214 CV 751 GEB AC.34

Case 2:14-cv-00751-GEB-AC Document 34 Filed 07/23/14 Page 1 of 15
2
3
4
5
REHAN SHEIKH, In Pro Per

1219 W. El Monte Street
Stockton, California 95207
Telephone:
(209) 475.1263
rehansheikh@yahoo.com
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
SACRAMENTO DIVISION
10
11
12
13
REHAN SHEIKH
Plaintiff,
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
CASE NO: 2: 14 CV- 7 5 1 GEB AC
v.
Brian Kelly
Secretary, California State Transportation
Agency
Defendant
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND

AUTHORITIES
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION
and
Mark Tweety
Manager, Department of Motor Vehicles
Defendant
FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE

RELIEF
21
Date
August 13, 2014
22
Time
10:00 AM
23
Judge : Hon. Allison Claire
24
25
26
27
28
Memorandum of Points and Authorities - Motion for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

1
2
3
Table of Contents
4
5
I.
BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................................... 4
A.
Defendants Suspended Plaintiffs Driving License without Pre Deprivation
Hearing via an Anonymous Order in December 2011 ......................................................... 4
B.
Deprivation Hearing since January 2012 ............................................................................... 5
Defendants have denied to issue a Written Notice of Denial and Post
10
C.
11
Plaintiffs Failure to Appear is thoughtful ............................................................................ 5
12
D.
13
II.
A.
14
Defendants claim that defendants do not have Burden of Proof to demonstrate
Traffic Citations were previously withdrawn, or pending or resolved .................. 6

Defendants Accusations of Failure to Appear are fluid............................................. 8
Plaintiffs Request for Admission - for Clarification ................................................ 10
15
III.
16
without verification ........................................................................................................................ 10
17
IV.
18
19
20
25
26
A.
Defendants Demand for Reexamination is a disguised Catch 22...................... 10
B.
Defendants Arbitrary demand for plaintiffs Reexamination violates Equal
C.
22
24
Defendants Arbitrarily Demand for Driving, Written & Medical tests .................. 10
Protection Clause of the United States Constitution ......................................................... 11
21
23
The DMV undermined its Independence by relying on Third Party information
[For their Convenience] Defendants assume plaintiffs inability to drive car and
demand Reexamination as Pre condition for Hearing...................................................... 12

V.
The DMVs Anonymous Order improperly Suspended Plaintiffs Driving License
without Pre Deprivation Hearing ............................................................................................... 13

A.
The DMV has denied Post Deprivation Hearing since Dec 2011 .......................... 14
27
VI.
Summary ............................................................................................................................... 14
28
VII. Statement of Cases in Eastern District of California.................................................. 15

P a g e |2

1
2
Table of Authorities
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
CASES
Bell v Burson,
402 U.S. 535 (1971) ................................................................................................................. 13
Collins v. City of Harker Heights,
503 U.S. 115 (1992) ................................................................................................................. 14
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Perkins v. City of West Covina,

113 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 1997) ............................................................................................... 13
Reno v Flores,
507 U.S. 292 (1993) ................................................................................................................. 12
Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners,
353 U.S. 232 (1957) ................................................................................................................ 12
19
20
21
Stanely v Illinois,
405 US 645 (1972) ................................................................................................................... 13
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
P a g e |3

1
2
3
Plaintiff submits this Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of his Motion
for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief dated July 14. The Motion is set for hearing on
August 13, 2014.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
I. BACKGROUND
A. Defendants Suspended Plaintiffs Driving License without Pre
Deprivation Hearing via an Anonymous Order in December 2011
1. The defendants sent an anonymous ORDER OF SUSPENSION to plaintiff that
13
was generated by a computer program. That Order dated Dec 05, 2011, stated;
14
YOUR DRIVING PRIVILEGE IS SUSPENDED AS OF JAN 04, 2012. &
15
The suspension will remain in effect until all Failures to Appear (FTA) and Failures
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
to Pay a fine pursuant to section 42003(A) have been removed from your record.
a. The Order of Suspension did not state name of a judge or any other person
who was authorized to sign such an order.
b. The Order of Suspension did not state any emergency that mandated
suspension of plaintiffs driving license without pre deprivation hearing.
c. The Order of Suspension did not state how plaintiff can remedy the situation
and renew his driving license.
2. Since that Order of Suspension, on multiple occasions, plaintiff appeared before the
DMV and also before the San Joaquin County Court; Defendants refused to note
plaintiffs appearance and refused to undo the Suspension. Defendants continue to
P a g e |4

1
2
3
suspend plaintiffs driving license.
4
5
6
7
B. Defendants have denied to issue a Written Notice of Denial and Post

Deprivation Hearing since January 2012
3. On multiple occasions (since 2012) plaintiff requested the DMV to renew his
driving license. On each occasion defendants denied renewal of plaintiffs driving
license without any written notice of denial. Defendants had a mandatory duty to
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
issue a Written Notice of denial stating the specific allegations so that plaintiff
could respond to those accusations.
4. Defendants diligently Failed to Perform their mandatory duty to issue a written
Notice of Denial. Defendants actions and/or inactions resulted in deprivation of
plaintiffs driving license and constituted violation of Due Process clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
18
5. The DMV declined to specify the alleged Failure to Appear stating that DMV does
19
not maintain such information. Since the defendants did not know any specific
20
details of alleged Failure to Appear, defendants failed to state a claim.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
C. Defendants claim that defendants do not have Burden of Proof to

demonstrate Plaintiffs Failure to Appear is thoughtful
6. The DMV claimed that the DMV does NOT have a burden of proof to demonstrate
plaintiffs Failure to Appear. The DMV claimed that the Burden of Proof was on
plaintiff to demonstrate that there was no Failure to Appear. Defendants assertion
28
P a g e |5

1
2
3
that defendants do not have a Burden of Proof to demonstrate their accusations,
places an unbearable burden on plaintiff.
7. Defendants claim that defendants do not have Burden to Prove plaintiffs Failure
to Appear is well planned. On multiple occasions when plaintiff appeared before
7
8
San Joaquin County Superior Court, plaintiff requested the Court staff to give him
a proof of his appearance; the Court staff denied plaintiff request. The Court staff
10
refused to simply write down on a piece of paper confirming plaintiffs appearance.
11
12
D. Traffic Citations were previously withdrawn, or pending or resolved
13
8. After plaintiff filed the complaint with this Court, the DMV issued Two (2) written
14
Notices of denial dated May 6, 2014 and April 25, 2014. The Notices of Denial
15
stated two traffic citations dated Feb 16, 2014 1 and August 11, 2011 2 and also
16
17
18
i.
19
20
Traffic Citation dated February 16, 2012

Police officer stopped Plaintiff. Police officer informed plaintiff that he was stopped (allegedly)
for crossing a red light.
ii.
One officer searched plaintiffs car without plaintiffs permission. The other officer took
21
plaintiffs driving license, car keys, called for a towing truck and possessed plaintiffs car. A
22
third Police person arrived who introduced himself as Sergeant. The plaintiff was taken to a
City police facility, then he was taken to the County Jail.
23
iii.
24
As plaintiff was being booked in the County Jail, police officer (who issued the citation) asked
Jail officer to give him back a paper where police officer added multiple traffic citations. The
25
booking police officer had a conversation with the Jail police officer.
26 iv.
The Jail Police officer started interrogation. Plaintiff said sir, I exercise my right to Fifth
27
Amendment. Then several police officers surrounded plaintiff; inquiring officer became very
28
loud saying, I will ask you one more time [or else]; Plaintiff said, Sir, I take the fifth.
P a g e |6

1
2
3
added two accusations of unspecified Failure to Appear. On or around May 23,
2012 3 there was a trial at the San Joaquin County Superior Court in connection
5
6
v.
Plaintiff was moved with force to a special place merely for exercising his Constitutional
Right to Fifth Amendment. Plaintiff remained deprived of critical medicine (including insulin)
and remained subconscious. Late night /early morning Plaintiffs vitals were unstable; he was
taken to the County Hospital Emergency and was brought back to the Jail.
10 vi.
On or around Feb 17, 2012 (Friday noon time), plaintiff was released from Jail. In the lobby
area, outside the Jail, plaintiff called his wife who came to bring him home. As plaintiff and his
11
wife were about to leave from the parking lot, a High ranking individual from Sheriffs office
12
accompanied by a Sergeant and an officer asked the Officer to book plaintiff one more time.
13
The High Ranking Sherriff told plaintiff, Im going to spend the weekend at home and you will
14
spend the weekend in Jail.
15 vii.
Plaintiff was again made to spend two more days in the County Jail before he was released on
16
late Sunday afternoon. During that time, Plaintiff often remained subconscious and his requests
for medical attention were denied.
17
18
viii.
That was not the first or the last time when City Police and/or County Sheriff department
undertook unprofessional and adverse actions against plaintiffs family. San Joaquin County
19
undersheriff sent an email to plaintiff April 5, 2013 that stated in Bold letters;
20
I DONT WANT TO EVER HEAR FROM YOU AGAIN!
21
22
Traffic Citation dated August 11, 2011

i.
23
Plaintiff was stopped a few yards from his home and was given a citation for allegedly not
completely stopping at a Stop sign and (allegedly) for lack of Proof of Insurance.
24
ii.
25
The ticket was given by a police officer who was parked on the perpendicular street facing
the opposite direction. So the officer had no possibility of viewing the stop line.
26
27
28
Trial dated May 23, 2012

i.
A trial was held at San Joaquin County Superior Court in connection with the two traffic
P a g e |7

1
2
with those traffic citations.
3
4
5
6
II. Defendants Accusations of Failure to Appear are fluid

9. Defendants failed to state any specific date when plaintiff was supposed to appear
and defendants failed to state that plaintiff did not appear. Defendants failed to
state whether any Judge determined Failure to Appear or it is merely an
9
10
accusation asserted via its computer programs. Defendants accusations are merely
11
presumptuous. Only proof defendants offer for plaintiffs alleged Failure to Appear
12
is their supposition that plaintiff did not appear.
13
14
10. Defendants remain confused whether there is any Failure to Appear. Since
15
citations. The Court addressed only alleged Failure to completely Stop at the Stop sign dated
16
August 11, 2011. All other allegations in the traffic citations dated August 11, 2011 and
17
February 16, 2012 were previously resolved or withdrawn. (Now defendants again introduce
18
that traffic citation after plaintiff asked this Court to review continued denial of his driving
19
20
license.)
ii.
city of Stockton and had no Jurisdiction to issue ticket.
21
22
The police officer who issued the citation was present. The police officer did not work for
iii.
In the Court proceedings, the police officer was not able to identify the location where he
was parked at the time he issued the ticket; and stated, I do not have good recollection of the
23
event on that day. The Court recorded the conversations.

24
25
iv.
The Hon. Judge commented, We can issue the license if [then there was no guidance].
v.
The Hon. Judge announced to issue his opinion later. The Court also explained an appellate
26
procedure before three judge panel if any party disagreed with its opinion. Plaintiff and his
27
wife thanked the court.
28
vi.
The Court has not issued its opinion until now.

P a g e |8

1
2
3
plaintiff filed this complaint, the DMV sent two Written Notices of Denial to
plaintiff. In one of those Notices, defendant continue to claim a Failure to Appear
(FTA) while in the other Notice of denial the DMV state that plaintiff has cleared
the Failure to Appear 4 5. Plaintiff sought clarification from the Deputy Attorney
General in his letter dated July 9, 2014 and inquired,
Did the defendants remove the alleged FTA or not?
9
10
11. Defendants have the capability to improvise their unspecified and unwritten
11
allegations of FTA. Defendants continue to improvise their unspecified accusations.
12
13
14
15
16
a.
The letter from DMV dated May 6, 2014 stated,
17
Since then, the DMV records show that you have cleared this FTA, However, the DMV
18
records show that you have failed to pay (FTP) the fine for your August 8, 2011,
Vehicle Code Violations.
19
b. The letter from DMV dated April 25, 2014, stated;
20
Once the FTA and FTP are cleared with Stockton Superior Court, you will need to
21
contact Stockton Driver Safety Office at (209) 948-7715 to schedule an interview to discuss
22
the priority reexamination referral of 02/16/2012. Part of that interview will involve a
23
written law test, vision test and drive test; However, these tests cant be administered if FTA
24
suspension remains in effect.
25
5
26
27
28
The letter from DMV dated April 25, 2014, incorrectly stated;
[Plaintiff] scheduled a reexamination for March 26,2012 at2:30 PM; however, [Plaintiff]
failed to appear and the suspension remains in effect.
Defendants forgot that on that date, Plaintiff went to DMV Sacramento office.
P a g e |9

1
2
3
4
5
A. Plaintiffs Request for Admission - for Clarification

12. Plaintiff has not missed any Court hearing. Plaintiff has submitted a Request for
Admission and a response from defendants is pending.
6
7
8
9
10
III.
The DMV undermined its Independence by relying on Third Party

information without verification
13. The DMV is assumed to be an independent agency; the DMV is mandated to issue
11
driving license based on an individuals ability to drive car. In this case, the DMV
12
received incomplete information irrelevant to plaintiffs ability to drive car, and
13
14
15
suspended plaintiffs driving license without any independent verification. The

DMV denied plaintiffs license whenever it received instructions.
16
17
18
19
IV.Defendants Arbitrarily Demand for Driving, Written & Medical tests

14. Defendants arbitrarily demand plaintiffs driving tests, written tests and
unspecified Medical tests. Defendants label all of those tests as Reexamination.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
A. Defendants' Demand for Reexamination is a disguised Catch 22

15. Defendants demand that before taking Reexamination, plaintiff remove the alleged
Failure to Appear. Then defendants refuse to provide any hearing that would
remove that alleged Failure to Appear.
16. Defendants claim their ability to deny an individuals driving license even after
completing such a reexamination. Defendants stated in their brief (P 8);
28
P a g e | 10

1
2
3
If after completing the reexamination the DMV does not remove the
suspension form plaintiffs license, he may seek a judicial review.
B. Defendants Arbitrary demand for plaintiffs Reexamination violates
6
7
8
9
Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution

17. Defendants excuses for arbitrarily demanding plaintiffs written, driving and
medical tests remain unsettled. Police issued traffic citation to plaintiff and
10
somehow police requested 6 the DMV for plaintiffs reexamination. Only
11
justification for reexamination is that because police said so.
12
13
18. Police issues millions of citations every year to California drivers, the defendants
14
do not demand all drivers to take driving and medical tests. Here police issued a
15
traffic citation to plaintiff and defendants arbitrarily demands plaintiffs driving
16
and medical tests. The California Department of Justice does not refer all drivers
17
for such a reexamination when police issues traffic citations. The California
18
19
Department of Justice does not refer drivers for reexamination even when drivers
20
are involved in traffic accidents.
21
The federal courts are concerned when such requirements are not applied to all
22
applicants. A state cannot exclude a person from [driving license] in a manner or
23
for reasons that contravene the due process or equal protection clauses. Schware v.
24
25
26
reexamination. In their legal brief, defendants stated;
The defendants mention traffic citation issued by police as justification for polices request for
27
This police report is in reference to the notice of priority reexamination that
28
plaintiff received because of numerous traffic violations.[February 16, 2012]

P a g e | 11

1
2
3
Board of Bar Examiners, 353 U.S. 232 (1957).
19. The defendants have refused a hearing that would determine polices interest for
requesting plaintiffs reexamination. The city police that issued a request for
6
7
8
9
plaintiffs reexamination, do not respond to traffic accidents. If by chance, police

officers are present at the scene of an accident, they do not even issue a report.
C. [For their Convenience] Defendants assume plaintiffs inability to drive
10
11
car and demand Reexamination as Pre condition for Hearing
12
20. Plaintiff contested defendants arbitrary demand for re-examination before DMV
13
on or around March 26, 2012. Plaintiff requested an administrative hearing that
14
could determine the justification for such a re-examination. The DMV denied an
15
16
17
administrative hearing and demanded that plaintiff submit to re-examination as a

pre-condition for his request for administrative hearing.
18
21. Defendants demand for plaintiffs reexamination is based on their supposition that
19
somehow plaintiff cannot drive a car. Rather than proving their claim, for their
20
convenience, defendants rely on their supposition that plaintiff cannot drive car.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
a. Due Process Clause of the Constitution mandates a similar result here.

[The defendants] insists on presuming rather than proving [Plaintiffs]
unfitness solely because it is more convenient to presume than to prove.
Reno v Flores, 507 U.S. 292 (1993).
b. The Supreme Court has unambiguously clarified such issue in cases; Bell v
Burson, 402 U.S. 535 (1971) and Stanely v Illinois, 405 US 645 (1972).
28
P a g e | 12

1
2
3
The State could not, while purporting to be concerned with fault in
suspending a driver's license, deprive a citizen of his license without a
hearing that would assess fault. Absent fault, the State's declared interest
was so attenuated that administrative convenience was insufficient to excuse
7
8
a hearing where evidence of fault could be considered.

Stanely v Illinois, 405 US 645 (1972)
9
10
11
V. The DMVs Anonymous Order improperly Suspended Plaintiffs Driving

License without Pre Deprivation Hearing
12
22. The DMV sent an anonymous Order of Suspension for an alleged Failure to Appear
13
and deprived plaintiff of his driving license without any pre deprivation hearing.
14
15
No Judge had signed such an order to suspend plaintiffs driving license. Even
16
though the suspension could theoretically be reversed by an immediate hearing
17
and or remedial procedures, nonetheless, such a suspension immediately deprived
18
plaintiff of driving license.
19
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has previously held that;
20
21
22
23
24
Temporary, non final deprivation of property is nonetheless deprivation

subject to due process requirements of Fourteenth Amendment.
Perkins v. City of West Covina, 113 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 1997)
23. At the time defendants suspended plaintiffs driving license, there was no Natural
25
disaster or any other emergency that inhibited defendants ability to provide pre
26
deprivation hearing; yet defendant suspended plaintiffs driving license.
27
28
P a g e | 13

1
2
3
"[T]he Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to
prevent government `from abusing [its] power, or employing it as an instrument
of oppression." Collins v. City of Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115 (1992).
A. The DMV has denied Post Deprivation Hearing since Dec 2011
7
8
9
24. On multiple occasions, plaintiff requested defendants for post deprivation

administrative hearing but defendants denied plaintiffs requests. Defendants had
10
a Constitutional duty to timely provide meaningful procedures to ensure that
11
plaintiff is not erroneously deprived of his driving license. As a result of
12
defendants willful Failure to Perform their duty, plaintiff was wrongfully
13
deprived of his driving license without due process of law.
14
15
16
17
VI.Summary
25. At the very minimum, the Due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
18
mandates that deprivation of driving license be preceded by a written Notice of
19
Denial and a hearing. Defendants suspended plaintiffs driving license in December
20
2011 for an alleged Failure to Appear without pre deprivation hearing. On a
21
22
number of occasions, Plaintiff appeared before the DMV and before the Judge, yet
23
defendants continue to allege unspecified Failure to Appear. Defendants continue
24
to deny plaintiffs driving license. Defendants have denied all requests for post
25
deprivation hearing.
26
27
28
26. Plaintiff requests the court for a Declaratory Relief that Defendants above
referenced actions and/or inactions constituted violation of Due Process clause of
P a g e | 14

1
2
3
the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiff suffered hardship; Plaintiff requests the
Court to award compensatory damages. Plaintiff requests the court for an
Injunctive Relief mandating defendants to renew his driving license.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
VII.
Statement of Cases in Eastern District of California
Plaintiff and his wife are parties in the following cases;

1) San Joaquin (County) General Hospital v Farzana Sheikh, MD
Case Number: 2:14 CV 1509 MCE - AC
2) Farzana Sheikh MD v Medical Board of California
Case Number: 2:10 CV 213 FCD - GGH
3) Rehan Sheikh v Brian Kelly (DMV)
Case Number: 2: 14 CV 751 GEB - AC
16
Respectfully Submitted;
17
18
/s/ Rehan Sheikh
19
20
21
Date: July 23, 2014
---------------------------------Rehan Sheikh
Plaintiff
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
P a g e | 15

214 CV 751 GEB AC.34

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

214 CV 751 GEB AC.34

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 2:14-cv-00751-GEB-AC Document 34 Filed 07/23/14 Page 1 of 15

REHAN SHEIKH, In Pro Per

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CASE NO: 2: 14 CV- 7 5 1 GEB AC

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND

IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION

FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE

August 13, 2014

Judge : Hon. Allison Claire

Case 2:14-cv-00751-GEB-AC Document 34 Filed 07/23/14 Page 2 of 15

Defendants Suspended Plaintiffs Driving License without Pre Deprivation

Hearing via an Anonymous Order in December 2011 ......................................................... 4

Deprivation Hearing since January 2012 ............................................................................... 5

Defendants have denied to issue a Written Notice of Denial and Post

Plaintiffs Failure to Appear is thoughtful ............................................................................ 5

Defendants claim that defendants do not have Burden of Proof to demonstrate

Traffic Citations were previously withdrawn, or pending or resolved .................. 6

without verification ........................................................................................................................ 10

Defendants Demand for Reexamination is a disguised Catch 22...................... 10

Defendants Arbitrary demand for plaintiffs Reexamination violates Equal

Protection Clause of the United States Constitution ......................................................... 11

The DMV undermined its Independence by relying on Third Party information

demand Reexamination as Pre condition for Hearing...................................................... 12

The DMVs Anonymous Order improperly Suspended Plaintiffs Driving License

without Pre Deprivation Hearing ............................................................................................... 13

VII. Statement of Cases in Eastern District of California.................................................. 15

Case 2:14-cv-00751-GEB-AC Document 34 Filed 07/23/14 Page 3 of 15

Perkins v. City of West Covina,

Case 2:14-cv-00751-GEB-AC Document 34 Filed 07/23/14 Page 4 of 15

August 13, 2014.

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

Case 2:14-cv-00751-GEB-AC Document 34 Filed 07/23/14 Page 5 of 15

suspend plaintiffs driving license.

B. Defendants have denied to issue a Written Notice of Denial and Post

driving license. On each occasion defendants denied renewal of plaintiffs driving

details of alleged Failure to Appear, defendants failed to state a claim.

C. Defendants claim that defendants do not have Burden of Proof to

Case 2:14-cv-00751-GEB-AC Document 34 Filed 07/23/14 Page 6 of 15

that defendants do not have a Burden of Proof to demonstrate their accusations,

places an unbearable burden on plaintiff.

to Appear is well planned. On multiple occasions when plaintiff appeared before

refused to simply write down on a piece of paper confirming plaintiffs appearance.

D. Traffic Citations were previously withdrawn, or pending or resolved

Traffic Citation dated February 16, 2012

Case 2:14-cv-00751-GEB-AC Document 34 Filed 07/23/14 Page 7 of 15

added two accusations of unspecified Failure to Appear. On or around May 23,

spend the weekend in Jail.

I DONT WANT TO EVER HEAR FROM YOU AGAIN!

Traffic Citation dated August 11, 2011

Trial dated May 23, 2012

Case 2:14-cv-00751-GEB-AC Document 34 Filed 07/23/14 Page 8 of 15

II. Defendants Accusations of Failure to Appear are fluid

state whether any Judge determined Failure to Appear or it is merely an

is their supposition that plaintiff did not appear.

city of Stockton and had no Jurisdiction to issue ticket.

event on that day. The Court recorded the conversations.

wife thanked the court.

The Court has not issued its opinion until now.

Case 2:14-cv-00751-GEB-AC Document 34 Filed 07/23/14 Page 9 of 15

plaintiff. In one of those Notices, defendant continue to claim a Failure to Appear

General in his letter dated July 9, 2014 and inquired,

Did the defendants remove the alleged FTA or not?

allegations of FTA. Defendants continue to improvise their unspecified accusations.