Motion For Injuction Reexamination

Case: 14-16858, 09/28/2015, ID: 9697564, DktEntry: 27-1, Page 1 of 12
1
2
3
4
5
Rehan Sheikh
1219 W. El Monte Street
Stockton, California 95207
Telephone: (209) 475.1263
rehansheikh@yahoo.com
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
9
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
10
11
12
13
14
REHAN SHEIKH
Appellant (and plaintiff),
v.
15
16
17
18
Brian Kelly
Secretary, California State
Transportation Agency
Appellee
19
20
21
22
23
24
and
Mark Tweety
Manager, Department of Motor
Vehicles
Appellee
Case NO: 14 1 6 8 5 8
Motion for Preliminary Injunction

DMVs arbitrary Demand for Medical,
Psychological, Neurological Exams,
Chemical and Blood tests, driving
tests (Reexamination) and indefinite
Driving License Suspension, do NOT
conform with the Fourth, Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendment(s)
42. U.S.C. 1983
25
26
District Court: 2: 14 CV- 7 5 1 GEB AC
27
28
Motion for Injunction - Reexamination Rehan Sheikh v. Kelly [DMV] CA9 No.14-16858
P a g e |1
1
2
3
4
THIS MOTION
Plaintiff respectfully asks for a preliminary injunction barring the DMVs
arbitrary demand for intrusive and expensive Medical examination.
Plaintiff respectfully asks for a preliminary injunction invalidating the DMVs
8
9
10
Order of suspension (dated March 27, 2012) that indefinitely suspended his
Driving License without stating any cause, without Notice and without hearing.
11
12
13
14
15
LIST OF EXHIBITS
A. March 26, 2012
Driver Medical Exam - Any and All Conditions
B. March 27, 2012
Order indefinitely Suspending Plaintiffs Driving License
C. Sep 16, 2014
Driver Medical Exam
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
P a g e |2
1
2
3
4
I. JURISDICTION
1. This Court has authority to grant declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C 2201 and
2202. The district court had subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs claims
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1343. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has
8
9
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291.
10
11
II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
12
2. On or around February 29, 2012, the DMV denied renewal of Plaintiffs Driving
13
License without a written Notice and without hearing. The DMV Stockton office
14
stated that the driving license was blocked by the DMV Sacramento office. After
15
16
plaintiffs request the DMV office Supervisor gave a phone number.
17
3. Plaintiff called the DMV Sacramento office and spoke with Mr. Mark Tweety
18
who identified himself as a Manager at DMV. Plaintiff explained DMV manager
19
about adverse impact on life because of non-renewal of his driving license. Mr.
20
Tweety did not care at all about impact on plaintiffs life and stated, this is not
21
22
important for you to drive.
23
4. Plaintiff reminded Mr. Tweety of his Right to Due Process and requested a good
24
cause for denial. Mr. Tweety stated that license is a Contractual Agreement
25
(without any explanation). Mr. Tweety also said, there is no Due Process
26
available for denial of driving license.
27
28
P a g e |3
1
2
3
5. 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
6
7
8
9
10
11
align. Mr. Tweety asked plaintiff to come to DMV office in Sacramento.

A. DMVs Demand for Reexamination - Medical, Neurological,
Psychological, Drug, Alcohol, Blood, Chemical Tests - Mar 26, 2012
6. On or around March 26, 2012, Plaintiff went to the DMV office in Sacramento,
12
California and was asked to meet a senior DMV officer Darryl Mickens. The
13
DMV demanded written test, Driving test and that plaintiff provide complete
14
information on a five page pre typed Driver Medical Evaluation Form (Exhibit).
15
16
Title of that Medical Form is All Medical Conditions. On that form DMV
17
demanded
18
addiction, chemical and blood tests.
19
20
21
22
Medical,
Psychological,
Neurological,
Drug
addition,
alcohol
7. The DMVs Medical Form mandates authorization (P1) that stated;

I hereby authorize my medical professional or hospital to answer any questions
from the Department of Motor Vehicles, or its employees, relating to my physical,
23
or mental conditions, and/or drug and/or alcohol use, and to release any related
24
information or records to the Departmental of Motor Vehicles or its employees.
25
Any expenses involved is to be charged to me and not to the Department of Motor
26
Vehicles.
27
28
and
P a g e |4
1
2
3
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
6
7
8
9
motor vehicles safely.

8. On the Medical form (P2), the DMV stated misleading and suggestive
instructions to the Medical Professionals that stated;
10
The Department of Motor Vehicles record indicate your patient may have a
11
condition that could affect the safe operation of a motor vehicle. . With your
12
assistance, the department hopes to resolve the matter with a minimum of
13
inconvenience to all concerned Your experience and knowledge of the patients
14
condition, result of medical examinations and treatment plans, will be of great
15
value in assisting the department to determine a proper licensing decision.
16
9. Not only the instructions, but also the questions on the Medical Evaluation
17
Form are also misleading; e.g. Question 8 Levels of Functional Impairment
18
has only three checkboxes, i) Mild, ii) Moderate and iii) Severe. There is no check
19
box labeled None where a doctor could indicate that a patient does not have
20
any functional impairment.
21
22
10. Plaintiff requested hearing to determine if there is a good cause for
23
Reexamination. The DMV denied the request. Further, the DMV officer stated
24
that even if you successfully complete Reexamination, the DMV is not required
25
to issue driving license.
26
27
28
P a g e |5
1
2
3
11. 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 additional unbearable burden on plaintiff.
6
7
B. The DMVs Arbitrary Order to Suspend Driving License - Mar 27, 2012
12. On March 28, 2012 plaintiff received an Order dated March 27, 2012 suspending
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
his Driving License. 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 shall
remain in affect until successful completion of reexamination process.
13. In its order, the DMV did not state any reason at all for Driving License
Suspension and indefinitely suspended plaintiffs Driving License.
17
14. The DMV officers are untrained on availability of procedural or substantive
18
Due process in California, and availability of Rights of American people such as
19
right to travel or right to interstate travel, right to work, pursuit of happiness.
20
21
C. The DMVs Verbal Demand for Medical Examination Sep 06, 2014
22
15. Plaintiff applied for renewal of California Identification Card. The DMV office
23
again asked that plaintiff complete a five page form (exhibit). On that day, the
24
DMV denied renewal of plaintiffs identity card.
25
26
27
28
P a g e |6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
III.
ARGUMENTS
a. Order to Suspend Driving License without any Cause, without
Notice and without Hearing infringes on Substantial Right(s)
16. 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
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
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.
17
18
17. "The right to travel is a part of the `liberty' of which the citizen cannot be
19
deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment," Kent v.
20
Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958) .
21
22
23
24
25
b. The Arbitrary Demand for Medical, Psychological, Neurological,

Chemical and Blood Tests Constitutes Unreasonable Searches in
violation of Fourth and Fifth Amendment(s)
26
18. The DMVs arbitrary demand for plaintiffs Medical, Psychological, Neurological,
27
Drug, Alcohol related records, chemical and blood tests is intrusive, invades
28
P a g e |7
1
2
3
plaintiffs privacy, and invades body integrity. The DMVs demand for
Reexamination constitutes unreasonable searches in violation of Fourth, and
Fifth Amendment. The DMVs Order to Suspend Driving License without stating
6
7
any cause, without any accusations and without any hearing shocks the
conscious of any United States judge. The Due Process mandates a hearing to
establish justification for Reexamination.
10
11
12
13
19. Implicit in the Fourth Amendment's protection from unreasonable searches and
seizures is its recognition of individual freedom. That safeguard has been
declared to be "as of the very essence of constitutional liberty" the guaranty of
14
which "is as important and as imperative as are the guaranties of the other
15
fundamental rights of the individual citizen ... Ker v. California, 374 US 23 -
16
Supreme Court (1963).
17
20. Likewise the Fourth Amendment recognizes that right when it guarantees the
18
right of the people to be secure "in their persons."
19
That Amendment expressly provides that "[t]he right of the people to be secure in
20
their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and
21
seizures, shall not be violated . . . ." (Emphasis added.) It could not reasonably be
22
argued, and indeed respondent does not argue, that the administration of the
23
blood test in this case was free of the constraints of the Fourth Amendment. Such
24
testing procedures plainly constitute searches of "persons," and depend
25
antecedently upon seizures of "persons," within the meaning of that Amendment.
26
27
28
Schmerber v California, 384 US 757 (1966)

21. The values protected by the Fourth Amendment thus substantially overlap those
the Fifth Amendment helps to protect.
P a g e |8
1
2
3
Thus, the Fifth Amendment marks "a zone of privacy" which the Government
may not force a person to surrender. Likewise the Fourth Amendment recognizes
that right when it guarantees the right of the people to be secure "in their
persons." Ibid. No clearer invasion of this right of privacy can be imagined than
7
8
forcible bloodletting of the kind involved here.

Schmerber v California, 384 US 757 (1966)
22. The courts have held that the Fifth Amendment bars psychological testing.
9
10
11
"To compel a person to submit to testing [by lie detectors for example] in which
an effort will be made to determine his guilt or innocence on the basis of
physiological responses, whether willed or not, is to evoke the spirit and
12
history of the Fifth Amendment. Such situations call to mind the principle
13
that the protection of the privilege `is as broad as the mischief against which it
14
seeks to guard.' Counselman v. Hitchchock, 142 U.S. 547 (1892)
15
16
17
18
19
20
c. Driving License Suspension without Reason, without Notice and

without Hearing Grossly Violates Due Process Clause(s)
23. In the Order of Suspension dated March 27, 2012, The DMV did not state any
reason at all for Driving License Suspension. The DMV did not issue any Notice
21
of accusations prior or after that order and denied all requests for hearing before
22
and after suspension of driving license. In that order, the DMV indefinitely
23
suspended plaintiffs Driving License effective March 25, 2012.
24
25
26
27
24. The bare minimum requirement of the Due Process clause mandates that the
DMV issue a written Notice and a hearing on Driving License Suspension.
Many controversies have raged about the cryptic and abstract words of the
28
P a g e |9
1
2
3
Due Process 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)
25. Plaintiff is improperly deprived of his Driving License in violation of the Due
Process Clause(s). "[T]he Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was
10
11
intended to prevent government `from abusing [its] power, or employing it as an
12
instrument of oppression. (citations omitted) Collins v. City of Harker Heights,
13
503 U.S. 115 (1992). Protection of individuals against arbitrary government
14
action is the great purpose of this clause. Wilwording v. Swenson, 502 F.2d 844,
15
(8th Cir. 1974).
16
17
26. The DMVs order to suspend Driving license is arbitrary, capricious, vague
18
atrocious and shocks the conscious. In Bixby v. Pierno, 481 P. 2d 242, 4 Cal.3d
19
130, 151 (Supreme Court of California 1971) the Court characterized as
20
arbitrary and capricious any administrative decision which has no
21
reasonable basis in law or no substantial basis in fact.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
d. Plaintiff suffers Irreparable Harm

27. 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.
P a g e | 10
1
2
3
Defendants violation of Plaintiffs constitutional rights, alone, constitutes an
irreparable injury.
5
6
7
28. 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
10
San Francisco bay area. Now Plaintiff cannot even attempt to find work for lack
11
of Driving License.
12
13
29. Plaintiff risks harm from potential prosecution for Driving without a Driving
14
License. It is well settled that risk of prosecution is sufficient to establish
15
irreparable injury. See Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705, 712 (1977) (holding
16
that plaintiffs had demonstrated harms sufficient to justify injunctive relief to
17
redress threat of prosecution for use of automobile). Plaintiff risks prosecution
18
19
merely for driving to a grocery store. In 2012 California police took plaintiffs
20
car and never returned. California police arrested plaintiff and deprived him of
21
food and insulin. Plaintiff risks prosecution merely for driving to a doctors office
22
for a medical examination or risks his health for not doing so.
23
24
25
26
27
28
e. The Balance of Equities and overwhelming Public Interest

Strongly Favor an Injunction
30. The balance of equities and public interest considerations tip sharply in favor of
Plaintiff. A preliminary injunction would serve the public interest by permitting
P a g e | 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
plaintiff to participate in society and contribute to California.

31. 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) (citations omitted).
9
10
IV. PRAYER
11
32. Plaintiff prays before the United States Court to grant the preliminary
12
injunction.
13
14
Respectfully Submitted;
15
16
/s/ Rehan Sheikh
17
18
19
Date: September 28, 2015
---------------------------------Rehan Sheikh
Plaintiff
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
P a g e | 12
March 26, 2012

DRIVER MEDICAL EVALUATION
ANY AND ALL MEDICAL CONDITIONS
EXHIBIT
March 27, 2012

DMVs Arbitrary Order of Suspension
EXHIBIT
September 6, 2014
DRIVER MEDICAL EVALUATION
EXHIBIT

Motion For Injuction Reexamination

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Motion For Injuction Reexamination

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Case: 14-16858, 09/28/2015, ID: 9697564, DktEntry: 27-1, Page 1 of 12

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Motion for Preliminary Injunction

District Court: 2: 14 CV- 7 5 1 GEB AC

Case: 14-16858, 09/28/2015, ID: 9697564, DktEntry: 27-1, Page 2 of 12

Plaintiff respectfully asks for a preliminary injunction barring the DMVs

arbitrary demand for intrusive and expensive Medical examination.

Plaintiff respectfully asks for a preliminary injunction invalidating the DMVs

Driver Medical Exam - Any and All Conditions

B. March 27, 2012

Order indefinitely Suspending Plaintiffs Driving License

C. Sep 16, 2014

Driver Medical Exam

Case: 14-16858, 09/28/2015, ID: 9697564, DktEntry: 27-1, Page 3 of 12

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291.

II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

plaintiffs request the DMV office Supervisor gave a phone number.

who identified himself as a Manager at DMV. Plaintiff explained DMV manager

important for you to drive.

available for denial of driving license.

Case: 14-16858, 09/28/2015, ID: 9697564, DktEntry: 27-1, Page 4 of 12

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.

addiction, chemical and blood tests.

7. The DMVs Medical Form mandates authorization (P1) that stated;

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

Case: 14-16858, 09/28/2015, ID: 9697564, DktEntry: 27-1, Page 5 of 12

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

motor vehicles safely.

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.

Form are also misleading; e.g. Question 8 Levels of Functional Impairment

any functional impairment.

10. Plaintiff requested hearing to determine if there is a good cause for

to issue driving license.

Case: 14-16858, 09/28/2015, ID: 9697564, DktEntry: 27-1, Page 6 of 12

tens of thousand dollars or more. The DMVs demand for Reexamination at

plaintiffs expense places an additional unbearable burden on plaintiff.

14. The DMV officers are untrained on availability of procedural or substantive

Due process in California, and availability of Rights of American people such as

right to travel or right to interstate travel, right to work, pursuit of happiness.

DMV denied renewal of plaintiffs identity card.

Case: 14-16858, 09/28/2015, ID: 9697564, DktEntry: 27-1, Page 7 of 12

by constitutionally appropriate procedures. The status of a driver's license as a

right deserving of constitutional protections was first most clearly stated in

Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958) .

b. The Arbitrary Demand for Medical, Psychological, Neurological,

Case: 14-16858, 09/28/2015, ID: 9697564, DktEntry: 27-1, Page 8 of 12

Reexamination constitutes unreasonable searches in violation of Fourth, and

establish justification for Reexamination.

fundamental rights of the individual citizen ... Ker v. California, 374 US 23 -

Supreme Court (1963).

right of the people to be secure "in their persons."

testing procedures plainly constitute searches of "persons," and depend

antecedently upon seizures of "persons," within the meaning of that Amendment.

Schmerber v California, 384 US 757 (1966)

Case: 14-16858, 09/28/2015, ID: 9697564, DktEntry: 27-1, Page 9 of 12

forcible bloodletting of the kind involved here.

seeks to guard.' Counselman v. Hitchchock, 142 U.S. 547 (1892)