Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
NAUSHEEN ZAINULABEDDIN
PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT
v.
_________________________________________________________
REPLY BRIEF
APPELLANT
Nausheen Zainulabeddin
4730 South Woodlawn Ave. Apt 3D
Chicago, IL 60615
nausheenkhawaja@gmail.com
Pro Se
Nausheen Zainulabeddin v. University of South Florida Board of Trustees,
Appeal No. 17-11888, Appeal No. 17-12134 and Appeal no. 17-12376
26.1, Appellant, Pro Se hereby certifies that following persons and entities
Judge:
Plaintiff/Appellant:
Defendant/Appellee:
Trustees
Adamchak, Joanne
Burford, Roberta
C-1 of 5
Cook, Marissa
Estevez, Michelle, MD
Kumar, Ambuj, MD
Kumar, Mudra, MD
Liggett, Stephen, MD
Lockwood, Charles, MD
Lynch, Catherine, MD
Monroe, Alicia, MD
Roth, Debohrah, MD
Schultz, Daniel
Sinnott, John, MD
C-2 of 5
Skalkos, Olga, PhD
Stevenson, Frazier, MD
Stock, Sandra, MD
Valeriano, Joanne, MD
Zwygart, Kira, MD
Financial Interest
Aga Khan Education Board: Tuition Reimbursement
damages
C-3 of 5
U.S. Department of Education, Federal Student Loan Servicing
collateral damages
Other Interest:
Office.
C-4 of 5
Velez, Melanie: OCR office Director
________________________________
Nausheen Zainulabeddin
Nausheen Zainulabeddin
4409 West Varn Avenue
Tampa, FL 33616
nausheenkhawaja@gmail.com
C-5 of 5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT............................................................1
II. ARGUMENT....................................................................................2
D. Abandoned Claims.................................................................17
IV. CONCLUSION.................................................................................33
i
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE............................................................35
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE......................................................................36
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES PAGE
Bragdon v. Abbot.,
524 U.S. 624, 631-32, 118 S. Ct. 2196, 141 L.Ed.23 540 (1998).......19
Cort v. Ash.,
422 U.S. 66, 78 (1975). ...................................................................16
iii
Frame v. City of Arlington.,
575 F. 3d 432, 433 (5th Cir. 2009). .................................................5
Garg v. Potter.,
521 F. 3d 731, 736 (7th Cir. 2008) ...................................................19
Guiltburt v. Gardner.,
480 F. 3d 140, 149 (2nd Cir. 2007)....................................................10
Havs v. Johnson.,
566 S. 3d 260, 261 (Fla. Dist. App. 5th 1990) ....................................20
Heins v. Potter.,
271, F. Supp. 2d 545 (SDNY 2003)....................................................14
Hook v. McDade.,
89 F. 3d 350, 355 (7th Cir. 1996).........................................................30
Hutchins v. Hutchins.,
501 S. 2d. 722, 723 (Fla. Dist. App. 5th 1987)....................................20
iv
Lee v. Trustees of Dartmouth College.,
958 F. Supp. 37 (D.N.H. 1997) ..........................................................29
Ormiston v. Nelson.,
117 F. 3d. 69, 71 (2nd Cir. 1997).........................................................10
Randall v. Scott.,
610 F. 3d 71, 705 (11th Cir. 2010).....................................................32
Rotella v. Wood.,
528 U.S. 555 (2000) .........................................................................13
S.E.C. v. Elliott.,
953 F. 2d. 1560, 1582 (11th Cir. 1992)................................................8
Tennessee v. Lane.,
124 S. Ct. 1978 (2004)......................................................................16
v
United States v. DeTemple.,
162 F. 3d 279 (4th Cir. 1998) .............................................................30
Winchester v. Jackson.,
7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 515 (1806).............................................................32
Statutes
28 U.S.C. 144..............................................................................................30
28 U.S.C. 455...............................................................................................30
29 USC 295.................................................................................................19
42 U.S.C.A. 12131......................................................................................2
28 C.F.R. 35.105............................................................................................3
vi
Other Authorities
vii
I. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
The defendant cited the wrong standard for her civil claims, i.e. Title I of
ADA and Section 504. The district court should have applied Title II of
ADA since she was a medical student receiving federal student loans. She is
not an employee. Appellee brief had several issues including legal errors,
indicate that the defendant committed penalty of perjury (A-1 to 180; 303-
claims indicate the intention to sustain her claims. Appellee fail to state
relevant facts and address one of the critical issues in her appeal, i.e. de novo
1
application of Fallback Statute of Limitations 1658 based on context of the
case.
II. ARGUMENT
A. Wrong Standard
requires all events or activities at the public school be fully accessible and
1
Designation for “I.B”. “I.B” refers to page numbers for Appellant’s Initial Brief.
2
precluded under Title II from making unnecessary inquiries into the
35.105.
the issue was address by the 2008 ADA Amendments which changed and
Limitations 1658.
At the district court, Appellant was not afforded with the opportunity
2
NCD 2000 Report, supra note 109, at 7.
3
Laura Rothstein, Disability Discrimination Statutes or Tort Law: Which Provides the
Best Means to Ensure an Accessible Environment? 75 Ohio State Law Journal. 6 (2014)
3
brought forth issues in which her cause of action that were time-barred
would be sustained. This cause of action begins to run under the (1)
discovery rule when one learns of the injury (2) good faith negotiations to
state law governs the length of the limitation period, but federal law governs
the accrual of the limitation period. Appellee incorrectly states that the state
Defendant’s Brief, page 225). The authority cited, Ealy v. GEO Grp, Inc. is
inapplicable in this situation. Fed. Appx. 739 (11th Cir. 2016). Under Fla.
Stat. 95.11(3)(1), the claim arose in Fall of 2010 when Dr. Specter made
limitation begins to run under ADA cases (1) encounter or discovery rule (2)
5
Designation for “D.B”. “D.B” refers to page numbers for Defendant’s Brief.
4
date when the constructions are completed (3) date when the defendant
a. Discovery Rule
rule, the court determined that the cause of action is not complete, and the
limitations period does not begin, “until the plaintiff—a qualified individual
City of Arlington., 575 F. 3d 432, 433 (5th Cir. 2009). The court applied
Authority of New York and New Jersey. No. 07-2982, 2008 WL 852445. The
HIP court ruled that the discrimination was “continuing and the cause of
action was not complete until the plaintiffs were excluded by the
The principle governing the three rules at the court have applied to
Title II cases, is based on the tort principle, i.e. the cause of action for
6
Hill, E. & Blank, P. (2009). Future of Disability Rights: Part Three—Statutes of Limitations in
Americans with Disabilities Act, “Design and Construct” Cases, Syracuse Law Review, 60, 125-
159.
5
personal injury is not complete until an injury occurs. This is also consistent
violation of a legal right that is (a) concrete and particularized (b) actual or
imminent (I.B. 20-21). However, ADA does not have an accrual date for a
tort and due to that it relies on the state tort statutes of limitations. Thus,
40). Hence, the triggering date of statute of limitations is the date when the
entity provides the public services to people with disabilities that abide by
the Federal Agency guidelines and policies that enforce Title II and Section
504.
The district court held that plaintiff should have filed her claim by Fall
2014 pursuant to the state statute of limitations of four years. At that time,
she had filed her claims with U.S. Department of Education, Office of Civil
Rights on August 29, 2014 (I.B. 34-39). As a Fed loan financial aid
6
recipient, the appropriate agency to file her claim, prior to filing a lawsuit is
The Florida Supreme Court has made it clear that the statutory requirement
under Fla Stat. 768.28 (6)(a) of written notice is within three years of accrual
of the claim. Levine v. Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd. 442 So. 23 210, 212 (Fla. 1983).
7
Designation for “A”. “A” refers to the page number for Appellant’s Appendix
7
to be elements of the cause of action and shall not affect the date on
which the cause of action accrues.
Additionally, Fla Stat. 768.28 (6)(d) and Fla Stat. 95.11 (4)(b) is
appropriate for her state claims of negligence and breach of Fiduciary duty
based on cause of action for the two claims and not Fla Stat. 95.11 3(a)
based on facts and cause of action as stated in her brief. In Rennie &
Laughlin Inc. v. Chrysler Corp., the court stated in reference to Federal Rule
merits of any claim; and that a case should be tried substantially on the
merits rather than technically on the pleading. 242 F. 3d 208, 213 (9th Cir.
1957). This court in S.E.C. v. Elliott, stated that court provides pro se parties
wide latitude when construing their pleadings and papers. 953 F. 2d. 1560,
1582 (11th Cir. 1992). The colorable standards seem to allow procedural
and not the argument and well pleaded based on merits of the claim.8
8
Erik K. Yamamoto, Efficiency’s Threat to the Value of Accessible Courts
for Minorities, 25 HARV. C.R.-C.L. L. REV. 341 (1990).
8
In Appellant filed her claim to U.S. Department of Education, Office
of Civil Rights (“US DOE OCR”) that had same operative facts under the
common nucleus (I.B. 34-39). The federal agency accepted her claim to be
act of denial of her Petition for Readmission that contained all counts I to VI
were also sent to USF by the agency (I.B. 34, 37 and 39). Additionally, the
University was provided with her Petition for Readmission dated May 28,
2014 (which was the basis of her claim that was opened for investigation)
that contained claims all of her claims, including Count I and II (A-1832 to
A-1935 and I.B. 34, 35, 37)). The final agency decision by US DOE OCR
was rendered on December 16, 2015 (I.B. 38). The case was filed at the state
court on by her former counsel on Jan 22, 2016 (within 60 days after the
The district court determined that the argument set forth under
equitable estoppel did not apply to her claims and denied motion for
9
reconsideration9. On the contrary, Federal Circuit reviewed her Petition and
ruled on the merits of the case, but denied jurisdiction on July 27, 201710
(USCA FC 17-2083).
The tolling of time in state is when the cause of action arose (I.B 20-
21). For a federal question case, the court must look to federal common law
v. Gardner, 480 F. 3d 140, 149 (2nd Cir. 2007). Under federal law, the claim
does not accrue until plaintiff, “knows or has reason to know of injury which
is the basis for the action”. Ormiston v. Nelson, 117 F. 3d. 69, 71 (2nd Cir.
10
Appellant requested this court to allow her to brief her collateral issue in her initial
brief and provided FOIA response on September 5, 2017. The Appellee had agreed as
per e-mail exchange on August 22, 2017 that it was OK to include the FOIA response.
However, the Appellee moved to strike her Appeal that included the collateral issue
mentioned in her Motion for Reconsideration. Appellant did not want to be sanctioned
and lose her appeal at this court, hence, she filed a new brief without FOIA response
references on October 5, 2017 and the latter brief was approved as the initial brief and
Appellee’s motion for sanctions was denied on October 30, 2017. Appellant submitted a
Petition for Writ Certiorari for the Federal Circuit to the U.S. Supreme Court for her split
claims regarding the collateral issue of Tucker Act on October 26, 2017. This was one
day late, hence, she filed Motion to Direct the Clerk to File Petition out of Time, stating a
concern that her FTCA claim is near two-year expiration on December 15, 2017, yet
wanted to preserve judicial economy (final agency rendered on December 16, 2015 for
her OCR case no. 04-14-2487). The U.S. Supreme Court denied her motion on December
11, 2017 (17M65). Therefore, as stated in her Motion, she filed a complaint to U.S.
Federal Court of Claims on December 13, 2017.
10
1997). Federal Courts apply the discovery rule whenever statute is silent on
the issue of accrual. Connors v. Hallmark & Son Coal Co., 935 F 2d. 336
only after subsequent pleadings that her claim was not cognizable before the
enactment of the ADA Amendment Act of 2008. et al, No. 13-13279 (11th
Cir. 2014).
her disability, and misperceived that she did not have a disability from
since she was repeating the academic year in 2010-2011 (I.B. 15-20). Hence,
11
Defendant does not mention the pertinent facts and argument regarding ADAAA 2008
in their brief. Appellee states that since the Count I (breach of fiduciary duty) and II
(Negligence) was not technically mentioned in her brief; the claims abandoned. Though
the issues are broad and predominate all of her claims. Regardless, her initial complaint
states that Count III-VI, “paragraphs 1-125 of this complaint are hereby realleged as if
fully set forth herin”. Hence, the facts (not counts) in her complaint from number 1 to 125
are relevant.
11
Associate Dean of Student of Affairs, determined that the
the evaluator was equivocal and the student did not have a disability since
she was currently doing well in her classes (I.B 20-23). She was stated
“nothing came out of the report” (I.B 21). Hence, she relied on Dr. Specter
and believed she did not have ADHD, there was no need to be on
medications and did not have a disability (references in her brief were
provided to all USF counseling medical records indicating that she was not
on ADHD medications from May 2010 to Feb 2012) (IB. 13-30). When her
1, she went to Dr. Specter in October 2011 and asked if anything came out
of the report that she should know. He stated nothing came out of the report.
She ultimately, failed the second block and was dismissed in December
2011. Dr. Specter discriminated against her since he thought that if a student
had done well before without medications and accommodations, they do not
have any condition and the neuropsychological evaluation was sham. He did
not take into account, that the condition may be “invisible” in first year
12
activities) (I.B. 57-67). However, in second year she was not able to
compensate and her ADHD (that she did not know she had) exacerbated and
with disability services and her for accommodations nor did he inquire if she
was on ADHD medications. She failed the second block and ultimately
Under discovery rule the courts have determined that is when the
New England, 2006 WL 35267488 (D. Conn. 2006). Additionally, under the
discovery rule, once the plaintiff discovers or should have discovered the
fact of the injury and its cause, the cause of action accrues, even if it would
have impossible for the plaintiff to know that the injury was the result of
discrimination. Id. The clock starts upon the discovery of the injury with
exercise of reasonable diligence that one should have discovered, the critical
facts of the injury and its cause and no other elements of the claim. Rotella v.
Wood., 528 U.S. 555 (2000) (I.B. 8-26, 57-67). Appellant discovered that
13
Dr. Specter had discriminated against her from 2010-2012 on February 8,
continuously stating to her from 2010-2012 that she did not have a ADHD
diagnosis nor a disability (continual violation) (I.B. 20-23; 57-67). Under the
equitable tolling doctrine, the statute of limitations does not run against a
provide:
(C)An impairment that substantially limits one major life activity need
not limit other major life activity when active.
(D) (i) The determination of whether an impairment substantially
limits a major activity shall be made without regard to the
ameliorative effects of mitigating measures.
14
42 U.S.C. 12102(4).
and A-1 to 180). For Dr. Specter made a determination that she did not have
evaluation clearly stated she is eligible for services under ADA, Section 504.
He instead determined that since it was compensated, the report was sham,
equivocal and inconclusive. And when she did poorly in second year, he
discriminated against her and went against the counselors and physician
She followed the University guidelines and Dr. Specter’s referral to USF
preparation for her Dean’s Appeal; she discovered the truth (I.B 13- 23).
15
In Cada v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., the court stated in regards to the
date a statute of limitation expires, i.e. the accrual of the claim. “Accrual is
the date on which the statute of limitation begins to run.” 920 F. 2d 446, 450
(7th Cir. 1990). In federal question case, and under the discovery rule, the
date that matters are “on which plaintiff discovered he has been in injured”
Judicial Improvement Act of 1990, refers to civil actions that arise under the
acts of the Congress. 28 U.S.C 1658. The courts have recognized that when
an implied claim can arise under that statue due to acts of Congress; hence it
is the statutory language and the intent. Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66, 78 (1975).
Appellant referred her state sovereign immunity waiver for her civil claims
for Title II and not Rehabilitation Act. In Tennessee v. Lane, the congress
16
exercised power under section five of the 14th amendment to enforce the
(2004). The intent for the two federal statutes Title II of ADA and Section
The issues on appeal with respect to six claims are fully briefed with general
policies that might influence procedural laws. Appellant briefed her claims
in fact-pleading format for the court to determine the cause of action for her
civil claims. The Issue no. 2; in which Appellant stated if the Congress has
abrogated state sovereign immunity waiver for violation of due process and
equal protection clause to Title II claims for this case. The elements of
Count I, II and IV have the same operative facts from the common nucleus
of other claims in her complaint. The Title II of the ADA and 504 of the
review, and pursuant to Fed. Civ. R. P 8(a), she provided an argument for
17
the claims in which they are entitled to relief. She also provided essential
elements of the claim and provided relevant facts that state cause of action.
section and the issues in the Statement of Issue section, are broad. The
claims in the suit” (Issue no. 3), “Title II claims” (Issue no. 2), “civil claims”
(Issue no. 4) (I.B. 3-4). Appellant Issue statement, in the form of a question
In Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co. this court held that plaintiff
had abandoned arguments on appeal because it had listed only two issues.
No. 13-11558, 2014 WL 43895 (11th Cir. 2014). Additionally, the Sapuppo
grounds when it only made passing references in their brief. The plaintiff
some of the grounds. If the plaintiff had stated a broad issue statement, the
Eleventh Circuit would not have concluded that they had abandoned any
18
argument based on their issue statement. and did not mention issues that
Federal Courts have applied discovery rule for Title II of ADA claims.
Since same set of facts bring her claims pursuant to Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act. 29 USC 295(a). The court has held that since both
statutes are similar, hence, the courts have used the same precedent under
ADA to analyze Section 504 claims. Garg v. Potter., 521 F. 3d 731, 736 (7th
Cir. 2008) (“the elements of claims under the two provisions are nearly
identical, and precedent under one statute typically applies to the other.”). In
Bragdon v. Abbot, the court held that sustaining ADA claims is providing as
Rehabilitation Act, since the elements of the claims under the two provisions
are nearly identical. 524 U.S. 624, 631-32, 118 S. Ct. 2196, 141 L.Ed.23 540
(1998). Hence, Appellant has not abandoned her claims under Section 504.
19
F. ERRORS in APPELLE’S STATEMENT OF FACTS
but self-serving depositions in which her former counsel requested the court
for deleting critical language form the record, omitting material facts and
730 F. 2d 1476, 1486 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (the court assessed costs against the
counsel for deleting “critical language in quoting from the record”) (Havs v.
Johnson., 566 S. 3d 260, 261 (Fla. Dist. App. 5th 1990)(assessing counsel
fees for failing to include material facts) ( St. Lucie Harvesting &
1994) (criticizing counsel for misrepresenting facts that was a critical issue
quoted” in a brief. 501 S. 2d. 722, 723 (Fla. Dist. App. 5th 1987).
20
Following are the incorrect statements in Appellee’s statement of Facts
section:
blandly false, in which the only support that the Appelle provides
“sought treatment because she was doing poorly in her classes and
near the end of the Master’s program in July 2008 (I.B. 10).
21
sought help and was recommended to be tested for ADHD. She
in their brief, “she did not tell anyone at MCOM about her
“informal” ADHD diagnosis, and she did not indicate that she
diagnosis was informal and the tests conducted by the center were
not definitive (D.B. 5-6). The school still had knowledge of her
diagnosis since they had diagnosed her and also were treating her
MCAT) when she had done well in the master’s program and
improved her science GPA with 3.73 was not the sole basis for
22
facts in their brief (D.B. 5-7). In first semester of medical school,
i.e. molecular medicine block she passed above average and at that
done poorly in a cardiology exam (I.B. 13 to 14). This was the first
time she had failed an exam in first year of medical school. This
was in March 2010, however, prior to that, she was passing above
average (I.B. 11-13). the counsel stated that Dr. Specter had no
when she had disclosed her disability and met the appropriate
(D.B. 6-7). This is against the the and policies enforced by U.S.
states that
23
Associate Dean for Student Affairs will determine
reasonable course of action after consultation with
appropriate personnel. He will also work in association
with Student Disability Services to review the student’s
disability and recommend accommodations (A-109-110).
Dr. Specter had instructed as USF MCOM’s policy and met with
costed more than $2000. Appellant stated in her deposition that she
24
Appellant was not ill, she had done well prior to cardiology exam,
and she also did not want to waste a year of training and pay
for her disability when she had disclosed her disability and met the
Leave of Absence, that was not Appellant’s choice, but she was
25
disclosing to Dr. Specter regarding the “possible suggestion” from
Woods Associates (I.B. 13-16). Appellant was not ill, she had done
well prior to cardiology exam, and she also did not want to waste a
130 (2nd Cir. 2006). (Second Circuit remands case to lower court to
disability).
funeral ceremony was 12/10/12, which was also the day of her
26
since she was attending the funeral ceremony. Appellee
Prima Facie: Despite the fact that Appellant has provided summary
year” as the sole basis for their argument that Appellant is not
students (I.B. 27-30, 37, 39). She forced her to take exams on the
spot; when they had knowledge she was not prepared to “create
27
the extensions were not approved; Appellant took the exam on the
CBSE (Count VI): She has not abandoned this claim (I.B. pages
22-28, 46-50, 65). Appellee states in this section that “no one had
with the accommodations for her disability that she has been
a student for failure. Appellant took the CBSE after her dismissal
28
wrote the letter to NBME Disability Services dated March 28,
2013; after her dismissal (letter was fraudulent and would have led
(D.N.H. 1997).
Appellant has not abandoned her appeals. She has provided references
29
ties to the USF in February 2017. Honorable Judge Moody’s judicial
website does not indicate that he had former professional association (I.B. 68
v. DeTemple, the court held that recusal was unnecessary when the judge’s
prior professional association did not warrant recusal. 162 F. 3d 279 (4th Cir.
1998). However, in Hook v. McDade, the court held that recusal under
for Recusal and Motion for Reconsideration, provided the judge with
substantial evidence from the record and additional to support the record that
he had overlooked to correct the ruling of facts that were material to legal
conclusion.
of the judge in his judicial website since which one can assume is to
garnering trust in the community (I.B. pages 68-69). 28 U.S.C. 144 and 28
U.S.C. 455. (Section 455(a) and (b)(1) and b (4) of the Recusal Statute deals
30
with specific conflict of interest situation, appearance of partiality and
potential financial interest). Appellant’s former counsel did not address her
concern.
speculate that the Judge would not weigh the official student records,
respect to determining the relevant facts that are material to critical issues of
her claims (I.B. pages 67-69). Hence, she relied on her former counsel’s
1000, 1025 (7th Cir. 2000). The Brokaw court further stated that “reasonable
this recusal wasn’t required. Id. Therefore, Appellant requests this court for
31
City of Melbourne Fla., 731 F. 3d 1161 (11th Cir. 2013). Randall v. Scott,
her appeal to the appendices for her argument (I.B. 67-69). The honorable
entitled to tax costs. The district court should not have rendered the decision
515 (1806). Appellant stated to Judge Moody in her motion that she has no
financial means to even pay for her current living expenses. He stated in
response, that she should take more loans out from Student Fedloan
judgment (I.B. page 67- 69). Mann v. Taser Int’l , Inc., 588 F. 3d 1291, 1302
(11th Cir. 2009). Defendant cannot be the prevailing parties for abusive
decision also contradicted Magistrate Judge, and USCA for the Federal
12
Harper, Malicious Prosecution, False Imprisonment and Defamation, 15 TEX L. REV.
157 (1937).
32
Circuit who granted her in forma pauperis application based on genuine
sovereign immunity waiver under the Tucker Act and Federal Tort Claims
Act for her claims pending at this court for review. Her complaint at FCC
was reviewed on December 18, 2017 and she was granted expedited briefing
and bench trial. The court would benefit from FCC decision with respect to
IV. CONCLUSION
For the forgoing reasons and those set forth in Appellant’s opening
33
Dated: December 28, 2017
_____________________ _______________________
Nausheen Zainulabeddin
Tampa, FL 33616
nausheenkhawaja@gmail.com
34
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
_____________________________
Nausheen Zainulabeddin
Nausheen Zainulabeddin
4409 West Varn Avenue
Tampa, FL 33616
nausheenkhawaja@gmail.com
35
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on December 28, 2017, a true and correct copy of the
forgoing brief and appendices, with first class postage prepaid has been
deposited in the U.S. Mail and filed with the Clerk of the Court for the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit and counsel for the defendant-
appellee.
Defendant-Appellee(s)
Ms. Lori Mans and Mr. John Dickinson
200 West Forsyth Street
Suit 1700
Jacksonville, FL 32202-4317
________________________ __________________
Plaintiff Date
36