CA9!14!16858-9-1 DMV's Initial Brief
CA9!14!16858-9-1 DMV's Initial Brief
CA9!14!16858-9-1 DMV's Initial Brief
14-16858
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
REHAN SHEIKH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
BRIAN KELLY, Secretary, California
State Transportation Agency; MARK
TWEETY, Manager, Department of Motor
Vehicles,
Defendants and Appellees.
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
No. 2:14-cv-751 GEB AC PS
The Honorable Garland E. Burrell, Judge
APPELLEES ANSWERING BRIEF
KAMALA D. HARRIS
Attorney General of California
SUSAN E. SLAGER
Acting Senior Assistant Attorney
General
DAVID J. NEILL
Supervising Deputy Attorney
General
MATTHEW T. BESMER
Deputy Attorney General
State Bar No. 269138
2550 Mariposa Mall, Room 5090
Fresno, CA 93721
Telephone: (559) 477-1680
Fax: (559) 445-5106
Email: Matthew.Besmer@doj.ca.gov
Attorneys for Appellees Brian Kelly,
Secretary, California State
Transportation Agency; and Mark
Tweety, Manager Department of Motor
Vehicles
(2 of 217)
Case: 14-16858, 04/29/2015, ID: 9519243, DktEntry: 9-1, Page 2 of 43
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Introduction .................................................................................................1
Issues Presented ........................................................................................... 2
Statement of the Case................................................................................... 3
I.
B.
C.
D.
E.
II.
III.
II.
III.
(3 of 217)
Case: 14-16858, 04/29/2015, ID: 9519243, DktEntry: 9-1, Page 3 of 43
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
Page
B.
IV.
B.
Conclusion ................................................................................................. 33
Statement of Related Cases ........................................................................ 34
ii
(4 of 217)
Case: 14-16858, 04/29/2015, ID: 9519243, DktEntry: 9-1, Page 4 of 43
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page
CASES
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (2009) ......................................................................... 16, 17
Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.) Inc.
631 F.3d 939 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc) .................................................. 17
Colony Cove Props., LLC v. City of Carson
640 F.3d 948 (9th Cir. 2011) .................................................................. 15
Dixon v. Love
431 U.S. 105 (1977) ............................................................................... 29
Estelle v. Gamble
429 U.S. 97 (1976)................................................................................. 17
Illinois v. Batchelder
463 U.S. 1112 (U.S. 1983) ............................................................... 19, 20
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America
511 U.S. 375 (1994) ............................................................................... 17
Kushner v. Shiomoto
2014 Cal. App. Unpub. .................................................................... 23, 24
Laisne v. California State Board of Optometry
19 Cal. 2d 831 (Cal. 1942) ..................................................................... 24
Litmon v. Harris
768 F.3d 1237 (9th Cir. 2014) ................................................................ 31
Mackey v. Montrym
443 U.S. 1 (1979)............................................................................passim
Mathews v. Eldridge
424 U.S. 319 (1976) ................................................................... 15, 20, 26
iii
(5 of 217)
Case: 14-16858, 04/29/2015, ID: 9519243, DktEntry: 9-1, Page 5 of 43
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
(continued)
Page
Multistar Indus. v. United States DOT
707 F.3d 1045 (9th Cir. 2013) ................................................................ 17
People v. Bailey
133 Cal. App. 3d Supp. 12 (Cal. App. Dep't Super. Ct. 1982) .......... 22, 23
Pollack v. Dep't of Motor Vehicles
38 Cal. 3d 367 (Cal. 1985) ..................................................................... 29
Rector v. City & County of Denver
348 F.3d 935 (10th Cir. 2003) ................................................................ 18
Roelfsema v. Department of Motor Vehicles
(1995) 41 Cal.App.4th 871..................................................................... 29
Wash. Legal Found. v. Legal Found. of Wash.
271 F.3d 835 (9th Cir. 2001) .................................................................. 17
Williams v. Department of Motor Vehicles
2 Cal. App. 3d 949 (Cal. App. 1969)...................................................... 23
Wright v. Riveland
219 F.3d 905 (9th Cir. 2000) ............................................................ 19, 27
STATUTES
California Code of Regulations
Title 13, 100.01(a)(1)-(6) ................................................................ 7, 25
California Evidence Code
664 ...................................................................................................... 29
iv
(6 of 217)
Case: 14-16858, 04/29/2015, ID: 9519243, DktEntry: 9-1, Page 6 of 43
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
(continued)
Page
California Vehicle Code
12804.9(a)(1)(A)-(E) ............................................................................6
12807(a).......................................................................................... 7, 18
12807(c).......................................................................................... 7, 18
12818 ............................................................................................ 27, 32
12818(a)................................................................................................6
12818(b) ........................................................................................... 6, 7
12819 ...........................................................................................passim
13106 ....................................................................................................4
13365(a)(2) ................................................................................. 3, 4, 15
13365(b) ................................................................................. 3, 4, 5, 21
13801 .................................................................................................. 25
13950 .................................................................................. 7, 16, 28, 32
14101(a).................................................................................... 8, 21, 25
21061(a).......................................................................................... 5, 29
21061(b) ...............................................................................................5
21062 .............................................................................................. 6, 32
40509.5(a) ............................................................................. 4, 5, 21, 22
40509.5(b) .................................................................................. 3, 4, 21
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
United States Constitution
Fourteenth Amendment ..................................................................passim
COURT RULES
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
12(b)(1).................................................................................................. 19
Federal Rules of Evidence
302 ......................................................................................................... 29
(7 of 217)
Case: 14-16858, 04/29/2015, ID: 9519243, DktEntry: 9-1, Page 7 of 43
INTRODUCTION
In January 2012, the California Department of Motor Vehicles denied
Rehan Sheikhs request to renew his drivers license because he had failed to
appear in court on a traffic citation. Despite the suspension, Sheikh
continued to drive. He was stopped in February 2012, for multiple traffic
violations. He was arrested that day and issued a traffic citation, and a
notice requiring him to retake the drivers license exam to demonstrate his
fitness for diving. Sheikh, however, refused to complete the exam on March
26, 2012. Sheikh subsequently appeared in traffic court for his first citation.
On May 23, 2012, he was found guilty and ordered to pay a fine. Sheikh,
however, has refused to pay that fine, and he has refused to resolve the
outstanding failure to appear for his February 2012 traffic citation. Each of
these refusals provide separate grounds to suspend Sheikhs license. After
Sheikh clears his traffic fine and failure to appear with the San Joaquin
County Superior Court, and after he successfully completes the
reexamination of his driving privileges, the DMV will lift the suspensions.
On March 24, 2014, Sheikh filed a complaint for injunctive and
declaratory relief seeking renewal of his drivers license. He alleged that his
Fourteenth Amendment due process rights had been violated because he had
not been provided with an administrative hearing to review his license
1
(8 of 217)
Case: 14-16858, 04/29/2015, ID: 9519243, DktEntry: 9-1, Page 8 of 43
(9 of 217)
Case: 14-16858, 04/29/2015, ID: 9519243, DktEntry: 9-1, Page 9 of 43
when he failed to allege an equal protection claim in his complaint, and even
if he did, the claim could not be brought against the California Department
of Motor Vehicles?
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
I.
STATUTORY FRAMEWORK
A.
(10 of 217)
Case: 14-16858, 04/29/2015, ID: 9519243, DktEntry: 9-1, Page 10 of 43
takes effect. See Cal. Veh. Code 13365(b), 13106(a). Once the fine is
fully paid, the magistrate or clerk of the court shall issue and file with the
department a certificate showing that the fine or bail has been paid. Cal.
Veh. Code 40509.5(b). The suspension continues until the licensees
driving record does not contain any notifications for failure to pay a fine.
Cal. Veh. Code 13365(b).
B.
(11 of 217)
Case: 14-16858, 04/29/2015, ID: 9519243, DktEntry: 9-1, Page 11 of 43
(12 of 217)
Case: 14-16858, 04/29/2015, ID: 9519243, DktEntry: 9-1, Page 12 of 43
21062. Within five days of receipt, the DMV is required to enter the
notice onto the persons driving record. Id. The person must request
reexamination during those five days, or the persons license will be
suspended. Cal. Veh. Code 12819. The suspension remains in effect until
the person has completed the reexamination, and the DMV determines
whether to take remedial action, if any, such as suspending, revoking, or
restricting the persons license. Cal. Veh. Code 12819, 12818(a)-(b).
A reexamination includes a test of the applicants knowledge and
understanding of the rules of the road, the ability to read and understand
simple English used on traffic signs, the understanding of traffic signs and
signals, an actual demonstration of the ability to operate a motor vehicle, a
hearing and eyesight test, and other matters that may be necessary to
determine the applicants mental and physical fitness to operate a motor
vehicle. Cal. Veh. Code 12804.9(a)(1)(A)-(E).
A person issued a notice of reexamination is deemed to have refused
the reexamination if he or she doe not appear as scheduled, fails to provide
information requested by the DMV, fails to complete a drive test (if
required), fails to complete a vision examination (if required), is not
responsive to questions during the reexamination, or the department does not
(13 of 217)
Case: 14-16858, 04/29/2015, ID: 9519243, DktEntry: 9-1, Page 13 of 43
timely receive a medical examination (if required). Cal. Code Regs., tit. 13,
100.01(a)(1)-(6).
After a licensee completes the reexamination, the DMV will decide
whether to restrict the license, suspend the license, or revoke the license.
Cal. Veh. Code 12818(b). If the DMV proposes to take adverse action
based on the results of the examination, the licensee is entitled to notice and
an opportunity to be heard before the action takes effect. Cal. Veh. Code
13950.
D.
(14 of 217)
Case: 14-16858, 04/29/2015, ID: 9519243, DktEntry: 9-1, Page 14 of 43
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On August 11, 2011, Sheikh was cited for failing to stop at a stop sign,
and for not having proof of insurance. Appellants Brief (App. Brief)
8:17-23; Appellees Excerpts of Record filed herewith (E.R.) (Doc. 45)
00128:22-26; Request for Judicial Notice filed herewith (RJN), Ex. A.
Sheikh did not initially appear in court on this citation. E.R. (Doc. 45)
00125:5-12. The DMV mailed a notice to Sheikh dated December 5, 2011,
advising him that his license would be suspended effective January 4, 2012,
until all failures to appear and pay fines were removed from his driving
record. Id.; App. Brief, 1:10-15; 8:6-12. Around the beginning of January
2012, Sheikh applied to renew his drivers license. E.R. (Doc. 1) 00003: 8.
The DMV, however, informed Sheikh that he was ineligible to renew his
license because of the failure to appear on his driving record. Id. at 9.
Even though his license had been suspended, Sheikh continued to
drive. On February 16, 2012, Sheikh was stopped for multiple traffic
violations. App. Brief, 8:24-28. According to Sheikh, the officers
continued to add traffic citations (6-7) until he was arrested and booked
8
(15 of 217)
Case: 14-16858, 04/29/2015, ID: 9519243, DktEntry: 9-1, Page 15 of 43
into county jail. App. Brief, 9:3. Sheikh was cited for speeding, two red
signal violations, driving with a suspended license, failing to provide proof
of financial responsibility, failing to yield to emergency vehicles, and
following too closely. RJN, Ex. B. According to Sheikh, he was released
from jail five days later on February 17, 2012. App. Brief, 9:18.
Sheikh was issued a notice of priority reexamination in connection with
his February 12, 2012 traffic violations which he has characterized as an
arbitrary demand for a driving test, written test, and unspecified medical
tests. App. Brief, 21:5-8, 18-19. Sheikh admits that he refused to complete
the reexamination on March 26, 2012, and instead, demanded an
administrative hearing. App. Brief, 23:18-21. The DMV maintains that the
notice of suspension for his refusal to complete the reexamination was
timely issued, and Sheikh concedes that in the course of this litigation he has
received further notice from the DMV advising him of the need to schedule
an interview with DMVs Driver Safety Office to complete a written law
test, vision test, and a driving test. App. Brief, 12:14-20.
On or about May 23, 2012, Sheikh appeared in court on his August 11,
2011 traffic citation and he was found guilty and ordered to pay a fine. App.
Brief, 10:3-8; E.R. (Doc. 45) 00127:17-28; RJN, Ex. A. During the hearing
on Defendants motion to dismiss on August 22, 2014, Sheikh admitted that
9
(16 of 217)
Case: 14-16858, 04/29/2015, ID: 9519243, DktEntry: 9-1, Page 16 of 43
he had not paid this fine. Motion to Dismiss Hearing Transcript (TR.)
17:1-19. As of May 21, 2014, the San Joaquin County Superior Court traffic
court records also show that Sheikh has an outstanding failure to appear for
his February 12, 2012 traffic citation, and that a bench warrant was issued
for his arrest. RJN, Exs. A and B.
III. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Sheikh filed a complaint against the DMV for injunctive and
declaratory relief in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of California on March 24, 2014. E.R. (Doc. 1) 00001. Sheikh asserted five
counts for alleged violations of substantive and procedural due process
under the Fourteenth Amendment. E.R. (Doc. 1) 00001-000010. Sheikh
initially alleged that the DMV failed to provide written notice of his license
suspensions (E.R. (Doc. 1) 00004: 11, 15; 00005: 21), but he has since
admitted that he did in fact receive written notice of the first suspension on
December 5, 2011. App. Brief, 1:10-13; TR. 6:14-16. Sheikh also alleged
that the DMV violated his due process rights by not providing a predeprivation or post-deprivation hearing in connection with the suspensions.
E.R. (Doc. 1) 00003:8; 00004:11, 12, 15; 00005:21, 22. Sheikh
further alleged the DMV did not provide him with a remedial procedure to
allow him to renew his drivers license. E.R. (Doc. 1) 00007:31, 36;
10
(17 of 217)
Case: 14-16858, 04/29/2015, ID: 9519243, DktEntry: 9-1, Page 17 of 43
(18 of 217)
Case: 14-16858, 04/29/2015, ID: 9519243, DktEntry: 9-1, Page 18 of 43
(19 of 217)
Case: 14-16858, 04/29/2015, ID: 9519243, DktEntry: 9-1, Page 19 of 43
(20 of 217)
Case: 14-16858, 04/29/2015, ID: 9519243, DktEntry: 9-1, Page 20 of 43
police station, Sheikh continued to refuse to sign the citation and was
booked into the San Joaquin County Jail. Id. Sheikhs traffic violations and
behavior on February 12, 2012, lead the officer to issue Sheikh a notice of
priority reexamination. Id. The letter dated July 14, 2014, enclosed a copy
of a notice dated March 27, 2012, which advised Sheikh that his driving
privileges would remain suspended until he successfully completes the
reexamination. E.R. (Doc. 39) 00098.
On August 22, 2014, United State Magistrate Judge Allison Claire
issued an Order and Findings and Recommendation to dismiss Sheikhs
complaint without leave to amend. E.R. (Doc. 44) 00111-00119. The court
found that Sheikh had been provided with written notice of his license
suspensions and that he had an adequate remedial procedure to address the
suspensions for his failure to pay and failure to appear through the traffic
court. E.R. (Doc. 44) 00117:1-3, 00117:26-00118:5. As to the
reexamination, the court found that Sheikh was not entitled a hearing before
submitting to the examination because if Sheikhs license was suspended
after he completed the reexamination, he would be entitled to a remedial
hearing. E.R. (Doc. 44) 00118:6-25. The court declined to rule on the
DMVs standing and mootness arguments. E.R. (Doc. 44) 00114:10-12,
00119:17. Sheikh filed objections to the magistrate judges findings and
14
(21 of 217)
Case: 14-16858, 04/29/2015, ID: 9519243, DktEntry: 9-1, Page 21 of 43
(22 of 217)
Case: 14-16858, 04/29/2015, ID: 9519243, DktEntry: 9-1, Page 22 of 43
suspensions for failing to pay fines or appear in court. Here, Sheikh has
refused to avail himself of this due process.
California law requires the DMV to suspend a drivers license when the
licensee has failed to schedule and complete a reexamination of his driving
privileges within five days of receiving notice of the reexamination. Cal.
Veh. Code 12819. The Fourteenth Amendment does not require the DMV
to provide an administrative hearing before, or after, suspending a license for
refusing to complete the reexamination because sufficient due process exists
to protect against erroneous suspensions, and a remedial procedure exists to
allow Sheikh to remove the suspension by successfully completing the
reexamination. Cal. Veh. Code 12819. If the DMV takes further action
against his license after he completes the reexamination, Sheikh is entitled to
a hearing to review the DMVs decision. Cal. Veh. Code 13950. Sheikh,
so far, has refused to avail himself of this due process.
ARGUMENT
I.
(23 of 217)
Case: 14-16858, 04/29/2015, ID: 9519243, DktEntry: 9-1, Page 23 of 43
marks omitted). A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads
factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Id.
Generally speaking, pro se complaints must be liberally construed and
held to less stringent standards than pleadings prepared by lawyers. See,
e.g., Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). But a liberal
interpretation of a . . . civil rights complaint may not supply essential
elements of the claim that were not initially pled. Chapman v. Pier 1
Imports (U.S.) Inc., 631 F.3d 939, 954 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (citation and
quotation marks omitted).
II.
claim. Wash. Legal Found. v. Legal Found. of Wash., 271 F.3d 835, 847
(9th Cir. 2001). To satisfy Article III standing, a plaintiff must show (1) an
injury in fact, (2) a causal connection between the injury and the challenged
action, and (3) that it is likely and not merely speculative that the injury will
be redressed by a favorable decision. Multistar Indus. v. United States DOT,
707 F.3d 1045, 1054 (9th Cir. 2013). Plaintiff has the burden of establishing
jurisdiction. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S.
375, 377 (1994) (stating that [i]t is to be presumed that a cause lies outside
17
(24 of 217)
Case: 14-16858, 04/29/2015, ID: 9519243, DktEntry: 9-1, Page 24 of 43
18
(25 of 217)
Case: 14-16858, 04/29/2015, ID: 9519243, DktEntry: 9-1, Page 25 of 43
(26 of 217)
Case: 14-16858, 04/29/2015, ID: 9519243, DktEntry: 9-1, Page 26 of 43
factors: first, the private interest that will be affected by the official action;
second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the
procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute
procedural safeguards; and third, the Government's interest, including the
function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the
additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail. Batchelder,
463 U.S. at 1117 (quoting Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976)).
Sheikhs procedural due process claims fail as a matter of law because
the statutory framework for suspending drivers licenses comports with
Mathews.
A.
20
(27 of 217)
Case: 14-16858, 04/29/2015, ID: 9519243, DktEntry: 9-1, Page 27 of 43
First, Sheikh has complete control over the length of his license
suspension. Sheikh may address his outstanding fine and failure to appear
with the San Joaquin County Superior Court, but so far, he has refused to do
so. Second, a detailed statutory framework governs the process for
suspending licenses to guard against errors and provides a remedial process
to remove the suspensions. The DMV was required to suspend Sheikhs
license when it received notice from the San Joaquin County Superior Court
that he had failed to appear in court and pay a fine. Cal. Veh. Code
13365(a)(2), 40509.5(a)-(b). Sheikh had at least 60 days after the DMV
first received notice of his delinquency, and 30 days after he received notice
of the suspension to resolve the issues before the suspensions took effect.
Cal. Veh. Code 13365(b), 13106. Because the suspensions were
mandatory, Sheikh was not entitled to an administrative hearing under
California law. See Cal. Veh Code 14101(a).
The DMV will remove the failure to pay suspension when the clerk of
the San Joaquin County Superior Court files a certificate showing that the
fine or bail has been paid. Cal. Veh. Code 40509.5(b). As of August 22,
2014, Sheikh had not paid his fine for his August 11, 2011 traffic citation.
TR. 17:18-19. When Sheikh satisfies the courts order to appear on his
February 16, 2012 traffic citation, the court clerk will file a certificate of
21
(28 of 217)
Case: 14-16858, 04/29/2015, ID: 9519243, DktEntry: 9-1, Page 28 of 43
compliance, and the DMV will remove the failure to appear suspension.
Cal. Veh. Code 40509.5(a).
Requiring the DMV to provide Sheikh with an adjudicatory hearing
would add minimal, if any, procedural safeguards to protect against an
erroneous suspension. The hearing would do no more than confirm that the
DMV does not have the certificates of compliance to clear the suspensions.
Two California courts have held that the statutory framework for suspending
licenses for failing to appear and pay a fine comports with due process. The
former appellate department of the Los Angeles County Superior Court
stated that:
It would be a legal absurdity to require the Department
of Motor Vehicles to grant a hearing on the question of
whether a person did in fact violate his written promise
to appear on a traffic citation, when the court where
appearance was required has already made such a
finding. (See Veh. Code 40509, subd. (a).) n3 If the
defaulting citee has a valid excuse for his
nonappearance, the place to submit his explanation is in
the court, not before the department.
People v. Bailey, 133 Cal. App. 3d Supp. 12, 15 (Cal. App. Dep't Super. Ct.
1982). The Bailey court concluded that the determination of license
suspension by the Department of Motor Vehicles without affording the
licensee an opportunity for a hearing beyond the court appearances directed
by the summons on the traffic citations sufficiently complies with due
22
(29 of 217)
Case: 14-16858, 04/29/2015, ID: 9519243, DktEntry: 9-1, Page 29 of 43
process. Id. at 16 (citing Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535, 541-42 (1971)).
More recently, the California Court of Appeal held in an unpublished
opinion that due process doe not require the DMV to provide a licensee with
a hearing before suspending his license for failing to pay a fine. Kushner v.
Shiomoto, 2014 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 6626 (Cal. App. 2014).
The statutory framework for suspending licenses for failing to appear
and pay a fine holds drivers accountable for their traffic violations and
undoubtedly furthers the states legitimate interest in public safety. Without
such a procedure, the noncomplying drivers could continue to violate
highway safety regulations without consequence.
If Sheikh contends that the traffic court records are in error (i.e., he has
paid his fine or appeared in court) and that the certificates of compliance
should have been issued, his remedy is to file a petition for writ of mandate
directly against the San Joaquin County Superior Court. Williams v.
Department of Motor Vehicles, 2 Cal. App. 3d 949, 953-54 (Cal. App. 1969)
(individual whose license was suspended by the DMV pursuant to a
mandatory provision in the Vehicle Code had to seek a writ of mandamus
directly against the criminal court to challenge the validity of one of his
convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol). The DMV does not
have authority to review the accuracy of the San Joaquin County Superior
23
(30 of 217)
Case: 14-16858, 04/29/2015, ID: 9519243, DktEntry: 9-1, Page 30 of 43
(31 of 217)
Case: 14-16858, 04/29/2015, ID: 9519243, DktEntry: 9-1, Page 31 of 43
(32 of 217)
Case: 14-16858, 04/29/2015, ID: 9519243, DktEntry: 9-1, Page 32 of 43
belated request, and his license was summarily suspended for 90 days
because of his initial refusal. Id. In applying the Mathews factors, the
Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Massachusetts implied
consent statute and found that it did not violate the Fourteenth Amendments
due process clause. Id. at 19.
Weighing in favor of constitutionality, the Supreme Court noted
Montryms right to an immediate post-suspension hearing. [W]hen prompt
postdeprivation review is available for correction of administrative error, we
have generally required no more than that the predeprivation procedures
used be designed to provide a reasonably reliable basis for concluding that
the facts justifying the official action are as a responsible governmental
official warrants them to be. Mackey, 443 U.S. at 13. Further, the Court
asserted that the length of the deprivation is an important factor when
assessing the impact official action has on a private interest, and in regards
to Montrym, his license was suspended for only 90 days. Id. at 12. Finally,
considering the public safety interest in removing intoxicated drivers from
the road, the Supreme Court recognized that [a] presuspension hearing
would substantially undermine the state interest in public safety by giving
drivers significant incentive to refuse the breath-analysis test and demand a
presuspension hearing as a dilatory tactic. Id. at 18.
26
(33 of 217)
Case: 14-16858, 04/29/2015, ID: 9519243, DktEntry: 9-1, Page 33 of 43
Vehicle Code sections 12818 and 12819 provide an adequate predeprivation procedure that guards against errors, just as the pre-deprivation
procedure did in Mackey. There is no dispute that Sheikh refused to
complete the reexamination on or about March 26, 2012, and that section
12819 required an automatic suspension based on that refusal. 2 App. Brief,
21:17-20; 23:17-19. A pre-suspension hearing would add little, if any,
procedural safeguards. The hearing would do no more than establish that
Sheikh refused to complete the reexamination. 3
The Vehicle Code provides post-suspension due process by giving
Sheikh the right to schedule and complete a reexamination, similar to the
right Montrym had to an immediate post-suspension hearing in Mackey. See
Cal. Veh. Code 12818 (the suspension continues until the person
2
(34 of 217)
Case: 14-16858, 04/29/2015, ID: 9519243, DktEntry: 9-1, Page 34 of 43
(35 of 217)
Case: 14-16858, 04/29/2015, ID: 9519243, DktEntry: 9-1, Page 35 of 43
29
(36 of 217)
Case: 14-16858, 04/29/2015, ID: 9519243, DktEntry: 9-1, Page 36 of 43
30
(37 of 217)
Case: 14-16858, 04/29/2015, ID: 9519243, DktEntry: 9-1, Page 37 of 43
Sheikh points out that on February 12, 2012, he was issued a citation,
and a notice of reexamination. App. Brief, 21:17-21. He claims that the
[o]nly justification for reexamination is that because police said so. App.
Brief, 21:20-21. Sheikh further argues that Police does not refer all drivers
for such a reexamination when police issues traffic citations. App. Brief,
22:4-5. Sheikhs argument is about how the citing police officer allegedly
treated him unequally or in an arbitrarily or capricious manner. Sheikhs
equal protection claim, if one exists, would be against the police officer and
his law enforcement agency, not the DMV.
(38 of 217)
Case: 14-16858, 04/29/2015, ID: 9519243, DktEntry: 9-1, Page 38 of 43
(39 of 217)
Case: 14-16858, 04/29/2015, ID: 9519243, DktEntry: 9-1, Page 39 of 43
CONCLUSION
This Court should affirm the dismissal without leave to amend of
Sheikhs complaint because he failed to allege a Fourteenth Amendment due
process claim.
Respectfully submitted,
KAMALA D. HARRIS
Attorney General of California
ALICIA M. B. FOWLER
Senior Assistant Attorney General
DAVID J. NEILL
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
/S/ Matthew T. Besmer
MATTHEW T. BESMER
Deputy Attorney General
Attorneys for Appellees Brian Kelly,
Secretary, California State Transportation
Agency; and Mark Tweety, Manager
Department of Motor Vehicles
SA2014118327
95139163.doc
33
(40 of 217)
Case: 14-16858, 04/29/2015, ID: 9519243, DktEntry: 9-1, Page 40 of 43
14-16858
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
REHAN SHEIKH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
BRIAN KELLY, Secretary, California
State Transportation Agency; MARK
TWEETY, Manager, Department of Motor
Vehicles,
Defendants and Appellees.
STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES
To the best of our knowledge, there are no related cases.
Dated: April 29, 2015
Respectfully Submitted,
KAMALA D. HARRIS
Attorney General of California
SUSAN E. SLAGER
Acting Senior Assistant Attorney General
DAVID J. NEILL
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
/s/ Matthew T. Besmer
MATTHEW T. BESMER
Deputy Attorney General
Attorneys for Appellees Brian Kelly,
Secretary, California State Transportation
Agency; and Mark Tweety, Manager
Department of Motor Vehicles
34
(41 of 217)
Case: 14-16858, 04/29/2015, ID: 9519243, DktEntry: 9-1, Page 41 of 43
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
PURSUANT TO FED.R.APP.P 32(a)(7)(C) AND CIRCUIT RULE 32-1
FOR 14-16858
I certify that: (check (x) appropriate option(s))
x
1. Pursuant to Fed.R.App.P. 32(a)(7)(C) and Ninth Circuit Rule 32-1, the attached
opening/answering/reply/cross-appeal brief is
Proportionately spaced, has a typeface of 14 points or more and contains 7,347 words
(opening, answering and the second and third briefs filed in cross-appeals must not exceed
14,000 words; reply briefs must not exceed 7,000 words
or is
Monospaced, has 10.5 or fewer characters per inch and contains ____ words or ___ lines of
text (opening, answering, and the second and third briefs filed in cross-appeals must not exceed
14,000 words or 1,300 lines of text; reply briefs must not exceed 7,000 words or 650 lines of
text).
2. The attached brief is not subject to the type-volume limitations of Fed.R.App.P. 32(a(7)(B)
because
This brief complies with Fed.R.App.P 32(a)(1)-(7) and is a principal brief of no more than 30
pages or a reply brief of no more than 15 pages.
or
This brief complies with a page or size-volume limitation established by separate court order
dated ______________ and is
Proportionately spaced, has a typeface of 14 points or more and contains ______________
words,
or is
Monospaced, has 10.5 or fewer characters per inch and contains __ pages or __ words or __
lines of text.
3. Briefs in Capital Cases.
This brief is being filed in a capital case pursuant to the type-volume limitations set forth at Circuit
Rule 32-4 and is
Proportionately spaced, has a typeface of 14 points or more and contains ______________
words (opening, answering and the second and third briefs filed in cross-appeals must not
exceed 21,000 words; reply briefs must not exceed 9,800 words).
or is
Monospaced, has 10.5 or fewer characters per inch and contains __ words or __ lines of text
(opening, answering, and the second and third briefs filed in cross-appeals must not exceed 75
pages or 1,950 lines of text; reply briefs must not exceed 35 pages or 910 lines of text).
(42 of 217)
Case: 14-16858, 04/29/2015, ID: 9519243, DktEntry: 9-1, Page 42 of 43
4. Amicus Briefs.
Pursuant to Fed.R.App.P 29(d) and 9th Cir.R. 32-1, the attached amicus brief is proportionally
spaced, has a typeface of 14 points or more and contains 7,000 words or less,
or is
Monospaced, has 10.5 or few characters per inch and contains not more than either 7,000
words or 650 lines of text,
or is
Not subject to the type-volume limitations because it is an amicus brief of no more than 15
pages and complies with Fed.R.App.P. 32 (a)(1)(5).
4/29/15
Dated
(43 of 217)
Case: 14-16858, 04/29/2015, ID: 9519243, DktEntry: 9-1, Page 43 of 43
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Case Name:
No.
14-16858
I hereby certify that on April 29, 2015, I electronically filed the following documents with the
Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system:
APPELLEES' ANSWERING BRIEF
Participants in the case who are registered CM/ECF users will be served by the CM/ECF system.
I am employed in the Office of the Attorney General, which is the office of a member of the
California State Bar at which member's direction this service is made. I am 18 years of age or
older and not a party to this matter. I am familiar with the business practice at the Office of the
Attorney General for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United
States Postal Service. In accordance with that practice, correspondence placed in the internal
mail collection system at the Office of the Attorney General is deposited with the United States
Postal Service with postage thereon fully prepaid that same day in the ordinary course of
business.
I further certify that some of the participants in the case are not registered CM/ECF users. On
April 29, 2015, I have caused to be mailed in the Office of the Attorney General's internal mail
system, the foregoing document(s) by First-Class Mail, postage prepaid, or have dispatched it to
a third party commercial carrier for delivery within three (3) calendar days to the following nonCM/ECF participants:
Rehan Sheikh
1219 W. El Monte Street
Stockton, CA 95207
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California the foregoing is true
and correct and that this declaration was executed on April 29, 2015, at Fresno, California.
Terri E. Broderick
Declarant
95139179.doc