Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 4

Case: 10-17098 03/02/2011 Page: 1 of 4

ID: 7664720 DktEntry: 19

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

FARZANA SHEIKH, M.D., In Pro Per P.O. Box 869 French Camp, CA 95231 Telephone: (209) 982 9039 Prepared by; Rehan Sheikh, rehansheikh@yahoo.com

THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS (SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION)

FARZANA SHEIKH, M.D. Plaintiff, v. MEDICAL BOARD OF CALIFORNIA Defendant and STATE OF CALIFORNIA Defendant

CA9 No.

10 17098

District Court No. 2:10-cv-00213 FCD Eastern District of California PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ON (SUMMARY) DENIAL OF HER MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (Denied on Feb 11, 2011) Ninth Circuit Rule 27-10 FRAP 8 42 U.S.C. 1981 42 U.S.C. 1983 18 U.S.C. 1341

Case: 10-17098 03/02/2011 Page: 2 of 4

ID: 7664720 DktEntry: 19

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
1 2

I. INTORDUCTION 1. Plaintiff1 Farzana Sheikh2, M.D. hereby respectfully comes before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and submits this Motion for Reconsideration on (summary) Denial of her Motion for Injunctive Relief. 2. Dr. Sheikh submitted her Motion for Injunctive Relief on December 14, 2010 and in that Motion she had requested the Court to approve her Application for Physicians and Surgeons License. The Court denied Dr. Sheikhs Motion for Injunctive Relief on February 11, 2011 without a review of merits of the Motion. The order denying Dr. Sheikhs Motion for Injunctive Relief stated, The previously established briefing schedule remains in effect. 3. On or around Feb 28, 2011 the defendants submitted a Motion for extension of time to respond to the opening brief requesting an additional 45 days, in addition to allotted 30 days, to respond to the opening brief. 4. The Ninth Circuit Court Rule 27-10 prescribes a procedure for a Motion for Reconsideration. Dr. She ikhs Motion for Injunctive Relief was denied on February 11, 2011 (Friday). The Ninth Circuit Rule describes a 14 day timeline to submit a Motion for Reconsideration. That 14 day period expired on or around Friday February 25, 2011. Under the circumstance, Dr. Sheikh requests the Court to waive a two day delay in submitting this Motion for Reconsideration and she requests that this Court grant Reconsideration on her Motion for Injunctive Relief on merits of her arguments.

The terms Plaintiff and Petitioner may have been interchanging in the Motion. Petitioner Farzana Sheikh, M.D. is hereby referred as Dr. Sheikh for clarification. Dr. Sheikhs Motion for Reconsideration on (Summary) Denial of her Motion for Injunctive Relief Farzana Sheikh, M.D. v. Medical Board of California et al
Page | 1

Case: 10-17098 03/02/2011 Page: 3 of 4

ID: 7664720 DktEntry: 19

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

II. DISCUSSION AND ARGUMENTS 5. In the Motion for Injunctive Relief Dr. Sheikh argued that she is eligible for license to practice Medicine in the State of California. 6. In the Motion for Injunctive Relief Dr. Sheikh argued that 1) the defendants had maintained a discriminatory policy towards women physicians 2) the defendants maintained harsher policy towards physicians who oppose illegal discrimination. 7. Dr. Sheikh alleged that denial of her application for Physicians license by defendants is Discriminatory and that the defendants violated her Constitutional Rights. This is within domain of the Federal Court(s) to protect inalienable Rights of all individuals of the United States. 8. In the Motion for Injunctive Relief, Dr. Sheikh had argued for the likelihood of her success and further, she also demonstrated irreparable harm. 9. Similar views were expressed by the office of State Attorney General in an Amicus Brief that was submitted with this Court earlier this morning that stated (Perry v. Schwarzenegger), As Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervenor have demonstrated, the likelihood that the appeal will succeed on the merits and Each one of those days, loved ones have been lost, moments have been missed, and justice has been denied. 10. As the United States Supreme Court put it, the practice of one's chosen profession ... is not a matter of the State's grace. (Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, 353 U.S. 232 (1957). 11. Dr. Sheikh in her Motion for Injunctive Relief is primarily pleading that she has reliably practiced as a physician and she wants to continue to practice her profession so that she can earn her livelihood. Dr. Sheikhs request is consistent with her fundamental Rights and is consistent with the Public Policy of the State to enhance access to healthcare.
Dr. Sheikhs Motion for Reconsideration on (Summary) Denial of her Motion for Injunctive Relief Farzana Sheikh, M.D. v. Medical Board of California et al
Page | 2

Case: 10-17098 03/02/2011 Page: 4 of 4

ID: 7664720 DktEntry: 19

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Dr. Sheikhs Motion for Reconsideration on (Summary) Denial of her Motion for Injunctive Relief Farzana Sheikh, M.D. v. Medical Board of California et al
Page | 3

12. Defendants have had an opportunity to oppose Dr. Sheikhs Motion for Injunctive Relief and defendants have not attempted to present any opposition. 13. Dr. Sheikhs Motion for Injunctive Relief will not only affirm Dr. Sheikhs Civil and Constitutional rights but will also result in general welfare of patient population of County of San Joaquin specifically declared as underserved for acute shortage of Primary Care Physicians. III. PRAYER

14. Dr. Sheikh respectfully prays before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal to grant a merit review of her Motion for Injunctive Relief and allow her to practice her profession. Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Farzana Sheikh Date: March 2, 2011 ---------------------------------Farzana Sheikh, M.D. Pro Se