. The DMV verbally informed plaintiff that an
unidentified third party informed DMV about
plaintiffs Failure to Appear (FTA) and because
of that alleged FTA, DMV was not going to
renew plaintiffs driving license.
12. 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 plaintiffs Failure to
Appear. On Plaintiffs 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.
13. 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.
------- First Amended Complaint (FAC) -------

13 a
14. Plaintiff requested the DMV for a PreDeprivation administrative hearing. The DMV
denied plaintiffs request..
C. Second Refusal to Renew Driving
License (February 2012)
15. 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
Plaintiffs driving license for another excuse.
16. On that occasion, the DMV stated that there
was a block and because of that alleged block,
the DMV would not renew plaintiffs driving
license. The DMV office supervisor said that she
could not give any reason for the block nor she
could renew the license.
17. 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 plaintiffs multiple
requests DMV office Supervisor gave a phone
number for a DMV office in Sacramento.
18. 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 plaintiffs life and stated, this is not
important for you to drive.
19. Plaintiff reminded Mr. Tweety of his Right to
Due Process and requested a good cause for
------- First Amended Complaint (FAC) -------

14 a
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.
D. Third Refusal to Renew Driving
License (March 2012)
20. 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 plaintiffs license does
not seem to align. Mr. Tweety asked plaintiff to
come to DMV Sacramento office.
21. 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 plaintiffs driving license.
22. The DMV stated that a third party Police
department had filed a report and because of
that report, DMV was not going to renew
plaintiffs driving license. The DMV did not state
relevance of the alleged report from a third party
police department to the non-renewal of
plaintiffs driving license.
23. The DMV did not issue a written notice stating
reason for denying renewal of plaintiffs driving
license. The DMV did not advise plaintiff of the
availability of any remedial procedures.
24. The Plaintiff requested a Post Deprivation
administrative hearing. The DMV denied
plaintiffs request for administrative hearing.
------- First Amended Complaint (FAC) -------

15 a
COUNT 1
VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS AND
SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS
(January 2012)
25. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by
reference paragraphs 1 24.
26. 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."
27. The DMV improperly relied on unverified
third party information for the alleged Failure to
Appear and for denying renewal of plaintiffs
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 plaintiffs driving license.
28. The DMV improperly claimed that the DMV
does not have a Burden of Proof for alleging
Failure to Appear and for denying renewal of
plaintiffs driving license. DMV has a Burden of
Proof for its allegation of Failure to Appear. The
DMVs assertion would place an unbearable
burden on plaintiff to prove that there was no
Failure to Appear.
29. 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.
------- First Amended Complaint (FAC) -------

16 a
30. Each of the above referenced actions or
inactions of the defendants violated plaintiffs
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)
31. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by
reference paragraphs 1 24.
32. 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."
33. The plaintiff requested the DMV for a PreDeprivation administrative hearing and the
DMV denied plaintiffs 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.
34. Each of the above referenced actions or
inactions of the defendants violated plaintiffs
Constitutional Rights including, but not limited
to, Right to Due Process in violation of
Fourteenth Amendment of the United States
Constitution.
------- First Amended Complaint (FAC) -------

17 a
35. Defendant has committed the acts alleged
herein oppressively, recklessly, and
outrageously. Defendants conduct shocks the
conscience. Defendant has acted with conscious
disregard for Plaintiffs fundamental
Constitutional Rights.
COUNT 3
VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS AND
SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS
(February 2012)
36. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by
reference paragraphs 1 24.
37. 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."
38. 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.
39. Each of the above referenced actions or
inactions of the defendants violated plaintiffs
Constitutional Rights including, but not limited
to, Right to Due Process in violation of
Fourteenth Amendment of the United States
Constitution.
COUNT 4
------- First Amended Complaint (FAC) -------

18 a
VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS AND
SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS
(MARCH 2012)
40. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by
reference paragraphs 1 24.
41. 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."
42. The DMV verbally denied renewal of plaintiffs
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
plaintiffs driving license.
43. The DMV had a mandatory duty to issue a
written notice of denial stating the specific
reason for denying renewal of plaintiffs 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.
44. Each of the above referenced actions or
inactions of the defendants violated plaintiffs
Constitutional Rights including, but not limited
to, Right to Due Process in violation of
Fourteenth Amendment of the United States
Constitution.
COUNT 5
VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS AND
SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS
------- First Amended Complaint (FAC) -------

19 a
(MARCH 2012)
45. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by
reference paragraphs 1 24.
46. 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."
47. Plaintiff requested DMV for Post
Deprivation administrative hearing and the
DMV denied Plaintiffs 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.
48. Each of the above referenced actions or
inactions of the defendants violated plaintiffs
Constitutional Rights including, but not limited
to, Right to Due Process in violation of
Fourteenth Amendment of the United States
Constitution.
49. Defendant has committed the acts alleged
herein oppressively, recklessly, and
outrageously. Defendants conduct shocks the
conscience. Defendant has acted with conscious
disregard for Plaintiffs fundamental
Constitutional Rights.
COUNT 6
VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS AND
SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS
SUSPENSION OF DRIVING LICENSE
------- First Amended Complaint (FAC) -------

20 a
(December 2011)
50. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by
reference paragraphs 1 24.
51. 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." Plaintiff
has a property interest and liberty interest with
his driving license.
52. On or around Dec 5, 20122, the defendants
sent an order to suspend plaintiffs driving
license without any pre-deprivation hearing.
a.
Defendants had a mandatory to duty to
provide an administrative hearing before
the suspension of driving license.
b.
Defendants Failed to state the
emergency that mandated suspension of
plaintiffs driving license without any
administrative hearing; a hearing that
would determine the cause of suspension.
c.
Defendants refused any administrative
hearing or any alternative remedial
procedure that could facilitate the plaintiff
to undo the suspension of his driving
license.
d.
Defendants continue to deny remedial
procedures to plaintiff. Plaintiff has no
control over length of time the defendants
would take to provide a remedial
procedure.
53. Each of the above referenced actions or
inactions of the defendants violated plaintiffs
Constitutional Rights including, but not limited
to, Right to Due Process in violation of
------- First Amended Complaint (FAC) -------

21 a
Fourteenth Amendment of the United States
Constitution.
54. Defendant has committed the acts alleged
herein oppressively, recklessly, and
outrageously. Defendants conduct shocks the
conscience. Defendant has acted with conscious
disregard for Plaintiffs fundamental
Constitutional Rights.
55. WHEREFORE, the plaintiff respectfully
requests that this Court issue the following
relief;
a.
Declare that the above named
defendants violated plaintiffs Right to
Due Process for each of the above
referenced allegations.
b.
Issue an injunctive relief ordering the
defendant to renew plaintiffs 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;
/s/ Rehan Sheikh
---------------------------------Date: July 14, 2014
Rehan Sheikh
Plaintiff
------- First Amended Complaint (FAC) -------