Sabina Muhammed vs. Open Records Division 5th Circuit State Excerpts 5th Circuit Brief State of Texas Case

No.
ll-20601
IN THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
SABINA MUHAMMED
Plaintiff- Appellant,
v.
STATE OF TEXAS, OPEN RECORDS DIVISION
Defendant-Appellee,
Appeal from the United States District court
For the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division
Sabina Muhammed
(pro-se)
7131 Woodsman Trail
Houston, Texas 77040
Home: 713-856-8644
Cell: 713-614-2654
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT
Email: sabina_mlO@hotmail.com
Case: 11-20601 Document: 00511673380 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/21/2011
CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS
SABINA MUHAMMED
Plaintiff- Appellant,
v.
STATE OF TEXAS, OPEN RECORDS DIVISION
Dek Gdant-Appellee,
No. 11-20601
The undersigned, Sabina Muhammed, certifies that the following listed
persons have an interest in the outcome of this case. These representations are
made in order that the judges of this Court may evaluate possible disqualification
or recusal.
1. Sabina Muhammed
2. State of Texas, Open Records Division
~ ~
Sabina Muhammed
(pro-se)
7131 Woodsman Trail
Home: 713-856-8644
Cell: 713-614-2654
Email: sarina_m10@hotmail.com
1
REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
The plaintiff-Appellant, Sabina Muhammed, respectfully requests oral argument.
This appeal will demonstrate to the Court that Defendant's has deliberately
reversed a ruling issued by their own attorney is which disclosure and enforcement
is required from University of Houston on the 300 FERP A student infractions, its
was the US District Court's full responsibility to enforce the ruling and order the
defendant to pressure University of Houston to disclose the material commanded
on the ruling. Oral discussion of the facts and t h ' ~ applicable precedent would
benefit the Court.
---- - ~ - - - -
11
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS ................................... .i
REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT ............................................. .ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................. .iii
TABLE OF CITATIONS ............................................................. .iv
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION .................................................. !
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE ....................................................... 2
STATEMFNT OF THE CASE ........................................................ 3
SUMMARlr OF TIIE ARGUMENT ................................................. 7
ARGUMENT ............................................................................ 8
ISSUE ONE RESTATED: ............................................................. 8
ISSUE TWO RESTATED: ............................................................ 9
CONCLUSION ........................................................................... lO
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ......................................................... ! I
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE .................................................. 12
111
TABLE OF CITATIONS
CASES
Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U.S. 433,437 (1971); 9
JUDGME
1
T
Final Judgment from Judge Lynn F. Hughes is Not Acceptable 3, 9, 10
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
Jurisdiction of this Court is appropriate as a result of deliberate and
FINAL DISMISSAL of this lawsuit by Honorable Judge Lynn F.
Hughes. This case is an appeal from United States District Court of the Southern
District, Houston Division, regarding a civil case filed against Open Records
Divison of the Texas Attorney's General Office in their law of enforcement of
University of Houston's Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974
(FERP A). Defendant, is a government office who has failed to obey the civil
enforcement that they issued against another government actor, University of
Houston. Jurisdiction is found on federal questions arising under the Constitution
of the United States of America; laws of the State of Texas; the Fourteenth
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Notice of appeal was timely filed in the
accordance with Rule 4(b) ofthe Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
THIS IS F0R APPE.PL ON A CIVL LAWSUIT AGAINST TEXAS ATTORNEY
GENERAL OPEN RECORD'S DIVISION.
1
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
ISSUE ONE: VIOLATIONS OF FAMILY EDUCATIONAL RIGHTS
AND PRIVACY ACT OF 1974 (FERPA)
Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges by reference each and every allegation
contained ;'1 the Original Complaint filed in the US District Court of Southern
District ofTex;;;.s on May 4, 2011.
Legal proceeding is need on this lawsuit due to the lack of enforcement of
Texas Attorney General's ruling forcing a government agency to disclose the status
of 300 student records' and the consistent negligence by defendant's client and
employee. Ruling No. OR-2010-18166 needs to be tully enforced and the reversal
should be ignored on this matter, with this declaration the Court should issue a
subpoena ~ . o University of Houston and Texas Attorney General's Office to
properly abide by the rules and regulations of the Ruling No. OR-20 10-18166 in
whi.;h disclose is required.
ISSUE TWO: WRONGFUL DISMISSAL OF CASE FROM US
DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
contained i'"1 the Original Complaint filed in the US District Court of Southern
District of Texas on May 4, 2011.
2
On August 1, 2011, Judge Lynn F. Hughes ordered a FINAL DISMISSAL.
This FINAL DISMISSAL order is not acceptable on the magnitude and severity of
the lawsuit. The 5th Circuit should discredit Judge Hughes's FINAL DISMISSAL,
and proceed to legal proceeding in the 5th Circuit or order the case back to the US
District Court for proper legal proceedings that were should have comr.1enced after
August 1, 2011.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
1. On '"une 16, 2010 and September 8, 2010, the plaintiff requested three
category of Information under the Freedom of Information Act. On October 5,
2010, the University of Houston requested an Opinion from the Honorable Greg
Abbott, Attorney General of Texas in Austin, Texas.
2. On September 28, 2010 and October 5, 2010, the University of Houston
Office Of General Counsel wrote two different letters to the Office of Attorney
General.
3. On December 3, 2010, Mr. Mack T. Harrison, Assistant Attorney General of
the Office of Attorney General Open Records Division, issued Ruling No.
OR2010-18166 commending University of Houston to release the information
pertaining to the 3 00 students records'.
3
4: On December 15, 2010, University of Houston refused to comply and made
an excuse that it is covered by FERP A, ruling by Texas Attorney General was
straightforward and directed the University of Houston to release the requested
information that was used against the plaintiff.
5. On December 20, 2010, the plaintiff formally informed that Mr. Mack T.
Harrison, Assistant Attorney General of the Office of Attorney General Open
Records Division. Two months later, on February 17, 2011, Mr. Christopher D.
Sterner, Assistant Attorney General, Education and ENFORCE1\1ENT Section,
Open Records Division assigned plaintiff complaint ID # 410578. It mentioned
that the defendant- State of Texas Open Records Division had a civil enforcement
authority and it takes responsibility seriously. University of Houston has not
formally nor informally followed the original ruling No. # OR20 10-18166.
6. On february 24, 2011, University of Houston formally briefed Mr.
Christopher D. Sterner and once again University of Houston refused to honor the
reqnest and the ruling opinion from No.# OR2010-18166.
7. On March 1 7, 2011, the plaintiff wrote a letter to concernmg that the
plaintiff was not receiving appropriate results on 300 student records violation and
the compliance of the ruling issued by Texas Attorney General. University of
Houston has violated )00 student records and not complied with any laws when it
4
comes to federal compliances, punishment has been resulted against the plaintiff
but the information concerning about 300 students' records was first brought to
plaintiff attention at the board hearing January 29,2010 and February 1, 2010.
8. On March 22, 2011, Mr. Christopher D. Sterner reverses the ruling issued by
Mr. Mack T. Harrison dated December 3, 2010 and his own civil enforcement
guidelines concerning the seriousness of responsibility of his office in his letter
dated February 17, 2011.
9. In one month, Mr. Christopher D. Sterner amended his own compliance and
civil enforcement and his client- University of Houston cover their FEPRA
violation on 300 students by making an excuse that 300 students' breaches are
covered by FERP A. Mr. Christopher D. Sterner does not have the right to reverse a
ruling instead he had to resolve the issue by civil enforcement. It is now aware,
Mr. Christopher D. Sterner did not investigate the matter he was assigned to
thoroughly, instead just believe the University of Houston and their violations by
stating "when an educational authority responds to a request for public
information by stating that the responsive information is covered by FEPRA, we
must accevt its statem_ent." Mr. Sterner wants to protect an institution that violated
the FERP A laws and in one month reversed a ruling that clearly stated to release
the information and had civil enforcement. By circumventing the ruling, University
of Houston continuously is giving more leverage to continue to violate FEPRA
5
compliance laws and mislead the public and the federal funding agencies. His
letter goes on to say that "under the Act, the enforcement authority of the Office of
the Attorney General does not include on-site inspection of the records held by
another government office, " but the Act does not give Mr. Sterner to reverse his
civil enforcement and not comply with the responsibility his office had as
mentioned m his letter dated February 17, 2011. Mr. Sterner did not even
informally or formally resolve the issue with U Jiversity of Houston on the
plaintiffs request.
10. On l\1arch 29, 2011, plaintiff again requested information, and on April 15,
2011 again the University of Houston denied the plaintiffs request by easily
cov.!ring the 300 FERP A violations and student records breaches by stating it is
protected by FERP A. 300 FERP A infractions are public, and the plaintiff requests
the 300 FEPRA infractions that are public be honored as mentioned on the
plaintiffs Freedom of Information Act requests.
11. On Tanuary 29"and February 1, 2010, the plaintiff found out for the first
time that Univ\;;rsity of Houston employee Dr. Libby Barlow failed to protect 300
student records' information and violated, mishandles all these 300 students
records, since an illegal punishment of 1 year suspension and 2 year probation and
240 days in prison was levied against the plaintiff, the plaintiff has every right to
6
---- -------
see the 300 students records' that were used against her, and the Dr. Barlow and
her office violated as mentioned on chargesheet dated May 31, 2007.
12. The FINAL DISMISSAL from August 1, 2011 is not acceptable.
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
The argument to be made in this case is that government agency The Texas
Attorney General Office's Open Records Division failed to comply with the Civil
Enforcement from a Ruling No. OP2010-18166 in which they commanded
University of Houston to release the information pertaining to the 300 student
records' that Dr. Libby Barlow has unprotected, it commands University of
Houston to disclose the status of the 300 student It is vital and appeal is
warranted and so are the subsequent legal proceedings so proper handling and
enforcemec t can occur on Ruling No. OR-2010-18166 which resulted in plaintiffs
favor. In the past, the actor- University of Houston requested three different
ruli71gs; two came in the favor ofthe actor, and No. OR-2010-18166 came in
appellant's favor, since appellant's has respected Texas Attorney General's
opinion on previous rulings, it is only legally fair that the appellant gets the
required documents and existence status of those documents with full compliance
with court proceedings.
7
ARGUMENT
ISSUE ONE RESTATED: VIOLATIONS OF FAMILY EDUCATIONAL
RIGHTS AND PRIVACY ACT OF 1974 (FERP A}
contained in the Original Complaint filed in the US District Court of Southern
Standard Review
A government agency and their official is in violation of Family Educational
Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA) on the plai.1tiff's students records and
300 students of the University of Houston Main Campus. With the violations of
federal laY". the Unive-rsity of Houston does not and never has had the authority to
violated federal rules on privacy of student records and then cover their mishaps by
using fraudulent computer records and screenshots to obtain an illegal advantage.
A government actor has not complied with the law, and was subject to disclose the
student records that pertain to Ruling No. OR20 10-18166, however, the defendant
in this lawsuit, gave them the leverage and full power to cover all illegal acts when
they reverse their Civil Enforcement compliance on March 22, 2011. University of
Houston the full knowledge of Dr. Libby Barlow's violations was in fact
order to comply with the ruling; however defendant quickly intervened and
this compliance, holding this assertion true, this is a of
8
plaintiff's Due Process. The Due Process Clause forbids arbitrary deprivations of
liberty. "Where a person's good name, reputation, hor.1or, or integrity is at stake
because of what the government is doing to him," the minimal requirements of the
Clause must be satisfied. Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U.S. 433, 437 (1971);
Board of Regents v. Roth, supra, at 573. Plaintiff name and future has been
significantly damaged by the actions and false accusations from government actor,
University of Houston since it was obligated by law to disclose their material that
were material to the plaintiff in her legal matters, because Texas Attorney General
-
Open Recu:ds Division swiftly reversed an important ruling.
ISSUE TWO RESTATED: WRONGFUL DISMISSAL OF CASE FROM US
DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
contained ;11. the Original Complaint filed in the US District Court of Southern
The FINAL DISMISSAL from Judge Hughes is just not acceptable due to
the seriousness and magnitude of the case- from investigations and rulings from
Texas Attorney General's Office.
9
Standard Review
The FINAL Dismissal is just NOT ACCEPT ABLE from Judge I .ynn F.
Hughes on the magnitude and severity of this case. Lawsuit pertaining to lack of
required enforcement on Defendant's client
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiff- Appellant, Sabina
Muhammed respectfully requests that this Court to go with legal proceedings in
Fifth Circuit or send the case back to US District Court and order Judge Lynn
Hughes to re-open the case and void his sudden FIN1\L DISMISSAL. Full relief
regarding Sabina Muhammed vs. State of Texas- Open Records Division is
mentionet" )n the Original Complaint dated May 4, 2011.
10
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Sabina Muhammed, certify that today, November 17, 2011, a copy of the
brief for Appellant and a copy of the record excerpts were served by certified mail
to Mr. DrPw L. Harris, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Attorney General,
General Litigation Division, P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station, Austin, TX 78711-
2548.
Sabina Muhammed
(pro-se)
7131 Woodsman Trail
Home: 713-856-8644
Cell: 713-614-2.654
Email: sabina_ m 1 O@hotmail.com
11
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
Pursuant to 5th CIR. R. 3 2.2. 7 (c), undersigned counsel certifies that this brief
complies with type-volume limitations of 5th CIR. R. 32.3.7 (b).
~ . Exclusive ofthe portions exempted by 5th CIR. R. 32.2.79b)(3), this brief
contains 2471 words printed in a proportionally spaced typeface. (In the
alternative, for briefs prepared in monospaced typeface, you may certify the
number of lines in text used.)
2. This brief is printed in a proportionally spaced, serif typeface using Times
New Roman 14 point font in text and Times New Roman 12 point font in
footnotes produced by Corel WordPerfect 6.1 software.
3. Upon request, the plaintiff will provide an electronic version of this brief
and/or a copy of the word printout to the Court.
4. Plaintiff (pro-se) understands that a material mi.srepresentation in completing
this certificate, or circumvention of the type-volume limits in 5th CIR. R.
32.7 7, may result in the Court's striking this brief and imposing sanction
against the person who signed it.
12
~ ~ ? (
Sabina Muhammed
(pro-se)
7131 Woodsman Trail
Home: 713-856-8644
Cell: 713-614-2654
Email:
sabina_ m 1 O@hotmail.com

Sabina Muhammed vs. Open Records Division 5th Circuit State Excerpts 5th Circuit Brief State of Texas Case

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Sabina Muhammed vs. Open Records Division 5th Circuit State Excerpts 5th Circuit Brief State of Texas Case

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

No.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen