SCOTUS Extension Full 3rd Removal - Fin.with Exhibits

No: 18A - 223
IN THE
Supreme Court of the United States
Farzana Sheikh, M.D. and Rehan Sheikh

Applicant,
v.
San Joaquin General Hospital (a division of the County of San Joaquin)

Respondent
302 (c) (21) - Local Rules of Eastern District of California

(Secondary) Respondent
Ninth Circuit Case No: 17 – 16586
Application to the Chief Justice Hon. John G. Roberts

1) For an Extension of time within which to file a Petition for a Writ of
Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 13(5), Applicant(s) Sheikh’s hereby move
for an extension of time of 30 days, to and including Sep 30, 2018 for filing
a petition for a writ of certiorari to review the Mandate of the United States
Courts of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued on May 31, 2018 (Exhibit 1,
CA9_doc#9). The Jurisdiction of this Court is based on 28 U.S.C. §
1254(1).
a. The extension is requested as San Joaquin County (SJC) also
1
continued this matter in their own county court eventually
destroying applicants home. The applicants needs time
additional time to research and to prepare the Petition under
such exceptional circumstances.
2. Since previous decade San Joaquin County and state prosecutors have
improperly deprived applicant(s) of their Physicians and driving licenses
respectively, their home, car (e.g.) without any Notice of Accusations and
without any trial or hearing before or after the deprivation. In the Physicians
licensing matters, the California declared in writing that it does not even has
the Burden to prove its accusations that was affirmed by a Magistrate Judge
of Eastern District of California whose Jurisdiction was declined, then
added that (state) can do so even without taking evidence (doc #55 July 14,
2010 1) . A few state officials, including Senior Assistant Attorney General,
Executive Director, licensing chief, members of the Medical Board took
early Retirement or tendered their Resignations to Governor Jerry Brown.
The Hon. Frank Damrell Jr. was the Senior Judge assigned on the matter
who also departed from the Eastern District of California.
3. This instant case is believed to be another malicious action filed by San
Joaquin County in their local county court that has been timely removed to
1
Farzana Sheikh MD v Medical Board of California – 2:10 cv-213
2
the federal court on many occasions since 2014.
4. A recent Removal was on Aug 8, 2018 (Not this specific Case) (Exhibit 4 –
Recent Notice of Removal and Application for a three Judge Panel. The
County attorneys informed that they destroyed applicant’s home (without
hearing) as county attorneys asked their own county court to file a Petition
for abandonment on their behalf. The County also sent a demand for
additional $40,000 + for destroying home. A few days after personally
submitted those documents in the Court 2, applicants received mail from
court returning the papers without making any determination by any Judge.
Applicants hereby move this Court for an extension of time to file Cert 3.
5. Applicants have never been heard by any Article III Judge either in the E.D.
of Cal. or at the 9th Circuit; not even a cursory hearing. The applicants are
deprived of Access to Justice in Eastern District of California by;
a. Interference of San Joaquin County and by State of California; The
San Joaquin County attorney Mark Myles, Richard Flores and
Governor Jerry Brown even wrote several letters over the years in
lieu of Motions, addressing clerks, Judges and Chief Judge Hon.
Lawrence Joseph O’Neill that County addressed as Chief Justice;
2
Applicants efiling privileges have been terminated by E.D. of Cal. without hearing after
personal letters form Governor Jerry Brown and by San Joaquin County Attorneys.
3
Application submitted in little time and is not thoroughly reviewed for errors.
3
That particular matters involving improper personal letters was filed
(on Aug 8) in the District Court that was presided by Hon. Troy
Nunely requesting to make a determination for a three Judge panel 28
U.S. Code § 2284 that would include Hon. Sidney Thomas. (Exhibit
4) The Court has refused to make a determination and simply
returned documents via mail.
b. Pro county bias
c. 302 (c) (21) – A Local Rule that dictates that applicants cannot be
heard by an Article III. Previously Governor Jerry Brown wrote a
personal letters (dated June 18, 2010) and filed brief in 9th Circuit
(doc#27 dated Apr 18, 2011) addressing the Local Rules and the
Article III Judge (Exhibit 3) but no determination was made by
Court. 9th Circuit granted Article III standing to a monkey (Exhibit 4)
6. This particular case was timely removed to the Eastern District of
California pursuant to, including but not limited to, 18 U.S.C. § 241, § 242
and 28 U.S.C. § 1443. The Case was assigned to Senior Judge Hon.
Geralnd Burrell. Although applicants specifically exercised their Right to
decline Jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge, nonetheless, Judge Burrell
assigned to Magistrate Judge who is a former state prosecutor who held no
hearing and submitted recommendations. Judge Burrell did not hold even a
4
cursory Jurisdictional hearing and issued an arbitrary order to Remand case
without stating any law or facts, w/o de novo review, w/o declining
Jurisdiction, or without making any determination at all virtually giving a
free pass to County that eventually destroyed evidence and home. The order
included Local rule 302 (c) 21. (Exhibit 2 – (This case) Notice of Removal,
Petition filed with 9th Circuit) . In the 9th Circuit Petition applicants pleaded;
The district Court via hon. Gerald Burrell abused his discretion or exhibited
pattern of Abdication of judicial duty; denied Right to hearing and improperly
denied Right to Trial.
7. The case is removed as;
a. The United States Court have original Jurisdiction
b. that this matter involves Artful Pleading (including factor but not
limited to factors, to improperly deprive federal ERISA benefits, to
improperly deprive applicants of their property that county took years
ago via police action). The County seems to artfully claim this as an
ordinary property4 dispute.
4
Even if somehow county can frame their malicious action as a taking clause; applicants may
still have standing in the federal court. Further This Court has granted a Certiorari to Rose Mary
Knicks v Township of Scott- The Brief of the United States stated (P17),
This Court should therefore Make clear that local takings claimants may vindicate their
Fifth Amendment rights in a federal forum. The Court could do so in either of two ways.
First, it could clarify that, regardless of Williamson County’s understanding of Section 1983, an
owner who asserts a right to compensation under the Fifth Amendment may bring a state
5
c. Applicants also believe this case relates to and/or inextricably
intertwined with the previous litigation in the federal courts (Farzana
Sheikh MD v Medical Board) federal court. Applicants will
demonstrate its relevance even at any cursory evidentiary hearing.
8. Local Rules 302 (c) (21)
These local rules of the Court state that applicant cannot be heard by an
Article III Judge and are challenged for the reasons as stated. The district
Court and the 9th Circuit have not made any determination. Given the
circumstances, the applicants request this Court to give a chance to the
district court to present if there justification 5 for Local Rules or opposition,
or issue default Judgment or alternatively assign to another circuit.
inverse-condemnation action in federal district court under the grant of federal -question
jurisdiction in 28 U.S.C. 1331.
(P21) This Court confirmed that understanding in City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at
Monterey, Ltd. , 526 U.S. 687 (1999). There, the Court recognized that a California landowner
alleging a regulatory taking by a city “was entitled to proceed in federal court under [Section]
1983” notwithstanding Williamson County because (at the time)“California did not provide a
compensatory remedy for temporary regulatory takings.”
(P34) For similar reasons, a lawful taking would not give rise to a violation of 18 U.S.C. 242, a
criminal statute that uses language paralleling Section 1983 to make it a misdemeanor to
“willfully” subject a person to a deprivation of constitutional rights.
5
(On unconscious Rules this court recently ruled) National Institute of Family and Life
advocates v. Becerra (2018)
California has the Burden to Prove that [unlicensed Notice] is neither unduly justified
nor burdensome
6
For the foregoing reasons, the applicants request an extension of time
including Sep 30, 2018 be granted within which applicants may file a
petition for writ of certiorari.
Respectfully Submitted,
Rehan Sheikh
August 17, 2018
7
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1 9th Circuit Mandate , Orders
Exhibit 2 This Case’s Notice of Removal, Petition filed with 9th
Circuit)
Exhibit 3 Letters from Governor Jerry Brown to Magistrate Judge,
Re local Rules 302 c (21), terminate efiling Access
Exhibit 4 Notice of Removal dated Aug 18, 2018 (Returned) and
Application for three judge panel
Letter from San Joaquin County Attorney to Chief Judge
Hon. Lawrence Joseph O’Neill
Exhibit 4-1 Ninth Circuit Motion to correct court docket, As name of
San Joaquin Hospital disappeared from 9th Cir docket
8
EXHIBIT 1
Case: 17-16586, 01/22/2018, ID: 10733753, DktEntry: 6, Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JAN 22 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
SAN JOAQUIN GENERAL HOSPITAL, a No. 17-16586
division of the County of San Joaquin,
D.C. No. 2:17-cv-01178-GEB-DB
Plaintiff-Appellee, Eastern District of California,
Sacramento
v.
ORDER
FARZANA SHEIKH, M.D.; REHAN
SHEIKH,
Defendants-Appellants.
Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
A review of the record and the response to the August 15, 2017 order
indicates that the questions raised in this appeal are so insubstantial as not to
require further argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.
1982) (stating standard).
Accordingly, we summarily affirm the district court’s judgment.
AFFIRMED.

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAY 23 2018
D.C. No. 2:17-cv-01178-GEB-DB
Sacramento
v.
ORDER
SHEIKH,
Before: TROTT and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
We treat Sheikh’s petition for rehearing en banc (Docket Entry No. 7) as a
motion for reconsideration en banc, and deny the motion on behalf of the court.
See 9th Cir. R. 27-10; 9th Cir. Gen. Ord. 6.11.
No further filings will be entertained in this closed case.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MAY 31 2018
SAN JOAQUIN GENERAL No. 17-16586

HOSPITAL, a division of the County of
San Joaquin,
D.C. No. 2:17-cv-01178-GEB-DB
Plaintiff - Appellee, U.S. District Court for Eastern
California, Sacramento
v.
MANDATE
FARZANA SHEIKH, M.D. and
REHAN SHEIKH,
Defendants - Appellants.
The judgment of this Court, entered January 22, 2018, takes effect this date.
This constitutes the formal mandate of this Court issued pursuant to Rule
41(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
FOR THE COURT:
MOLLY C. DWYER
CLERK OF COURT
By: Rebecca Lopez

Deputy Clerk
Ninth Circuit Rule 27-7
Case 2:17-cv-01178-GEB-DB Document 4 Filed 07/07/17 Page 1 of 2
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 SAN JOAQUIN GENERAL HOSPITAL, a No. 2:17-cv-1178 GEB DB PS

12
Plaintiff,
13 ORDER
v.
14
15 FARZANA SHEIKH and REHAN

SHEIKH,
16
17 Defendants.
18
19 This case was removed from state court by a Defendant proceeding in propria persona.
20 The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21).
21 On June 8, 2017, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which
22 were served on defendants and which contains notice to defendants that any objections to the
23 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days after service of the findings
24 and recommendations. The fourteen-day period has expired, and neither defendant has filed any
25 objections to the findings and recommendations.
26 The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be
27 supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis.
28 ////
1
1 Accordingly, this case remanded to the Superior Court of California in San Joaquin
2 County and the federal action shall be closed.
3 Dated: July 7, 2017
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
EXHIBIT 2
Case: 17-16586, 02/05/2018, ID: 10752613, DktEntry: 7-1, Page 1 of 12
3 Rehan Sheikh
1219 W. El Monte Street
4 Stockton, California 95207
5 Telephone:
rehansheikh@yahoo.com
6
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
7
8
CA9 No: 17 – 1 6 5 8 6
9
FRAP 35
10
San Joaquin County General PETITION FOR EN BANC HEARING –
11
Hospital Multiple order(s) dated Jan 22, 2018 and other
12 Plaintiff & Appellee
1) Need for Uniform ERISA
13 v.
Preemption– Re San Joaquin
14 Farzana Sheikh M.D. and Rehan
County & Cisco Systems
15 Sheikh
Respondent(s) & Appellant
16 2) Conspiracy and San Joaquin
17 County
18
19 Eastern District No:2:17–CV-1178 Gerald
20 Burrell
21
22 The 9th Circuit, like the Court below, rushed to close the court door on Appellants. The Court
23
records demonstrate that Appellee have not filed any opposition or any Motion to Remand. No Judge
24
has held any hearing or ruled on any of arguments. The En Banc consideration is necessary to
25
restore Right to Judicial process and to restore Access to Justice.
26
27
28
4 I. PRIMARY ISSUES IN THIS LITIGATION

5
For over a decade or so San Joaquin County state agencies have engaged in a
6
pattern of conspiracy, Retaliation, perjury, and obstruction of justice to deprive
7
Respondent of her Rights, property, home, licenses, services and money etc.; that
8
9 has continued due to systematic denial of Access to Justice; as the Court is denying
10 Judicial process. This is another lawsuit by San Joaquin that is obviously malicious
11
and is removed to the federal court. The record shows no Motion to Remand filed by
12
San Joaquin; No United States Judge held any Jurisdictional or Evidentiary or
13
cursory hearing. Yet electronic orders arrived via internet with names of Judges
14
15 and unauthorized clerks, commissioners; reviewing unspecified records. Previously
16 lower court without any legal or factual guidance on any of the matters including
17
the following;
18
A. Appellant’s Right to Jury Trial as clearly stated in the Notice of Removal.
19
B. The specific Local Rules of District Court are unconscious, or unconstitutional
20
21 and deny access to Justice as no Judge holds any hearing. Governor is giving
22 money to illegal aliens for Access to Justice but denies such money to lawful
23
Americans.
24
C. Ruling Janta of San Joaquin County is taking people’s property without a judge
25
order via a court stamp as many such courts stamps are in circulation.
26
27 D. The lawsuit requires administration of ERISA & requires preemption.
28
Petition for En Banc– 3rd Removal – San Joaquin County Hospital v. Farzana Sheikh, M.D.
P a g e |i
4 Table of Contents
5
I. PRIMARY ISSUES IN THIS LITIGATION ..................................................................... i
6
7 II. The Court should grand this Petition for En Banc ........................................................ 1
8 III. Denial of Judicial Process by United States Courts via Orders ................................. 1
9
IV. San Joaquin’s Hospital’s another malicious Lawsuit.................................................... 3
10
11 A. ERISA Preemption - San Joaquin County .................................................................. 3

B. ERISA Preemption - Cisco Systems .............................................................................. 4
12
13
14 V. JURISDICTION..................................................................................................................... 5
15 A. United States District Court ........................................................................................... 5

16 B. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals .............................................................................. 6
C. Standard of Review............................................................................................................ 6
17
VI. Contested Local Rules of Eastern District of California .............................................. 7
18
VII. San Joaquin Hospital can file a Motion to Remand ...................................................... 7
19
20 A. County Court lacks Jurisdiction ..................................................................................... 8

21 B. No Relief is available in County Court ......................................................................... 9
VIII. How Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals can Restore Access to Justice .......................... 9
22
23 IX. PRAYER .................................................................................................................................. 9
24
25
26
27
28
P a g e | ii
4 II. The Necessity for this Petition for En Banc Hearing

5
The en banc consideration is necessary for the following fundamental factors;
6
a) To prevent manifest injustice
7
b) to restore Right to the Trial, to restore Right to Judicial Process and
8
9 to restore Access to Justice BOTH at local san Joaquin county court and
10 at the United States Courts

11
c) to maintain uniformity of this Court’s proceedings/ procedures and
12
d) to preserve the Role of the Court
13
e) to preserve Civil Rights Jurisdiction of this Court
14
15 f) In summary this Court of Appeals is closing its doors to injured parties
16 without every hearing. This requires an En Banc review of the Court.

17
18
III. Denial of Judicial Process by United States Courts
19
1. This Court and the Court below has relied on vague orders to deny the Judicial
20
process and to deny access to Justice.
21
22 2. The district Court via hon. Gerald Burrell abused his discretion or exhibited
23 pattern of Abdication of judicial duty; denied Right to hearing and improperly

24
denied Right to Trial. His Court improperly remanded the case to the local
25
county court without stating any factual or legal justification. The local county
26
court is also a party in this court of appeals and the issues raised in the Appeal,
27
28 cannot be heard by the local county court for lack of Jurisdiction. Any Judge of
P a g e |1
3 this Court can testify to this simple matter.

4
3. This Court refused to issue briefing schedule 1 and rather issued first order with
5
legal arguments via Court Clerk, then a second order via a Court Commissioner.
6
4. In response to the Court Commissioner’s order dated Oct 19, appellant urged the
7
8 court to issue a briefing schedule and submitted;
9 This is yet another matter where appellees/ San Joaquin County Hospital,
10 while acting under color of state law, is defying the United States Courts by its
11
Failure to Appear in the Court. The honorable Commissioner noted in the
12
order “there is no appearance by appellee”. Appellee’s inaction is intentional,
13
disrespectful to the United States Court(s) and is meant to deprive Appellant
14
access to the Court; a forum to resolve differences. The Hospital did not file
15
16 any opposition to the complaint and this is reasonably believed that appellees/
17 Hospital do not dispute any of the allegations. In such matter this Court may
18 issue default judgment to Appellant or grant any other relief so the family can
19
proceed with their careers and lives. This Court may compel Hospital’s
20
appearance by issuing a briefing schedule and by setting a hearing date.
21
5. Appellants received an order Dated Jan 22 via internet by with the name of
22
23 three respectable Judges who have chambers in different cities. In their order,
24 the court again indicated to review unspecified records but never held an
25
evidentiary hearing. The court did not address the lack of judicial process that
26
27 1
As Hon. Alex Kozinski Ex Judge suggested “Judges look the other way” in his famous video Re_ Johnny
Baca v Derral Adams (CA 9; 13-56132) (Jan 2015).
28
P a g e |2
3 has been denied. The order from this Court dated Jan 22 introduced another
4
new term ‘insubstantial’ without any hearing what constitutes substantial or
5
‘insubstantial’. What is reference that panel considered; tens or hundreds of
6
thousand dollars could be insubstantial for some. San Joaquin Hospital does not
7
8 dispute that the amount in controversy is significant and mandates a Trial.
10 IV. San Joaquin’s Hospital’s malicious Lawsuit

11
6. For a decade or so San Joaquin County state agencies have engaged in a pattern
12
of conspiracy, Retaliation, perjury, and obstruction of justice to deprive
13
Respondent of her Rights, property, home, licenses, services and money etc.; that
14
15 has continued due to systematic denial of Access to Justice. This is yet another
16 malicious lawsuit that San Joaquin has directly filed against Appellants. This
17
case is another example where this court has rushed to close the door giving
18
waiver to state actors who have engaged in above referenced scheme.
19
20 A. ERISA Preemption - San Joaquin County

21
7. This is yet another malicious lawsuit that the representatives of San Joaquin
22
County, Mr. Mark Myles has artfully pleaded and improperly filed in the local
23
county court. The notice of Removal clearly depicted the real intentions of the
24
25 San Joaquin that includes to cover up the evidence and to permanently deny
26 federal ERISA money that San Joaquin owes to Petitioners. Even a cursory
27
hearing by United States Court will expose motives of ‘hospital’.
28
P a g e |3
3 8. A few years ago, in a hearing before Eastern District of California, Mr. Mark
4
Myles admitted that “San Joaquin” owed ERISA money. According, this lawsuit
5
relates to administration of ERISA requires application of ERISA complete
6
preemption doctrine.
7
8
B. ERISA Preemption - Cisco Systems
9
9. Over a decade ago, the Petitioner filed a state law Civil Rights action against
10
Cisco Systems in a local county court in the silicon valley (Rehan Sheikh v Cisco
11
12 Systems CA9 No; 10 – 17098 (2012) . The Cisco removed that action to the
13 United States court alleging ERISA Preemption even when alleged ERISA
14
benefits had been previously resolved via a state litigation because those
15
benefits were governed via state law. In that matter, the United States Court on
16
its own exercised supplemental Jurisdiction over all state law claims.
17
18 10. In this matter (San Joaquin), If somehow a united states judge determines that
19 this lawsuit does not ‘relates to’ or involves administration of ERISA, then in
20
order for uniform procedure, the court can exercise supplementary jurisdiction
21
over all state law claims.
22
11. The En Banc Court needs to address this fundamental matter to uniformly apply
23
24 ERISA preemption the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and in order to prevent the
25 appearance of manifest miscarriage of justice. If somehow, the Court determines

26
that this matter involving San Joaquin does not involve application of ERISA
27
money it should exercise supplementary Jurisdiction. The Ninth Circuit has
28
P a g e |4
3 previously addressed application of supplementary Jurisdiction after a wrongful

4
conviction by Eastern District without Evidentiary hearing- Farzana Sheikh
5
M.D. v Medical Board of California (CA9 Number: 10 – 17098 (2011).
6
7
V. JURISDICTION
8
9
A. United States District Court
10
12. The District Court has original Jurisdiction of ERISA sections under 29 U.S.C. §
11
1132(E). Removal jurisdiction exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b).
12
13 13. Supplementary Jurisdiction
14 14. Civil Rights Jurisdiction; District Court has Civil Rights Jurisdiction under 28
15
U.S.C. § 1443. Removal Jurisdiction exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343. The
16
case presents federal question arising under 42. U.S.C. § 1983. Removal
17
Jurisdiction exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and 28 U.S.C.
18
19 § 1343.
20 a. Petitioners Dr. Sheikh requested the Court for an evidentiary hearing to

21
demonstrate jurisdiction of the court.
22
15. United States Courts have jurisdiction over Deprivation of Rights under color of
23
Law and Conspiracy against Rights 18 U.S.C. § 241, 18 U.S.C. § 242.
24
25 16. Appellant’s Notice of removal clearly enumerates Rights and privileges
26 applicable in this matter. In United States v Guest 383 US 745 (1966) the Court
27
clarified nature of Rights or privileges covered under the statue and noted;
28
P a g e |5
3 We have made clear in Price that when § 241 speaks of "any right or
4 privilege secured . . . by the Constitution or laws of the United
5 States," it means precisely that.
6 B. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

7
17. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1291.
8
9 C. Standard of Review
10 18. The applicable Standard of Review is de novo and no such review has been
11
granted by this Court so far. We also review the removal of the case from state
12
court to federal court de novo. Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1194
13
14 (9th Cir. 1988). United Brotherhood of Carpenters And Joiners Of America, (9th
15 Cir. 2014).
16 19. In a recent Court decision where Eastern District declined Jurisdiction, Ricky
17
Henry v Central Freight Lines (CFL) CA9 17-15993, a three Judge panel of this
18
Court noted (P4) “Reviewing the district court’s remand order de novo”. Because
19
20 of the review, In that matter, the Court discussed amount of controversy;
21 reversed and remanded. The Court concluded, “We therefore reverse and remand
22 with the instruction to the District Court that CFL has established CAFA
23
jurisdiction”.
24
20. In the absence of any evidentiary hearing or Jurisdictional discovery, Appellants
25
26 only needs to make a prima facie case showing jurisdictional facts and they have
27 done so.
28
P a g e |6
3 “Although the burden is on the plaintiff to demonstrate that the court has
4 jurisdiction over the defendant, in the absence of an evidentiary
5 hearing, the plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing of
6 jurisdictional facts to withstand the motion to dismiss; additionally,

uncontroverted allegations in plaintiff's complaint must be taken as true”
7
8
VI.Contested Local Rules of Eastern District of California
9
10 21. The Local Rules of Eastern District of California that deny Constitutional Right
11 to hearing before an Article III United States Judge to a particular politically
12 oppressed class of individuals. Local Rules discriminate Rich and Poor and deny
13
poor Access to Justice who cannot spend money to afford attorney.
14
22. As Senator Kamala Harris tweeted on Dec 26, 2016 quoting Frederick Douglass’
15
16 inspiring statement about justice that stated;
17 Before the law, there should be no rich, no poor, no high no low, no white,
18 not black but common country common citizenship equal rights, and a
19 common destiny.
23. Plaintiff seeks a declaratory relief that Local Rules 302, and 303 including but
20
21 not limited to Local Rule 302 (c) (21) are unconstitutional. The Local Rules deny
22 hearing to a select class of individuals before an Article III Judge. Hon. Garland
23
Burrell of the District Court did not present any opposition.
24
25
VII. San Joaquin Hospital can file a Motion to Remand
26
24. As San Joaquin believed that the United States Courts have Jurisdiction over
27
28 this matter, so it did not file a Motion to Remand. It was very convenient for
P a g e |7
3 defendants to file such a Motion as Burden of Proof will be on non-moving party;

4
(on Appellants) to establish Jurisdiction.
5
“The party asserting jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing subject matter
6
jurisdiction.” In re Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM) Antitrust Litig., 546
7 F.3d 981, 984 (9th Cir. 2008). “Dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is
8 appropriate if the complaint, considered in its entirety, on its face fails to allege facts
9 sufficient to establish subject matter jurisdiction.” Bishop Paiute Tribe v. Inyo
County (CA 15-16604) (Jun 2017).
10
25. This Court noted in Bishop supra,
11
“Our role … to adjudicate live cases or controversies consistent with the powers granted
12
13 the judiciary in Article III of the Constitution. In this case, the two most relevant
14 justiciability doctrines are ripeness and mootness.
15 Bishop Court concluded remanding the case back to Eastern District of

16
California; Because the district court has subject matter jurisdiction over claims involving
17
federal common law and because the Tribe’s case is ripe and not moot, we REVERSE and
18
REMAND for further proceedings.
19
20 26. Obviously San Joaquin has not filed the Motion to Remand is a telling sign that
21 the specific issues raised, factual and legal arguments mandate a hearing in the
22 United States Court. In such circumstances, there is no justification to Remand
23
this matter to local county court.
24
25 A. County Court lacks Jurisdiction

26
27. Local san Joaquin County Court has no mandate or Jurisdiction to address any
27
of the matters presented in this lawsuit.
28
P a g e |8
3 B. No Relief is available in County Court

4
28. There is no relief available to Petitioner in the County Court. Availability of
5
Relief is a fundamental matter that the Courts have carefully addressed in
6
considering to Remand the matter .
7
9 VIII. How Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals can Restore Access to Justice
10 29. The Court can take simple steps; e.g. The Court can grant a Jurisdictional
11
Hearing and evidentiary hearing. The Court can issue a briefing schedule and
12
set up a hearing date so that San Joaquin Hospital can present its opposition.
13
14
IX. PRAYER
15
16 30. Appellants respectfully asks the Court to grant this Petition, vacate district
17 court’s order to Remand to county court and restore this matter to the
18
appropriate federal court calendar.
19
20
Respectfully Submitted;
21
22 /s/ Rehan Sheikh
23 ----------------------------------
Rehan Sheikh and
24
Date: February 5, 2018 Farzana Sheikh M.D.
25 Appellant(s)
26
27
28
P a g e |9
Case:
Case:17-16586,
17-16586,02/05/2018,
01/22/2018,ID:
ID:10752613,
10733753,DktEntry:
DktEntry:7-2,
6, Page
Page11ofof11

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JAN 22 2018
D.C. No. 2:17-cv-01178-GEB-DB
Sacramento
v.
ORDER
SHEIKH,
Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
A review of the record and the response to the August 15, 2017 order
indicates that the questions raised in this appeal are so insubstantial as not to
require further argument. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.
1982) (stating standard).
Accordingly, we summarily affirm the district court’s judgment.
AFFIRMED.
Case:
Case:17-16586,
17-16586,02/05/2018,
10/19/2017,ID:
ID:10752613,
10623778,DktEntry:
DktEntry:7-3,
4, Page
Page11ofof22

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT OCT 19 2017
D.C. No.
Plaintiff-Appellee, 2:17-cv-01178-GEB-DB
Eastern District of California,
v. Sacramento
FARZANA SHEIKH, M.D. and REHAN ORDER

SHEIKH,
Before: Peter L. Shaw, Appellate Commissioner.
Appellants’ request for clarification and reconsideration of the court’s
August 15, 2017 order to show cause is denied (Docket Entry No. 3).
Within 21 days after the date of this order, appellants may file a response to
the August 15, 2017 order to show cause. Appellants may elect to file an opening
brief in lieu of a response to the August 15, 2017 order to show cause. A panel of
three judges will determine whether to summarily affirm the district court’s
remand order based on the response or opening brief submitted. See 9th Cir. R. 3-
6(b). Because there is no appearance by appellee, no response by appellee or
answering brief will be filed.
All other requests for relief contained in appellants’ September 5, 2017
response (Docket Entry 3) will be addressed by separate order after appellants
DA/Pro Se
Case:
Case:17-16586,
17-16586,02/05/2018,
10/19/2017,ID:
ID:10752613,
10623778,DktEntry:
DktEntry:7-3,
4, Page
Page22ofof22
filing of either a response to the August 15, 2017 order to show cause or an
opening brief.
If appellants do not comply with this order, this appeal will be automatically
dismissed by the Clerk for failure to prosecute. See 9th Cir. R. 42-1. If appellants
submit a response to this order other than a response to the order to show cause or
opening brief, the court may summarily affirm the district court’s remand order
based on the record in the district court without further opportunity to respond.
DA/Pro Se 2
EXHIBIT 3
Case 2:10-cv-00213-FCD-GGH Document 49 Filed 06/18/2010 Page 1 of 2
lIDMUNDG. BROWN JR.
AttDrney General
•
455 GOLDIlN GATE AVENUE, SUITE U(}(J()

SANFRANCISCO,CA 941()2..7004
COpy Public: ~41 703-SSOO

. Telqmone: 41 70J..SSS2
Facsimile: 41 703-54110
E-Mail: Susan.tllE.~.Ioj.1lII.gOV
September 21,2010
RECEIVED
BvU.S.Mall
Farzana Sheikh SEP Z3211
P.O. Box 869
FreaGh Camp, CA- 95231
RE: . Farzana Sheikh, M.D. vs. Medical Board of California, et ai,

ease
No. 2:1()..cv-00213-FCD=GQH (l"S)
Dear Ms. Sheikh:
Our office is in receipt of seveml electronic :filings you have made recently in the above
matter. You have filed seveml Requests for Admissions under FRCP 36 subsequent to the
dismissal of the above action by the Court on August 23, 2010. Please be advised dlat we have
no legal obligation to respond to your Requests for Admissions because the matter has been
dismissed and object to your continual filing of such Requests without any legal justification.
SUSAN K. MEADOWS
Deputy Attorney Geneml
For EDMUND G. BROWN JR.

Attorney Geneml
SKM:sw
SF2010400249
20344OOl.doc
EDMUND G. BROwN JR.
Attorney GtmllraJ
•
StIlle ofCtIlIjorrliB
DBPARTMENl'OF JUSTICE·
1300 I STREBT, SUITE 12S
.P.O. BOX 94425S
SACRAMENTO, CA 94244-2"0
COpy
Public: ~91rs-9SSS
Telephone: 41 703·5552
. Facsimile: 415 703·5480
E-Mail: Susan.meadows .. aa.goy
September 30,2010
.. FI LED RECEIVED
. BY U. S. MAIL
Farzana Sheikh OCT 08 20m "I~T U M
P.O. Box 869
French Camp, CA 95231 IJtfR:-Jli\ft~i§~cJA?u l
RE:
" - -...mmn:-~"'"
Famna Sheikh, M.D. vs. Medical Board of Califomia., et at
u.s. Eastern District Court Case No. 2:1()..cy-00213.FCD-Q(JH iPS)
Dear Ms. Sheikh:
I am in receipt of a letter sent to me bye-mail from your husband., Rehan Sheikh, dated
September 29,2010 regarding "Requests for Admissions-FRCP 36". This letter was sent by
your husband in response to my letter dated September 21, 2010 to you with respect to lhe
multiple Requests for Admissions that you filed in the district court on September 19, 2010 and
on September 20, 2010. As I stated in my letter dated September 21, 2010 and I will reiterate
here, your case was dismissed by 1he court on August 23, 2010. You may not conduct discovery
in a case after ithas been dismisse4; therefore, Defendants are under no legal obligation under
FRCP 36 to respond to or lodge formal objections to 1hese frivolous Requests for Admissions
and object to each and every ~ for Admission on 1hat groutd Your Requests fur
Admission will not be deemed admitted because they are improper.
. I must also reiterate ~ your hushlUld cannot ~t you as he, is.~_~ a!fmne}' and
he and you have been previOUSlY admonished by 1he court in 1hat regard. ...
SjIlj'~
ASt':SAoN K.. MEADOWS

Deputy Attorney General

Attorney General
SF2Oltl4OO249
10619623.doc
Case 2:14-cv-01509-MCE-AC Document 7 Filed 08/11/14 Page 1 of 10
OFFICE OF THE
DEPUTY COUNTY COUNSEL:
COUNTY COUNSEL GILBERTO GUTIERREZ
LAWRENCE P. MEYERS
COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN
MATTHEW P. DACEY
44 NORTH SAN JOAQUIN STREET, SUITE 679
KIMBERLY D. JOHNSON
STOCKTON, CA 95202-293 I
JASON R. MORRISH
TELEPHONE: (209) 468-2980
QUENDRITH L. MACEDO
FAX: (209) 468-03 I 5 ROBERT E. O'ROURKE
LISA S. RIBEIRO
DA VID WOOTEN ANDREW N. ESHOO
COUNTY COUNSEL ZA Y ANTE (ZOEY) P. MERRILL
J. MARK MYLES
CHILD PROTECTIVE
ASSISTANT COUNTY COUNSEL
SERVICES COUNSEL:
KRISTEN M. HEGGE (209) 468- 1330
CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY COUNSEL JANINE MOLGAARD
DANICLLE DUNHA~v1-RArYlIREZ
TED TOWLE
SHANN S. KENNEDY
August 11,2014
The Honorable Allison Claire

Magistrate Judge
United States District Court
United States Courthouse
501 "I" Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: San Joaquin General Hospital v. Farzana Sheikh

USDC, Eastern District of California Case No. 2:14-CV-1509-MCE AC
Dear Judge Claire:
I am writing on behalf of my client, San Joaquin General Hospital, that was served
over the weekend with two documents, First Amended Notice of Removal of Petition
under 28 Us. C. Section 1441 (B), and Plainttf!'s Motionfor Declaratory Relief on
Possession of the Mobile Home in the above identified case. These are documents 5 and
6, respectively, in the Court's docket. This letter is written to advise the court that the two
documents were, according to the caption and signature line, authored and signed by
Rehan Sheikh on behalf of Farzana Sheikh. Mr. Sheikh is not a member of the California
State Bar, he is not an attorney, and he is not a party to the underlying action. Eastern
District Local Rules 180 and 183 prevent Mr. Sheikh from preparing and filing
documents in this matter.
This is not the first encounter the courts have had with Mr. Sheikh filing and
signing court documents on behalf of his wife. On August 11,2009, the California Court
of Appeal, Third District issued an order striking a "Verified Petition for Writ of
Administrative Mandamus" which was filed and signed by Rehan Sheikh on behalf of
Farzana Sheikh. (Ex. A.). On February 4, 2010, this court, in the matter of Farzana
The Honorable Allison Claire
August 11 , 2014
Page 2
Sheikh v. Medical Board a/California, No. 2:10-cv-00213-FCD-GGH, issued an order

addressing documents signed and submitted by Rehan Sheik on behalf of Farzana Sheikh
stating "Therefore, the documents signed and filed by Rehan Sheikh may have no legal
significance in this case." (Ex. B).
We request that the above identified documents be stricken. Thank you for your
consideration.
Very truly yours,
JMM:kr
Attachments
c: Farzana Sheikh, 1219 West El Monte Street, Stockton, CA 95207
X I IT
EDMUND G. BROWN JR. State of California

Attorney General DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
455 GOLDEN GATE AVENUE, SUITE 11000
. SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-7004
Public: (415) 703-5500

Telephone: (415) 703-5578
Facsimile: (415) 703-5480
E-Mail: Lynne.Dombrowski@doj.ca.gov
January 29, 2010
Via E-Filing
The Honorable Gregory G. Hollows
Chief Magistrate Judge
United States District Court
United States Courthouse
501 "I" Street, Suite 4-200
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: Farzana Sheikh, M.D., v. Medical Board of California, et aI,

USDC Eastern District Court No. 2:10-cv-00213-FCD-GGH
Office of Administrative Hearings, Sacramento Regional Office, Case No. 2009050926
Dear Judge Hollows:
I am writing this letter on behalf of our client, the Medical Board of California that was
served with a copy of a Petition for Writ of Review on Denial of Application for Physician's
License by Medial Board of California, Declaratory Relief, and Section V.S.CA. 183[sic]. This
letter is written to advised that this Petition was filed and signed by Rehan Sheikh, a non-
attorney, on behalf of Farzana Sheikh, M.D. As admitted by Mr. Sheikh on the caption, and in
his pleadings, he is not a member of the California State Bar, he is not an attorney, and he is not·
a party to the action. Mr. Sheikh has no legal authority to file the above entitled action in this
court. Mr. Sheikh has been previously advised by the California Court of Appeal, Third District,
as recently as August ii, 2009, that he has no legal authority to sign and file pleadings on behalf
of his wife Ms. Sheikh. A copy of that Court's order striking his Petition for Writ of
Administrative Mandamus is attached hereto for the court's reference.
! I

The Honorable Gregory G. Hollows
January 29, 2010
Page 2
We would request that Mr. Sheikh's pleading be stricken. Thank you for your
consideration with respect to the above.
Sincerely,
"/s/ Lynne Dombrowski"

LYNNE DOMBROWSKI

Attorney General
Enclosure
Cc: Farzana Sheikh, P.O. Box 869, French Camp, CA 95231 (by U.S. Mail)
Reh<I? Sheikh, P.O. Box 869, French Camp, CA 95231, (by U.S. Mail)
SF2009403 J 55
40426716.doc
Case: 10-17098 04/18/2011 Page: 1 of 66 ID: 7719802 DktEntry: 27-1
10-17098
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FARZANZA SHEIKH ,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA, et

al.,
Defendants and Appellees.
On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California
No. 2:10-cv-00213-FCD-GGH (PS)

The Honorable Frank C. Damrell, Jr., Judge
APPELLEES’ ANSWERING BRIEF

KAMALA D. HARRIS
Attorney General of California
DAVID S. CHANEY
Chief Assistant Attorney General
CARLOS RAMIREZ
Senior Assistant Attorney General
JOSE R. GUERRERO
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
SUSAN K. MEADOWS
State Bar No. 115092
455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000
San Francisco, CA 94102-7004
Telephone: (415) 703-5552
Fax: (415) 703-5480
Email: Susan.meadows@doj.ca.gov
Attorneys for Appellees Medical Board
of California and State of California
Review” exactly fourteen days after the recommended Order was served.
(ER 60-62.) In the absence of any document with “objections” in the title,
the district court gave Sheikh the benefit of the doubt, construed this
document to be her objections, and considered them before adopting the
Magistrate Judge’s recommended order.13 (ER 13.) There is no basis for
Sheikh’s claim that she was denied the opportunity to file objections to the
magistrate’s orders.
IX. THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT DENY SHEIKH AN

ARTICLE III JUDGE BY ASSIGNING THE CASE TO A
MAGISTRATE JUDGE TO PREPARE FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), a district judge may designate a
magistrate judge to hear motions excepted under subparagraph (A),
including a motion to dismiss, and to submit proposed findings of fact and
recommendations for the disposition of such a motion. Hunt v. Pliler, 384
F.3d 1118, 1123 (9th Cir. 2004); Estate of Conners by Meredith v.
O'Connor, 6 F.3d 656, 658 (9th Cir. 1993). Where a party files written
objections to the proposed disposition, “[t]he district judge to whom the case
13
The final Order dismissing the FAC refers to this document as a
“reply.” (ER 13.) While it was electronically filed under the category
“reply,” Sheikh had actually entitled the document “Plaintiff’s Motion to
Dismiss Defendants’ Motion for Dismissal of Plaintiff’s Petition for
Administrative Review.” (ER 60-62, 143, Dckt 56.)
46
is assigned shall make a de novo determination upon the record.” Hunt v.
Pliler, supra, at 1123, citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); see also, McKeever v.
Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991). In the Eastern District, Local Rule
302(c)(21) requires that, in civil proceedings in Sacramento, all actions shall
be directed to a magistrate judge, including dispositive motions and matters
in actions in which all the plaintiffs or defendants are proceeding in propria
persona.
This procedure was followed in this case. When filed, the action was
assigned to Judge Frank Damrell, Jr., an Article III judge. Pursuant to
Eastern District Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Judge
Damrell assigned the case to Magistrate Judge Hollows, who prepared
findings and recommendation on the Motion to Dismiss. (ER 15-24.)
Thereafter, Sheikh filed what was liberally construed to be objections. (ER
13-14.) Judge Damrell considered the objections and the proposed findings
and recommendations de novo, and then issued a final disposition of the
case. (ER 13-14.) Accordingly, Sheikh was not denied an Article III judge.
X. THE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS

DISCRETION IN DENYING SHEIKH’S MOTION FOR
RELIEF FROM FINAL JUDGMENT UNDER RULE 60(B)
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Sheikh’s
Motion for Reconsideration under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule
47
EXHIBIT 4
EXHIBIT 4-1

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUN 7 2017
FARZANA SHEIKH, M.D., No. 16-15692
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No.

2:15-cv-01773-TLN-AC
v. Eastern District of California,
Sacramento
LESLIEY D. HOLLAND, Presiding Judge
San Joaquin County Court; et al., ORDER
Defendants-Appellees.
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and CANBY, Circuit Judge.
Appellant’s emergency motion to stay state court proceedings (Docket Entry
No. 11) is denied.
Appellant’s motion for an extension of time to file the opening brief (Docket
Entry No. 9) is granted in part.
Appellant’s motion to correct court docket (Docket Entry No. 10) is denied.
The opening brief is due July 25, 2017. As there is no appearance by
appellees, briefing will be complete upon the filing of the opening brief.
FG/MOATT

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT OCT 19 2017
FARZANA SHEIKH, M.D., No. 16-15692
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No.

2:15-cv-01773-TLN-AC
v. Eastern District of California,
Sacramento
LESLIEY D. HOLLAND, Presiding Judge
San Joaquin County Court; et al., ORDER
Defendants-Appellees.
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and CANBY, Circuit Judge.
Appellant’s petition for initial hearing en banc (Docket Entry No. 13) is
denied on behalf of the court. See 9th Cir. R. 27-10; 9th Cir. Gen. Ord. 6.11. All
other requests contained in Docket Entry No. 13 are denied.
Briefing is complete.
FG/MOATT

SCOTUS Extension Full 3rd Removal - Fin.with Exhibits

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

SCOTUS Extension Full 3rd Removal - Fin.with Exhibits

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

No: 18A - 223

Farzana Sheikh, M.D. and Rehan Sheikh

San Joaquin General Hospital (a division of the County of San Joaquin)

302 (c) (21) - Local Rules of Eastern District of California

Application to the Chief Justice Hon. John G. Roberts

1. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 13(5), Applicant(s) Sheikh’s hereby move

CA9_doc#9). The Jurisdiction of this Court is based on 28 U.S.C. §

a. The extension is requested as San Joaquin County (SJC) also

destroying applicants home. The applicants needs time

additional time to research and to prepare the Petition under

such exceptional circumstances.

improperly deprived applicant(s) of their Physicians and driving licenses

of Eastern District of California whose Jurisdiction was declined, then

2010 1) . A few state officials, including Senior Assistant Attorney General,

Executive Director, licensing chief, members of the Medical Board took

early Retirement or tendered their Resignations to Governor Jerry Brown.

who also departed from the Eastern District of California.

3. This instant case is believed to be another malicious action filed by San

County attorneys informed that they destroyed applicant’s home (without

additional $40,000 + for destroying home. A few days after personally

submitted those documents in the Court 2, applicants received mail from

deprived of Access to Justice in Eastern District of California by;

a. Interference of San Joaquin County and by State of California; The

San Joaquin County attorney Mark Myles, Richard Flores and

lieu of Motions, addressing clerks, Judges and Chief Judge Hon.

Lawrence Joseph O’Neill that County addressed as Chief Justice;

Nunely requesting to make a determination for a three Judge panel 28

4) The Court has refused to make a determination and simply

returned documents via mail.

b. Pro county bias

heard by an Article III. Previously Governor Jerry Brown wrote a

Article III Judge (Exhibit 3) but no determination was made by

Court. 9th Circuit granted Article III standing to a monkey (Exhibit 4)

6. This particular case was timely removed to the Eastern District of

Geralnd Burrell. Although applicants specifically exercised their Right to

decline Jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge, nonetheless, Judge Burrell

assigned to Magistrate Judge who is a former state prosecutor who held no

Jurisdiction, or without making any determination at all virtually giving a

a. The United States Court have original Jurisdiction

limited to factors, to improperly deprive federal ERISA benefits, to

improperly deprive applicants of their property that county took years

ordinary property4 dispute.

intertwined with the previous litigation in the federal courts (Farzana

Sheikh MD v Medical Board) federal court. Applicants will

demonstrate its relevance even at any cursory evidentiary hearing.

8. Local Rules 302 (c) (21)

circumstances, the applicants request this Court to give a chance to the

district court to present if there justification 5 for Local Rules or opposition,

or issue default Judgment or alternatively assign to another circuit.

petition for writ of certiorari.

August 17, 2018

Exhibit 1 9th Circuit Mandate , Orders

Exhibit 2 This Case’s Notice of Removal, Petition filed with 9th

Exhibit 3 Letters from Governor Jerry Brown to Magistrate Judge,

Re local Rules 302 c (21), terminate efiling Access

Exhibit 4 Notice of Removal dated Aug 18, 2018 (Returned) and

Application for three judge panel

Letter from San Joaquin County Attorney to Chief Judge

Hon. Lawrence Joseph O’Neill

Exhibit 4-1 Ninth Circuit Motion to correct court docket, As name of

San Joaquin Hospital disappeared from 9th Cir docket

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED

Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.