Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SCOTUS Extension Full 3rd Removal - Fin.with Exhibits
SCOTUS Extension Full 3rd Removal - Fin.with Exhibits
IN THE
Supreme Court of the United States
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,
1254(1).
1
continued this matter in their own county court eventually
2. Since previous decade San Joaquin County and state prosecutors have
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
added that (state) can do so even without taking evidence (doc #55 July 14,
The Hon. Frank Damrell Jr. was the Senior Judge assigned on the matter
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
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
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
Governor Jerry Brown even wrote several letters over the years in
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
U.S. Code § 2284 that would include Hon. Sidney Thomas. (Exhibit
c. 302 (c) (21) – A Local Rule that dictates that applicants cannot be
personal letters (dated June 18, 2010) and filed brief in 9th Circuit
(doc#27 dated Apr 18, 2011) addressing the Local Rules and the
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.
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
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;
b. that this matter involves Artful Pleading (including factor but not
ago via police action). The County seems to artfully claim this as an
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
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
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
Respectfully Submitted,
Rehan Sheikh
7
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Circuit)
8
EXHIBIT 1
Case: 17-16586, 01/22/2018, ID: 10733753, DktEntry: 6, Page 1 of 1
Defendants-Appellants.
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.
AFFIRMED.
Case: 17-16586, 05/23/2018, ID: 10883032, DktEntry: 8, Page 1 of 1
Defendants-Appellants.
motion for reconsideration en banc, and deny the motion on behalf of the court.
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
MOLLY C. DWYER
CLERK OF COURT
10
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
26 The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be
28 ////
1
Case 2:17-cv-01178-GEB-DB Document 4 Filed 07/07/17 Page 2 of 2
1 Accordingly, this case remanded to the Superior Court of California in San Joaquin
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
EXHIBIT 2
Case 2:17-cv-01178-GEB-DB Document 1 Filed 06/06/17 Page 1 of 18
Case 2:17-cv-01178-GEB-DB Document 1 Filed 06/06/17 Page 2 of 18
Case 2:17-cv-01178-GEB-DB Document 1 Filed 06/06/17 Page 3 of 18
Case 2:17-cv-01178-GEB-DB Document 1 Filed 06/06/17 Page 4 of 18
Case 2:17-cv-01178-GEB-DB Document 1 Filed 06/06/17 Page 5 of 18
Case 2:17-cv-01178-GEB-DB Document 1 Filed 06/06/17 Page 6 of 18
Case 2:17-cv-01178-GEB-DB Document 1 Filed 06/06/17 Page 7 of 18
Case 2:17-cv-01178-GEB-DB Document 1 Filed 06/06/17 Page 8 of 18
Case 2:17-cv-01178-GEB-DB Document 1 Filed 06/06/17 Page 9 of 18
Case 2:17-cv-01178-GEB-DB Document 1 Filed 06/06/17 Page 10 of 18
Case 2:17-cv-01178-GEB-DB Document 1 Filed 06/06/17 Page 11 of 18
Case 2:17-cv-01178-GEB-DB Document 1 Filed 06/06/17 Page 12 of 18
Case 2:17-cv-01178-GEB-DB Document 1 Filed 06/06/17 Page 13 of 18
Case 2:17-cv-01178-GEB-DB Document 1 Filed 06/06/17 Page 14 of 18
Case 2:17-cv-01178-GEB-DB Document 1 Filed 06/06/17 Page 15 of 18
Case 2:17-cv-01178-GEB-DB Document 1 Filed 06/06/17 Page 16 of 18
Case 2:17-cv-01178-GEB-DB Document 1 Filed 06/06/17 Page 17 of 18
Case 2:17-cv-01178-GEB-DB Document 1 Filed 06/06/17 Page 18 of 18
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
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
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
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
Case: 17-16586, 02/05/2018, ID: 10752613, DktEntry: 7-1, Page 2 of 12
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
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
28
Petition for En Banc– 3rd Removal – San Joaquin County Hospital v. Farzana Sheikh, M.D.
P a g e |i
Case: 17-16586, 02/05/2018, ID: 10752613, DktEntry: 7-1, Page 3 of 12
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
13
14 V. JURISDICTION..................................................................................................................... 5
24
25
26
27
28
Petition for En Banc– 3rd Removal – San Joaquin County Hospital v. Farzana Sheikh, M.D.
P a g e | ii
Case: 17-16586, 02/05/2018, ID: 10752613, DktEntry: 7-1, Page 4 of 12
9 to restore Access to Justice BOTH at local san Joaquin county court and
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
28 cannot be heard by the local county court for lack of Jurisdiction. Any Judge of
Petition for En Banc– 3rd Removal – San Joaquin County Hospital v. Farzana Sheikh, M.D.
P a g e |1
Case: 17-16586, 02/05/2018, ID: 10752613, DktEntry: 7-1, Page 5 of 12
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
Petition for En Banc– 3rd Removal – San Joaquin County Hospital v. Farzana Sheikh, M.D.
P a g e |2
Case: 17-16586, 02/05/2018, ID: 10752613, DktEntry: 7-1, Page 6 of 12
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
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
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
Petition for En Banc– 3rd Removal – San Joaquin County Hospital v. Farzana Sheikh, M.D.
P a g e |3
Case: 17-16586, 02/05/2018, ID: 10752613, DktEntry: 7-1, Page 7 of 12
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
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
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.
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
Petition for En Banc– 3rd Removal – San Joaquin County Hospital v. Farzana Sheikh, M.D.
P a g e |5
Case: 17-16586, 02/05/2018, ID: 10752613, DktEntry: 7-1, Page 9 of 12
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
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
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
Petition for En Banc– 3rd Removal – San Joaquin County Hospital v. Farzana Sheikh, M.D.
P a g e |6
Case: 17-16586, 02/05/2018, ID: 10752613, DktEntry: 7-1, Page 10 of 12
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
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
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
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
Petition for En Banc– 3rd Removal – San Joaquin County Hospital v. Farzana Sheikh, M.D.
P a g e |7
Case: 17-16586, 02/05/2018, ID: 10752613, DktEntry: 7-1, Page 11 of 12
13 the judiciary in Article III of the Constitution. In this case, the two most relevant
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
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
23 ----------------------------------
Rehan Sheikh and
24
Date: February 5, 2018 Farzana Sheikh M.D.
25 Appellant(s)
26
27
28
Petition for En Banc– 3rd Removal – San Joaquin County Hospital v. Farzana Sheikh, M.D.
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
Defendants-Appellants.
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.
AFFIRMED.
Case:
Case:17-16586,
17-16586,02/05/2018,
10/19/2017,ID:
ID:10752613,
10623778,DktEntry:
DktEntry:7-3,
4, Page
Page11ofof22
Defendants-Appellants.
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-
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
Case 2:10-cv-00213-FCD-GGH Document 49 Filed 06/18/2010 Page 2 of 2
Case 2:10-cv-00213-FCD-GGH Document 80 Filed 09/21/10 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:10-cv-00213-FCD-GGH Document 80 Filed 09/21/10 Page 2 of 2
lIDMUNDG. BROWN JR.
AttDrney General
•
Case 2:10-cv-00213-FCD-GGH Document 91 Filed 10/06/10 Page 3 of 3
September 21,2010
RECEIVED
BvU.S.Mall
Farzana Sheikh SEP Z3211
P.O. Box 869
FreaGh Camp, CA- 95231
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
SKM:sw
SF2010400249
20344OOl.doc
EDMUND G. BROwN JR.
Attorney GtmllraJ
•
Case 2:10-cv-00213-FCD-GGH Document 91 Filed 10/06/10 Page 1 of 3
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'~
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
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
Case 2:14-cv-01509-MCE-AC Document 7 Filed 08/11/14 Page 2 of 10
The Honorable Allison Claire
August 11 , 2014
Page 2
We request that the above identified documents be stricken. Thank you for your
consideration.
JMM:kr
Attachments
c: Farzana Sheikh, 1219 West El Monte Street, Stockton, CA 95207
Case 2:14-cv-01509-MCE-AC Document 7 Filed 08/11/14 Page 3 of 10
X I IT
Case 2:14-cv-01509-MCE-AC Document 7 Filed 08/11/14 Page 4 of 10
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
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
Case 2:14-cv-01509-MCE-AC Document 7 Filed 08/11/14 Page 5 of 10
We would request that Mr. Sheikh's pleading be stricken. Thank you for your
consideration with respect to the above.
Sincerely,
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
FARZANZA SHEIKH ,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
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
Sheikh’s claim that she was denied the opportunity to file objections to the
magistrate’s orders.
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
Case: 10-17098 04/18/2011 Page: 58 of 66 ID: 7719802 DktEntry: 27-1
Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991). In the Eastern District, Local Rule
persona.
This procedure was followed in this case. When filed, the action was
13-14.) Judge Damrell considered the objections and the proposed findings
case. (ER 13-14.) Accordingly, Sheikh was not denied an Article III judge.
47
EXHIBIT 4
EXHIBIT 4-1
Case: 16-15692, 06/07/2017, ID: 10463815, DktEntry: 12, Page 1 of 1
Defendants-Appellees.
Appellant’s motion for an extension of time to file the opening brief (Docket
Appellant’s motion to correct court docket (Docket Entry No. 10) is denied.
appellees, briefing will be complete upon the filing of the opening brief.
FG/MOATT
Case: 16-15692, 10/19/2017, ID: 10624117, DktEntry: 17, Page 1 of 1
Defendants-Appellees.
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
Briefing is complete.
FG/MOATT