Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Adelbaset A. Youssef, Petitioner v. Bill Schuette, et al.

Supreme Court, U.S.

FILED

Case No.

J, y

w 1 4*

SEP 2 6 2019

j/

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Abdelbaset Youssef - Petitioner

Vs

Bill Schuette et al - Respondents

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO

U.S. Six Circuit Court of Appeals

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Abdelbaset A Youssef

212 Cherry Lane, Inkster, Michigan 48141

astoria.medical@vahoo.com (313)645 -6416

1

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

QUESTION PRESENTED

Whether the Six Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision affirming

motion to dismiss on Younger Abstention conflicts with the

Supreme Court’s decision in SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

v. JACOBS arid the same Court’s decision on Doe v. Univ. of Ky?

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Opinion Below .....................................................

Jurisdiction.............................................................

Table of The Authorities Cited.............................

Constitutional and Statutory Provision Involved

Statement of the Case...........................................

Reason for granting the writ................................

Conclusion .............................................................

5

5

6

7

8

18

23

INDEX TO APPENDICES

APPENDEXA

The Six Circuit Decision on Abdelbaset Youssef v. Bill

Schuette et al 19-01225 on 9/17/2019

APPENDIX B

District Court Eastern District of Michigan’s order in

Youssef v. Schuette; 2:18 - cv — 13549, on 3/5/2019

APPENDIX C

District Court Eastern District of Michigan’s Order

Youssef v. Schuette et al, 2:17-cv-10610, on 8/10/2017

APPENDIX D

Appellant’s Brief in The Six Circuit, Case Abdelbaset

Youssef v. Bill Schuette et al, 19-01225, on 3/18/2019

3

LIST OF PARTIES

Abdelbaset Youssef

Petitioner

Vs.

1 - Bill Schuette; Previous Michigan Attorney General

2 - Dana Nessel; Current Michigan Attorney General

3 - Mohammed Arsiwala; Chairman of Michigan Board of Medicine

4 - Michigan Board of Medicine; Members of State Agency

5 - Rosalie Tocco-Bradley; Member of the Board of Medicine

Respondents on their official and individual capacities

RELATED CASES

1 - Abdelbaset Youssef v. Bill Schuette et al

Case No. 0:19 - 01225, U.S. Six Circuit Court of Appeals.

Decision on 9/17/2019, affirms motion to dismiss on Younger Abstention.

2 - Youssef v. Schuette, et al

Case No. 2:18-cv-13549 U.S. District Court Eastern District of Michigan

Order granting motion to dismiss on 3/5/2019.

3 - Youssef v. Schuette et al

Case No. 2:17 -cv-10610 U.S. District Court Eastern District of Michigan

Order granting motion to dismiss on 8/10/2017.

4

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO

U.S. Six Circuit Court of Appeals

Petitioner respectfully prays that a writ of certiorari issue to review the judgement

below

OPINION BLEOW

I - The Opinion of the United States Six Circuit Court of Appeals Appears

at: Appendix # A to the petition and it is unpublished, issued on 9/17/2019

II - Opinion of the United States District Court appears at Appendix # B to

the petition and it is unpublished, issued on 3/5/2019

JURISDICTION

For cases from federal courts:

The date on which the United States Court of Appeals decided my case was

on 9/17/2019. No petition for rehearing was timely filed in my case.

The Jurisdiction on this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. 1354(1)

5

Table of Authorities cited

SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS, INC. v. JACOBS. 571 U.S. 69, 72 (2013)

1, 15

Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971)

17, 20

Doe v. Univ. of Ky., 860 F.3d 365, 368 (6th Cir. 2017)

20,21,22

Verizon Md. Inc. v. Public Serv. Comm’n of Md., 535 U. S. 635, 642,

16

Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U. S. 800, 817

16

Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U. S. 592,

15, 16,18, 19

Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco Inc., 481 U. S

15, 16, 18, 19

Orleans Public Service, Inc. v. Council of City of New Orleans, 491 U. S. 350, 368

17, 18

15, 17, 19

Trainor v. Hernandez, 431 U. S. 434, 444

Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Assn., 457 U. S. 423, 433.... 15, 17, 19, 21

Guillemard-Ginorio v. Contreras-Gomez, 585 F. 3d 508, 522

Watts v. Burkhart, 854 F.2d 839, 846 (6th Cir. 1988)

20

21, 22

Federal Statues:

US Constitution Amendment # I

14

US Constitution Amendment # XIV

14

28 USC 2201 and 2202

28 USC 1331 and 1343

14

42 USC 1983

6

/,

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY

PROVISIONS INVOLVED

I - Amendment # I

Freedom of Religion, Speech, and the Press: Congress shall make no law

respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise there, of or

abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably

to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

II - Amendment # XIV, Section 1.

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or

immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person

of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person

within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

III - 42 U.S.C. 1983:

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance,

regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia,

subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person

within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or

immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured

in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that

in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such

officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted xxnless a declaratory

decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this

section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall

be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

7

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

1 - Due to quasi-judicial immunity and state immunity, the Federal Court cannot

grant relief for retroactive injury. The Federal Court can grant prospective

injunction of state violation. Due to personal conflict with an Assistant Attorney

General, Michigan State officials abused their power and used defects in the legal

system to violate my civil rights. I am a U.S citizen have the right of at least some

constitutional protection. Six state officials, shielded with immunity, over four

years, committed 17 legally cognizable felonies against justice under the tent of the

law and immunity.

2 - The violation started on 9/18/2014, when Andrew Hudson (AAG) filed complaint

supposed to be about controlled substance, but through the complaint he was

writing about Tylenol believing it narcotic,

He stated in a hearing that the

complaint was outside his experience. Mr. Hudson accused me that I was trying to

defame him through addressing the defects in the complaint that created personal

conflict with Mr. Hudson, who threaten me to retaliate.

3 - On 11/4/2014, Rosalie Tocco-Bradley MD, The Pain consultant and member of

the Board of Medicine (Defendant # 4) investigated me and my patients’ files and

the complaint. In presence of Mr. Hudson, she said to me: you had been seeing very

thick people and doing fine and it is ok to keep working. Even she said that she

disappeared and left me alone fighting Mr. Hudson and the other officials who lined

up with him in a street kind of fighting for years. Dr. Bradley failed to transfer

8

what she found in the investigation to the Board of Medicine as she is member of it

and the only physician put hand in the case.

4 - Mr. Hudson (AAG) asked me to pay $5000 for settlement; I refused because he

had to tell some-thing wrong that I did for the fine. On 4/23/15, Mr. Hudson

conducted scandalous hearing before ALJ, who was the cousin of the complainant

(five felonies committed in relation to this hearing alone). The AAG intentionally

selected the ALJ who was the cousin of the complainant and made haven for two

witnesses to commit perjury about management of patient B.S., the ALJ’s relative.

On 10/30/2015, my license was suspended 6 months and one day and $20,000 fine,

without due process of law. In violation of law the order was issued without

reviewing my exceptions that divulged the perjury. Even they did not mention that

I filed Exceptions.

5 - The only proceeding that State of Michigan has ever initiated was this

complaint and hearing on 4/23/2015 that was concluded with suspension 6

months and one day. The suspension started on 11/30/2015 and satisfied on

4/27/2016. Instead of six months, so, far I have been suspended for four

years. Since 4/27/2016, the state or any of its agencies have never initiated

any proceeding, quasi-criminal, civil or for enforcement order or for

anything else. Any proceeding after the hearing of 4/23/2015, the federal

plaintiff has initiated as petitions for reinstatement. The suspension for six

months, was satisfied more than three years ago.

9

6-1 appealed the administrative order, but the Michigan Court of Appeals (COA)

affirmed and stated that it is not its role to assess credibility of the witness or how

the Board reviewed the record. The COA has only appellate jurisdiction that only

decide how the law was allied and it cannot correct order tailored in bad faith in a

state agency. The COA stated that once there was a hearing and the record was

reviewed, the due process was satisfied. The order was suspension for six months

while appeal took 18 months without staying the order. So, the Appeal was useless

anyway. Staying the order pending appeal was in the hand of Mr. Hudson (AAG),

who refused to stay.

7 - I filed complaint twice to Mr. Bill Schuette, Michigan Attorney General

(Defendant # 1) to investigate crimes committed on the daylight by his assistants

and other officials. Mr. Schuette ignored my complaints. Only after I filed the first

complaint in the Federal Court, Mr. Schuette fired both Andrew Hudson and

Jessica Taub from being AAGs, but he did not correct my situation.

8 - While the Appeal was pending, I filed the first complaint in the Federal Court in

case 2:17-cv-10610. The case was dismissed for it was state interest and the

defendants were shielded by quasi-judicial immunity. I went to the Michigan Court

of Claims; the case was dismissed for the immunity of the defendants as well. The

Michigan Court of Claims stated that due to immunity, I cannot sue for crimes

committed in relation to a quasi- judicial proceeding.

9 - After the order of suspension was satisfied and the fine was paid, on 3/5/2016,

while the appeal was pending, I filed the first petition for reinstatement. On

10

12/21/2016, after another scandalous hearing conducted on 7/5/2016, to decide if I

was eligible for reinstatement, the board of medicine denied reinstatement of my

license. The stated reason for denying, as in the hearing record and ALJ’s PFD, that

since I appealed the six months suspension, I did not admit my mistake, so I was

not eligible for reinstatement. Deny reinstatement was stated openly retaliation for

filing appeal. Jessica Taub AAG was fired because she presented document contains

false information in the hearing. (The first petition and its hearing were

remedial pure civil Administrative Proceeding initiated by the Federal

plaintiffs petition reauestins reinstatement of his license, the proceeding

ended on 12/21/2017 with final order denying reinstatement).

10 - I found myself a victim of 17 crimes committed on the daylight by six people,

the immunity put their feet on the top of the constitution. I stayed home and sold

everything I could sell. On 5/31/2018 my home was in Wayne Circuit Court for sale

in auction, but some people donated to pay the late payments and stop foreclosure.

Due to stress of feeling injustice I was admitted 4 times in 4 hospitals for heart

injury.

11 -1 wrote my book (The Legal Felony; Quasi-Judicial immunity is a back window

for committing crimes). In my book details about 17 well documented crimes against

justice committed on the nose of the constitution and the court, under the shield of

immunity. The immunity created sect of noble people above the law commit crimes

on the daylight. My Book was for defending the Constitution.

11

12 - On 12/23/2017, I filed the second petition for reinstatement of my license. By

law the state agency may file opposition within 30 days. If there was no opposition

the application would go for processing the reinstatement. The opposition was due

on 1/22/2017. The state agency failed to file opposition on time. So, reinstatement of

my license was due on or after 1/23/2018.

13 - On 1/30/2018, I published my book (The Legal Felony) in Amazon and other

bookstores, through Ingram publishing company. Publishing my Book is protected

by the Constitutional freedom of speech, Amendment I, and it is in public interest.

14 - On 2/13/2018, the agency, instead of processing the reinstatement, in violation

of the law, they filed late opposition and scheduled me for a hearing before

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). The hearing was to see if I am eligible for

reinstatement, it was not for punishment for a wrong act.

15 - They selected the (ALJ) the same one, who abused me during the hearing of

7/5/2016 for the first application for reinstatement that I filed on 3/5/2016. This

ALJ’s name was mentioned in my book and in my complaints to the Michigan

Attorney General and in my exception to his PFD.

16 - My motion to recuse the ALJ and assign the case to a randomly selected ALJ

was granted, and the case was assigned to Hon. Judge Eric Williams (ALJ).

17 - Even I had known that Judge Williams would do good job because he was

randomly selected, I lost hope because the ALJ did not have the authority of final

decision. ALJ only issues PFD. The agency controlled by AAG could turn around the

PFD and deny reinstatement of the license on the nose of the Administrative

12

Hearing System. Even I was able to fly from the intentionally selected ALJ, I would

not fly from the AAG, who run the business of the Board from A to Z. I had to look

for License in another state. The AAGs do the business of the Board of Medicine

from A to Z. The Board of Medicine are very busy physicians travel to Lansing,

Michigan every two months for few hours meeting.

18 - I filed application in Florida Board of Medicine for license. In Florida, I had

chance to meet with the full Board in a recorded meeting in a place open to the

public. Florida Board told me that they could not issue license before it is be cleared

in Michigan. I cannot get license in any state because my license is suspended in

Michigan. To get License in another state, I had to win the fight in Michigan first.

19 - Hon. Judge Williams (ALJ), as expected, had done very good job in a very short

time and issued PFD just five days after the hearing recommending reinstatement

of my license. The ALJ noticed my suffering of injustice so he put priority of the case

and issued PFD on 7/10/2018. This hearing was for deciding eligibility for

reinstatement, so, the second petition and its hearing were pure civil

remedial proceeding initiated bx the plaintiffs petition for reinstatement.

20 - The ALJ has the authority to issue PFD but the final decision would be in the

board of medicine. According to the Law the Board’s decision was due within two

months after 7/10/2018. On 9/19/2018, the Board reviewed the PFD but denied

reinstatement against the recommendation of the ALJ. Even they denied the

reinstatement on 9/19/2018, they signed the final order on 1/16/2019. The

proceeding that was pending before the Board of Medicine was to review the ALJ’s

13

proposal for decision recommending reinstatement. The Board supposed to either

accept the recommendations and reinstate the license or deny the reinstatement.

The proceeding was not to punish me for wrong act or to enforce a

judgment, it was to assess if I was eligible for benefit.

21 - On 11/14/2018, after I had known that they denied my application, I filed the

subject second complaint in the U.S. District Court (2:18-cv-13549) for prospective

injunction of violation of my constitutional rights and order the Board of Medicine

shall honor the ALJ’s proposal of decision issued after one year proceeding and two

full days hearing without filing exceptions as described in law or saying anything

other than retaliation for filing complaints in the previous three years and

publishing a book. (42 USC 1983 and Amendment I and XIV).

22 - The District Court stayed until the final order was signed on 1/16/2019, then

the district court dismissed my complaint on 3/5/2019, by granting Motion Dismiss.

On the day when I filed the federal complaint, 11/14/2018, the Board had reviewed

the PFD and denied the reinstatement on 9/19/2018. On the day when the court

dismissed the case there was no pending proceeding in the state agency or court.

The Administrative proceeding was concluded on 1/16/2019 by signing the final

order that was decided in the Board’s meeting on 9/19/2018. This proceeding was

initiated on 12/23/2017 bv plaintiffs petition requesting reinstatement his

license. It was pure civil, remedial and he was able to withdraw it at any

time. The Board was reviewins the Proposal for Decision recommending

reinstatement.

14

23 - The only state auasi-criminal proceeding was initiated by filing

administrative complaint on 9/18/2014 and it was concluded by final order

suspended my license six months and $20,000 fine issued on 10/31/2015.

which was satisfied on 4/27/2016. Since 10/30/2015. the state has never

initiated any kind of vroceedins.

24 - The District Court dismissed the prospective injunction complaint for four

causes. I filed appeal for four questions; Rooker - Feldman, Younger Abstention,

Quasi-judicial Immunity, and State Immunity. The Court of Appeals affirmed the

order for Younger Abstention, where there was no pending state initiated

proceeding since 10/31/2015. The suspension was not for life long, it was for only

six months, satisfied on 4/27/2016 and the fine was paid before 4/27/2016.

25 - The proceeding before the Board of Medicine was reviewing the ALJ’s

PFD recommending reinstatement of License upon the Plaintiff‘s petition.

It was not akin to criminal proceeding see Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U. S. 592,

or that implicate a State’s interest in enforcing the orders and judgments of its courts, see

Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco Inc., 481 U. S, or pending “civil proceedings involving certain or­

ders . . . uniquely in furtherance of the state courts’ ability to perform their judicial

functions. Nor was it initiated by “the State in its sovereign capacity,” Trainor v.

Hernandez, 431 U. S. 434, 444, to sanction me for some wrongful act, see, e.g., Middlesex

County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Assn., 457 U. S. 423, 433—434.

26 - The Court of Appeals decision is in clear conflict with the Supreme Court

decision in SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS, INC. v. JACOBS.

15

THE SUPREME COURT Held:

Held: This case does not fall within any of the three classes of exceptional cases for

which Younger abstention is appropriate. Pp. 6-12.

(a) The District Court had jurisdiction to decide whether federal law preempted the

IUB’s decision, see Verizon Md. Inc. v. Public Serv. Comm’n of Md., 535 U. S. 635,

642, and thus had a “virtually unflagging obligation” to hear and decide the case,

Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U. S. 800, 817. In

Younger, this Court recognized an exception to that obligation for cases in which

there is a parallel, pending state criminal proceeding. This Court has extended

Younger abstention to particular state civil proceedings that are akin to criminal

prosecutions, see Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U. S. 592, or that implicate a State’s

interest in enforcing the orders and judgments of its courts, see Pennzoil Co. v.

Texaco Inc., 481 U. S., but has reaffirmed that “only exceptional circumstances

justify a federal court’s refusal to decide a case in deference to the States,” New

Orleans Public Service, Inc. v. Council of City of New Orleans, 491 U. S. 350, 368

(NOPSI). NOPSI identified three such “exceptional circumstances. ” First, Younger

precludes federal intrusion into ongoing state criminal prosecutions. See 491 U. S.,

at 368. Second, certain “civil enforcement proceedings” warrant Younger abstention.

Ibid. Finally, federal courts should refrain from interfering with pending “civil

proceedings involving certain orders . . . uniquely in furtherance of the state courts’

ability to perform their judicial functions. ” Ibid. This Court has not applied Younger

16

outside these three “exceptional” categories, and rules, in accord with NOPSI, that

they define Younger’s scope. Pp. 6-8.

(b) The initial IUB proceeding does not fall within any of NOPSI’s three exceptional

categories and therefore does not trigger Younger abstention. The first and third

categories plainly do not accommodate the IUB’s proceeding, which was civil, not

criminal in character, and which did not touch on a state court’s ability to perform

its judicial function. Nor is the IUB’s order an act of civil enforcement of the kind to

which Younger has been extended. The IUB proceeding is not akin to a criminal

prosecution.” Huffman, 420 U. S., at 604. Nor was it initiated by “the State in its

sovereign capacity,” Trainor v. Hernandez, 431 U. S. 434, 444, to sanction Sprint for

some wrongful act, see, e.g., Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar

Assn., 457 U. S. 423, 433-434. Rather, the action was initiated by Sprint, a private

corporation. No state authority conducted an investigation into Sprint’s activities or

lodged a formal complaint against Sprint. Once Sprint withdrew the complaint that

commenced administrative proceedings, the IUB argues, those proceedings became,

essentially, a civil enforcement action. However, the IUB’s adjudicative Cite

authority was invoked to settle a civil dispute between two private parties, not to

sanction Sprint for a wrongful act. In holding that abstention was the proper course,

the Eighth Circuit misinterpreted this Court’s decision in Middlesex to mean that

Younger abstention is warranted whenever there is (1) “an ongoing state judicial

proceeding, which (2) implicates important state interests, and (3) . . . providefs] an

adequate opportunity to raise [federal] challenges.” In Middlesex, the Court invoked

17

Younger to bar a federal court from entertaining a lawyer’s challenge to a state ethics

committee’s pending investigation of the lawyer. Unlike the IUBs proceeding,

however, the state ethics committee’s hearing in Middlesex was plainly “akin to a

criminal proceeding”: An investigation and formal complaint preceded the hearing,

an agency of the State’s Supreme Court initiated the hearing, and the hearing’s

purpose was to determine whether the lawyer should be disciplined for failing to

meet the State’s professional conduct standards. 457 U. S., at 433- 435. The three

Middlesex conditions invoked by the Court of Appeals were therefore not dispositive;

they were, instead, additional factors appropriately considered by the federal court

before invoking Younger. Younger extends to the three exceptional circumstances

identified in NOPSI, but no further. Pp. 8-11. 690 F. 3d 864, reversed. GINSBURG,

J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

I - We are before two similar cases with conflicting dispositions. Each can

be cited differently.

1 - First case, SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS, INC. v. JACOBS.

The Supreme Court reversed Younger Abstention .because It was not: akin to

criminal proceeding see Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U. S. 592, or 2 - that implicate

a State’s interest in enforcing the orders and judgments of its courts, see Pennzoil

Co. v. Texaco Inc., 481 U. S, or 3 - pending “civil proceedings involving certain or­

ders . . . uniquely in furtherance of the state courts’ ability to perform their judicial

functions. 4 - Nor was it initiated by “the State in its sovereign capacity,” Trainor v.

18

Hernandez, 431 U. S. 434, 444, to sanction Sprint for some wrongful act, see, e.g.,

Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Assn., 457 U. S. 423, 433—434.

Rather, the action was initiated by Sprint, a private corporation. No state authority

conducted an investigation into Sprint’s activities or lodged a formal complaint

against Sprint. Once Sprint withdrew the complaint that commenced administra­

tive proceedings

2 - The current case is: Abdelbaset Youssef v. Bill Schuette et al

The Six Circuit of Appeals affirmed granting motion to dismiss on Younger

Abstention, even it has all the same elements as of Sprint case.

Namely : It was no: 1 - akin to criminal proceeding see Huffman v. Pursue,

Ltd., 420 U. S. 592, or 2 - that implicate a State’s interest in enforcing the orders

and judgments of its courts, see Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco Inc., 481 U. S, or 3 - pending

“civil proceedings involving certain orders . . . uniquely in furtherance of the state

courts’ ability to perform their judicial functions. 4 - Nor was it initiated by “the

State in its sovereign capacity,” Trainor v. Hernandez, 431 U. S. 434, 444, to

sanction me for some wrongful act, see, e.g., Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v.

Garden State Bar Assn., 457 U. S. 423, 433 434. Rather, the action was initiated by

Youssefs petition, requesting reinstatement of license, a private individual. The

ALJ recommended reinstatement. The Board just to review the ALJ’s PFD. No state

authority conducted an investigation into Youssefs activities or lodged a formal

complaint against Youssef since 2014. Once Youssef withdrew the petition that

commenced administrative proceedinss. The State complaint that was filed on

19

9/18/2014, was concluded on 10/30/2015, and the punishment was satisfied more

than about three and half years ago.

Younger abstention is appropriate only when the parallel state proceedings are

“coercive,” rather than “remedial,” in nature. 690 F. 3d 864, 868 (2012); cf.

Guillemard-Ginorio v. Contreras-Gomez, 585 F. 3d 508, 522 (CA1 2009) proceedings

must be coercive, and in most cases, state initiated, in order to warrant abstention.

II - The Six Circuit’s decision in my case conflicts with the same Court’s

decision in Doe v. Univ. of Ky

Doe v. Univ. of Ky., 860 F.3d 365, 368 (6th Cir. 2017); This case arises out

of the federal district court's involvement in an ongoing disciplinary hearing against

John Doe1

- at the University of Kentucky. For the reasons contained herein, we affirm

the district court's decision to abstain, reverse the district court's dismissal of the

claims against Defendant Denise Simpson, and remand to the district court to

stay the case pending conclusion of the university proceedings.

The Court remanded the case for stay pending conclusion of the university

disciplinary proceeding.

In my case the same Court stated: First, proceedings were ongoing. Yousseffiled his most

recent medical license reinstatement request with the Board on January 29, 2018. The Board

held a hearing on that request, and an administrative law judge recommended reinstatement on

July 10, 2018. The Board denied this second application for reinstatement on January 16, 2019.

Before that decision, Yousseffiled this suit on November 11, 2018 in other words, while his state

license reinstatement proceedings were ongoing.

20

The Board voted for deny reinstatement on 9/19/2018 and I filed the complaint in the

federal Court on 11/14/2018.

The Final order deny was signed on 1/16/2019 and the

District Court dismissed the case on 3/5/2019. The odd is staying for ongoing quasi­

criminal case, in Doe v. Univ. KY, while in my case applied Younger Abstention in pure

civil case had been already concluded before the District Court dismissed the case. Even if

the Court had dismissed the case before 1/16/2019, the Court of Appeal should remand the

case for stay pending final board’s decision, even we did not need stay because the District

order issued after I filed motion with supplemental brief stating the final order had been

issued on 1/16/2019., which means there was no pending proceeding.

Ill - The Six Circuit erred when applied the following three cases on my

case. All the three following cases were initiated by a State to discipline

the federal plaintiffs. In my case, I initiated the proceeding by filing

petition for reinstatement license and the hearing was to assess if I was

eligible to practice. Deny reinstatement against the recommendation of

ALJ was not a part of disciplinary six months suspension punishment that

satisfied more than three years ago. It was retaliation for publishing my

Book (The Legal Felony).

The Six Circuit stated: The ongoing state administrative proceedings here are

neither a criminal prosecution nor uniquely in furtherance of state courts' judicial

functions, but we have held that similar administrative proceedings are “akin to

criminal prosecutions.” Doe, 860 F.3d at 370 (state university disciplinary

proceedings); Watts v. Burkhart, 854 F.2d 839, 846 (6th Cir. 1988) (Tennessee

medical license suspension proceedings); Middlesex Cty., 457 U.S. at 433-34

21

(attorney disciplinary proceedings). Lacking a distinction between those cases and

this one, we conclude that Michigan Board of Medicine proceedings are “akin to

criminal proceedings. ”

There is clear distinction!

1 - Doe v. Univ. of Ky., 860 F.3d 365, 368 (6th Cir. 2017); This case arises

out of the federal district court's involvement in an ongoing disciplinary hearing

against John Doe at the University of Kentucky. For the reasons contained herein,

we affirm the district court's decision to abstain, reverse the district court's

dismissal of the claims against Defendant Denise Simpson, and remand to the

district court to stay the case pending conclusion of the university proceedings.

2 - Watts v. Burkhart, 854 F.2d 839, 846 (6th Cir. 1988); Appellant Bobby

Watts, a physician licensed to practice medicine in Tennessee, filed this action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, seeking to enjoin a pending state administrative

proceeding initiated bv the Tennessee Division of Health Related Board for

purpose of summarily suspending Watt’s license to practice medicine.

3 - Middlesex Cty., 457 U.S. at 433-34 Held: The federal courts should

abstain from interfering with the ongoing disciplinary proceedings within the

jurisdiction of the New Jersey Supreme Court. Pp. 457 U. S. 431-437.

Here is a legal test: if I survived 50 years more, then I filed petition for

reinstatement and went to a hearing, will it be treated as a quasi-criminal

case related to the state complaint in 2014. concluded in 2015?

IV - The Six Circuit stated that: True, as Youssef points out, Younger does not

apply in a few exceptional circumstances when the state acts in bad faith, to harass,

22

)

or to enforce a patently invalid statute. Doe, 860 F.3d at 371. Youssef alleges that his

situation implicates those exceptional circumstances, but he provides no support for

those allegations. Such “bare assertions of legal conclusions,” see, e.g., Z. Techs.

Corp. v. Lubrizol Corp., 753 F.3d 594, 597 (6th Cir. 2014), neither require nor permit

us to find a Younger exception here.

The standard of motion to dismiss, the Court must take the allegations in the

complaint as true. I supported my allegations with 15 official documents as exhibits

from A through Q. The defendants did not dispute any of these official documents.

CONCLUSION

The petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted.

Respectfully submitted

Abdelbaset

A YousfsSf—■—~2-

Date September, 26th 2019

212 Cherry Lane, Inkster MI 48141

(313) 645 - 6416

astoria.medical@yahoo.com

23