Application — Jason Zangara, Applicant v. National Board of Medical Examiners

Supreme Court. U S.

FILED

MAY 1 2 2023

Case No.

OFFICE OF THE Cl Fru-

3iu VLl)e

Supreme Court of tje Hntte& States;

Jason Zangara

APPLICANT

V.

National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME)

RESPONDANT

EMERGENCY APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF INJUNCTION

To the Honorable Samuel Alito, Justice of the United States

Supreme Court and Circuit Justice for the Third Circuit

Jason Zangara Pro Se

573 Sidorske Avenue

Manville, New Jersey 08835

Telephone: (908) 672-0626

Email: firefighterjazzyj@yahoo.com

Attorney for Applicant

RECEIVED

MAY I 6 2023

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

SUPREME COURT. U.S.

Statement

This matter is brought before this court on an emergent basis as Plaintiff has

been experiencing harm by the day to ask for assistance with forcing Defendants to

score their exams properly in a non discriminatory manner. There is no demand for

any money and Plaintiff has not requested anything that could be interpreted as

giving him an unfair advantage over others.

Defendants have denied the allegations stating they are doing exactly as

Plaintiff wants them to do, but refuse to actually settle the matter on those terms,

despite an open settlement offer. Instead of hiring the first lawyer they could find,

as any would have an advantage over a pro se Plaintiff, they have turned to a New

York City law firm Perkins Coie, who handled all the election challenges on behalf

of President Biden, is council of record for the Democratic National Committee

along with being council of record for President Obama, Hillary Clinton and John

Kerry along with practically every Democratic legislator

They have essentially mobilized an entire military with nuclear capabilities

to knock a bee hive out of a tree. It does not take this kind of firm to win a against a

leaning disabled individual who is representing himself in a lawsuit. Therefore

despite their claims, there must be more to this matter then "meets the eye"

Introduction

Plaintiff brings an extraordinary issue before this court as despite filing the

correct paperwork for a Preliminary Injunction pursuant to Rule 65, the courts have

not taken him seriously and have ignored multiple applications. This has taken

place at both the District and the Appeals court as his original application for an

Order to show Cause with a Temporary Restraining Order was filed in March of

2022 with his Complaint, but never given to a judge.

Plaintiff again applied in September 2022 Defendants answered and the

matter was fully briefed, but as of the date of the filing of a Notice of Appeal to the

Third Circuit on March 3, 2023 almost one year later there was no ruling on

either of the motions. Plaintiff filed a motion for and Injunction & Expedited

Appeal from the Third Circuit, but despite specifically stating it was an emergent

motion for an Injunction, it took an additional two months before the Third

Circuit issued a summary order dismissing the motion, ignoring Plaintiffs

application citing only one of the two reasons Plaintiff filed the appeal.

As of now, Plaintiff does not have, after 14 months a legitimate Injunction

and is experience irreparable harm by the day not only by Defendants but also

multiplied by the courts refusal to properly issue an Injunction. He cannot

comprehend how he's using the same procedure utilized by the courts resulting in

highly publicized applications that appear all over the news of the parties getting

results practically overnight from the judiciary such as: Election Matters, President

Trumps Immigration Orders, President Biden's Student Loan Cancelation, Vaccine

, Mandate Challenges from religious groups in New York City, Abortion Drugs from

the Food & Drug Administration & Alvin Bragg dodging Subpoenas from the House

Oversight Committee.

Plaintiff understands Rule 65 and its purpose to be the courts "9-1-1 System",

essentially a way for litigants to get information in front of a judge quickly to get

assistance in a limited time frame. Here, the information despite Plaintiffs efforts is

not making its way through the system properly. The analogy is someone calling 91-1 to report a fire, but the dispatcher either doesn't take the call seriously and

dispatch the fire department or the fire department receives the call but chooses not

to respond.

In this matter, this procedure should be more like the one imposed by law

enforcement -when someone actually dials 9-1-1 the police are immediately

dispatched to that location even if the caller picks up on the callback and states "I

dialed accidently". As they are aware, there could be a multitude of issues going on

that the person who dialed isn't the person who answers when the dispatcher calls

back.

What kind of country would we live in if, in the case of domestic violence a

wife being beaten gets away long enough to dial 9-1-1, but the husband gets her

away from the phone and tells the police "everything is ok" when they call back?

This is exactly why police are mandated to actually show up when 9-1-1 is dialed

regardless of being told "everything is ok" on the callback.

Plaintiffs applications should have immediately been presented to the judges

as they were specifically identified for that purpose. Even if the applications and the

original TRO were denied, they should have been denied that day.

There are much more serious issues here then just Plaintiffs application

because the question is: "How many others has this happened to before?" There was

a serious flaw in the system in the District Court and the Third Circuit having

really nothing to do with the merits of this case. Plaintiff believes that this should

never happen again especially with the courts "emergency system" and is asking

the highest court in the country to make sure it never happens again to any

litigant or attorney in any courthouse anywhere.

Plaintiff therefore brings both the questions relating to the merits of his case,

but most importantly, the questions related to the breakdown of the system during

the course of this litigation. He therefore brings the order from the Third Circuit

and the following questions to this court for review.

Questions Presented

1. Should an Appeals court require an actual order denying an Injunction to

invoke jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) or does the District

Court's refusal to rule on the motion amount to a denial invoking it?

2. Since it appears that that the public is entitled to safe, regulated Healthcare

under the 14th Amendment and other previsions to the US Constitution, do

Defendants discriminatory testing policies jeopardize that right, having the

potential to create unqualified physicians, warrant expedited judiciary review

under the "Public Interest" requirement of the issuance of an Injunction?

3. Does a delay in Medical Education constituent "Irreparable Harm" under the

prerequisites for the issuance of an Injunction in an ADA claim, impeding the

process of creating more qualified physicians to serve the "Public Interest"

further the necessity for prompt judicial review?

To the Honorable Samuel Alito, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court

and Circuit Justice for the Third Circuit:

History of the Matter

This matter originally arouse as a exam scoring dispute between Plaintiff a

third year medical student and the Defendants, The National Board of Medical

Examiners. Instead of arguing the merits of the case here, Plaintiff chooses to

separate this application brief from his application for a Preliminary Injunction

from the District Court for the District of New Jersey. The rational is, as he believes

this court needs to see what he did and filed in the lower courts to make their

determination as to the disposition of this case. He also must ensure that this court

clearly sees the reason and rational for this application. Therefore he has included

the following and request this court make its determination based on these

attachments and their contents:

•

Original application filed on March 18, 2022 attached "Exhibit A"

•

Second Application filed on September 26, 2022 attached "Exhibit B"

•

Notice of Appeal & supporting documents filed on March 3, 2023 attached

"Exhibit C"

•

Order of Third Circuit filed May 9., 2023 attached "Exhibit D"

The order from the Third Circuit references an order to amend Plaintiffs

Compliant. He had requested to amend his compliant in September of 2022 It was

filed and served, Defendants never filed any response and the court never raised

any issue. Plaintiff then filed his second application for an Injunction (Exhibit B),

Defendants responded, Plaintiff replied and the parties assumed the motion was

being decided. The court then kept pushing off the return date for months in the

system.

Plaintiff assumed the court was writing an opinion for his application, and

waited again, but then was surprised by an order from a Magistrate judge that he

had to file a motion and amend his compliant in March of 2023.six months after

he submitted his amended complaint. He immediately Appealed on both

grounds because his second emergent application (Exhibit B) filed almost 6 months

prior, was now, again ignored by the court and his original application (Exhibit A)

almost one year later.

Plaintiff specifically appealed on both of these grounds, detailing this in the

notice of appeal, brief and even moved to hear the appeal on the original record so

the Appeals Court could see all these delays (Exhibit C). He then was awaiting the

disposition of the appeal assuming that after two additional months, the court

was conducting a thorough analyses and writing its opinion. Then on May 9, 2023,

he received an order dismissing the appeal and motion for an injunction (Exhibit D).

What Plaintiff Is Asking This Court To Do

Pursuant to Supreme Court Rules 20, 22, and 23, and 28 U.S.C. § 1651,

Applicant (“Plaintiff’) respectfully request an immediate, emergency writ of

injunction to prevent the Defendants, The National Board of Medical Examiners

from grading all of their examinations (Comprehensive Basic Science Exam,

Comprehensive Clinical Science Exam, Shelf or Subject Examinations United States

Medical Licensing Examinations "USMLE" Steps 1, 2, &3) in a discriminatory

manner, deciding passing or failing on the test takers own merit, not based solely on

the test takers comparison to others that have taken the examination prior, norm or

comparison group.

Plaintiff also asks the Court to consider this Application as a petition for

certiorari & grant certiorari on the questions presented as addressing them will

prevent similar misfortunes from happening to litigants or their attorneys in the

future.

Jurisdiction

This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.§ 1254(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a)

to address this matter.

Constitution & Applicable Provisions Involved

The Americans with Disabilities Act 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq., The Fourteenth

Amendment to the United States Constitution, The Controlled Substances Act (CSA

or Act), 84 Stat. 1242, 21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq. and 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1)

Questions

I. Should an Appeals court require an actual order denying an

Injunction to invoke jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) or

does the District Court's refusal to rule on the motion amount to a

denial invoking it?

In this matter, Plaintiff applied twice to the District Court of New Jersey for emergent

relief and this was ignored by the court. He then filed an appeal based on the failure of the court

to act. The Third Circuit However dismissed Plaintiffs appeal and denied his request form an

Injunction because he didn't have a written order. The appeals court should have accepted the

failure to act as a denial of the application and acted accordingly (See 11 C. Wright A. Miller

Federal Practice and Procedure § 2962 at 614 (1973) ("when a court declines to

make a formal ruling on a motion for a preliminary injunction, its refusal to issue a

separate order will be treated as equivalent to the denial of a preliminary injunction

and will be appealable."))

Plaintiff therefore requests this court decide if a litigant needs an actual

order o appeal an injunction or the failure to rule on the motion is adequate enough

to invoke jurisdiction.

II. Since it appears that that the public is entitled to safe, regulated

Healthcare under the 14th Amendment and other previsions to the US

Constitution, do Defendants discriminatory testing policies jeopardize

that right, having the potential to create unqualified physicians,

warrant expedited judiciary review under the "Public Interest"

requirement of the issuance of an Injunction?

The next question presented deserves some explanation as it is not written

anj^way directly, therefore Plaintiff presents it to this court for the first time. The

purpose is, that since in addition to the discrimination, the public also has an

interest in this case. For that reason alone, Plaintiff believes the appeals court

should have given this case immediate attention by issuing a ruling on his motion

for an injunction. He will explain in detail below.

The preservation of and care of a human life is a subject of great public

concern and importance that has been addressed by the courts. As much as a

concern it might be however, its importance is not detailed directly in the

Constitution. There comes a time however that there is an obligation of the

judiciary to reinforce the intentions of our founding fathers and apply what they

had written to today's society. This is done by using the "clues" left behind and the

"logic" of what they were thinking when they actually wrote things such as the

Constitution.

In the case of the Fourteenth Amendment the phrase "depriving persons of

life, liberty" although only five words could have multiple meanings. To address this

the judiciary has been tasked to figure out the meaning of these words and has

indicated that these words apply to the field of healthcare and medicine. They have

ruled that they protect the "rights" of individuals both in the civil and criminal

context See, e.g., Winston v. Lee, 470 U. S. 753, 766-767 (1985) (forced surgery);

Rochin v. California, 342 U. S. 165, 166, 173-174 (1952) (forced stomach pumping);

Washington v. Harper, 494 U. S. 210, 229, 236 (1990) (forced administration of

antipsychotic drugs); Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U. S. 535 (1942)(

the right not to be sterilized without consent); Winston v. Lee, 470 U. S. 753 (1985)

(the right in certain circumstances not to undergo involuntary surgery, forced

administration of drugs, or other substantially similar procedures, also Washington

v. Harper, 494 U. S. 210 (1990), Rochin v. California, 342 U. S. 165 (1952))

The courts also have decided that rights afforded by the Constitution extend

to the patients choice and medical care. See Cruzan v. Missouri Department of

Health, 497 U.S. 261 (1990) (constitutional right to refuse medical treatment that

sustains life), Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 117 S. Ct. 2258, 138 L. Ed.

2d 772 (1997) (No right to physician assisted suicide under the Due Process Clause).

When the judiciary is faced with an issue relating to healthcare not easily

interpreted from the Constitution however, they must employ a different approach

deciding if the subject is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition”. As

detailed by Justice Alito in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, 142 S.

Ct. 2228, 597 U.S., 213 L. Ed. 2d 545 (2022):

"The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is

implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on

which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely—the Due Process

Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That provision has been held to

guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but any

such right must be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and

“implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.” Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.

S. 702, 721 (1997) (internal quotation marks omitted)."

The practice of medicine has been regulated all the way back to ancient times

beginning with the "Code of Hammurabi (circa BC 1740)"which governed all aspects

of physicians and surgeons1. In addition to this, Hippocrates (circa BC 460-360) of

Greek antiquity, and Galen (AD 130-200), also established clinical guidelines and

regulations for practice, many of which endure today2 This regulation proceeded

through the Medieval period, the Renaissance expanding through Europe &

worldwide and ending up here in the United States in the Colonial period. In 1649,

Medical licensure and regulation officially began with Massachusetts determining

that Physicians and Surgeons are prohibited from treating “without the advice and

consent of such as are skillful in the same art” and in 1772 New Jersey was the first

colony to require examination requirements for Physicians3

1 Violato, C. A Brief History of the Regulation of Medical Practice: Hammurabi to the National Board of Medical

Examiners (2016)

2 Violato, C. A Brief History of the Regulation of Medical Practice: Hammurabi to the National Board of Medical

Examiners (2016)

3 Violato, C. A Brief History of the Regulation of Medical Practice: Hammurabi to the National Board of Medical

Examiners (2016)

As time went on, more examinations were requirements for licensure, but

the government used medical societies to administer them (See Federation of

State Medical Boards, Medical Licensure Prior to 1900 "With the establishment of

the first medical school (Pennsylvania 1765) and governmental use of a medical

society to examine those seeking to practice medicine (New Jersey, 1766), the seeds

of a major conflict were planted."4 This conflict continued through the 1900's with

Congress stepping up and beginning to regulate the practice of medicine by creating

and using legislation such as The Narcotic Drug Act of December 17, 1914, c. 1, 38

Stat. 785, § 1.

This act was challenged for its Constitutional basis in the United States

Supreme Court in 1919 and it was held that it was in fact Constitutional in United

States v. Doremus, 249 U.S. 86 (1919) ( requiring "dispensing, or distribution of

any of the aforesaid drugs by a dealer to a consumer under and in pursuance of a

written prescription issued by a physician" also requiring "physicians registered

under the act in the course of professional practice only, provided the physicians

keep certain records for official inspection")

The following year, the Supreme Court held the Act accountable to a

physician who was dispensing Opium, but the court took it further then just "drug

trafficking" and related his actions to, and suggested regulation of a standard of

care in Jin Fuey Moy v. United States, 254 U.S. 189 (1920):

"The evidence shows that defendant was a practicing physician in Pittsburgh,

registered under the act so as to be allowed to dispense or distribute opium

4 http://centennial.fsmb.org/medical-licensure-prior-1900.html

and its derivatives without a written order in official form,.... he made a

superficial physical examination, in others, none at all; his prescriptions

called for large quantities of morphine -- 8 to 16 drams at a time - to be used

"as directed," while the directions left the recipient free to use the drug

virtually as he pleased. His charges were not according to the usual practice

of medical men, but according to the amount of the drug prescribed"

Finally in 1975 the Supreme Court finally confirmed the governments

regulation of the practice of medicine itself using the Controlled Substances Act

(CSA or Act), 84 Stat. 1242, 21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq., which was the predecessor of the

CSA in United States v. Moore, 423 U.S. 122 (1975) ("We reverse, and hold that

registered physicians can be prosecuted under § 841 when their activities fall

outside the usual course of professional practice"). Court also recognized and

applied the same standard ("Physicians who stepped outside the bounds of

professional practice could be prosecuted under the Harrison Act (Narcotics) of

1914, 38 Stat. 785, the predecessor of the CSA. In Jin Fey Moy v. United States, 254

U. S. 189 (1920), the Court affirmed the conviction of a physician on facts

remarkably similar to those before us (e.gno adequate physical examination," )

citing United States v. Moore, 423 U.S. 122 (1975)

As explained specifically in Moore the court detailed well beyond medication

regulation and established the precedent that physicians could be held liable from

departing from the standard of care:

"When a patient entered the office, he was given only the most perfunctory

examination. Typically this included a request to see the patient's needle

marks (which in more than one instance were simulated) and an

unsupervised urinalysis (the results of which were regularly ignored). A

prescription was then written for the amount requested by the patient. On

return visits -- for which appointments were never scheduled - no physical

examination was performed and the patient again received a prescription for

whatever quantity he requested. Accurate records were not kept, and in some

cases the quantity prescribed was not recorded. There was no supervision of

the administration of the drug. Dr. Moore's instructions consisted entirely of

a label on the drugs reading: "Take as directed for detoxification."" United

States v. Moore, 423 U.S. 122 (1975)

Following this in 1978, all states including New Jersey ended their own

medical licensing examinations and "The Federation Licensing Exam or the

National Boards become the standard"5 In 1992 The current examination, the

United States Medical Licensing Exam (USMLE) was administered by Defendants

for the first time replacing this standard6. In addition to testing, "students who

have earned a medical degree are required to undergo further postgraduate

supervised clinical training. In the United States and Canada this is called

residency, also called a house officer or senior house officer in the United Kingdom

and several Commonwealth countries. Depending on the medical specialty and

jurisdiction, residency can be 1 to 6 years in duration."7 These residency

positions are created and paid for by Congress using a portion of the funding

for the program and the other portion to pay a salary to the resident themselves8

5 Violato, C. A Brief History of the Regulation of Medical Practice: Hammurabi to the National Board of Medical

Examiners (2016)

6 Violato, C. A Brief History of the Regulation of Medical Practice: Hammurabi to the National Board of Medical

Examiners (2016)

7 Violato, C. A Brief History of the Regulation of Medical Practice: Hammurabi to the National Board of Medical

Examiners (2016)

8 Medical Resident: An individual who has completed medical school and is in training to become a licensed

physician. Residents generally train in a specialty for three to five years (although some specialties require a

preliminary year of general medical training before specialty training commences). Obtaining a medical residency is

competitive; medical students in their final year apply to residency programs in a particular location and specialty.

Medical residents are paid a salary during residency, but this salary is generally a fraction of what they will earn

after completing their residency, citing Heisler, E. J., Panangala, S. V., Mendez, B. H., Villagrana, M. A., &

Mitchell, A. (2018). Federal Support for Graduate Medical Education: An Overview. CRS Report R44376, Version

9. Updated. Congressional Research Service.

Now, as the states no longer controlled licensing examinations and congress

establishes regulations for physicians, pays for their training along with a salary

during that training, the courts have found everything from refusal of medical

treatment to the standard of care to liability all within previsions of the United

States Constitution. See e.g. Winston v. Lee, 470 U. S. 753, 766-767 (1985); Rochin

v. California, 342 U. S. 165, 166, 173-174 (1952); Washington v. Harper, 494 U. S.

210, 229, 236 (1990); Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U. S. 535 (1942);

Washington v. Harper, 494 U. S. 210 (1990), Rochin v. California, 342 U. S. 165

(1952)); United States v. Moore, 423 U.S. 122 (1975); Jin Fuey Moy v. United

States, 254 U.S. 189 (1920) Cruzan v. Missouri Department of Health, 497 U.S. 261

(1990); Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 117 S. Ct. 2258, 138 L. Ed. 2d 772

(1997)

"We begin, as we do in all due process cases, by examining our Nation's

history, legal traditions, and practices. See, e.g., Casey, 505 U. S., at 849-850;

Cruzan, 497 U. S., at 269-279; Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 503 (1977)

(plurality opinion) (noting importance of "careful 'respect for the teachings of

history'")" Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 117 S. Ct. 2258, 138 L. Ed. 2d

772 (1997). That examination as detailed prior, shows that It is abundantly clear

that the forefathers of this country intended for the United States Government to

provide safe and regulated medical care, including licensing and testing to obtain

that license, for all of the citizens it protects. Therefore all aspects of the

Defendants, the National Board of Medical Examiners administering licensing

examinations are subject to judicial scrutiny and legislative accountability to

protect the public.

Therefore the court should have recognized the importance and implications

of this case, totally independent of Plaintiffs litigation, ruling promptly in this

matter.

III. Does a delay in Medical Education constituent "Irreparable

Harm" under the prerequisites for the issuance of an Injunction in

an ADA claim, impeding the process of creating more qualified

physicians to serve the "Public Interest" further the necessity for

prompt judicial review?

Another reason the court should have ruled on Plaintiffs application is the

"Irreparable Harm" Plaintiff is experiencing each day that he cannot continue his

medical education. This harm affects not only him, but the public as well and this

type of behavior by Defendants (which they have been sued multiple times for See

Ramsay v. Nat'l Bd. of Med. Examiners, 968 F.3d 251, 256 (3d Cir. 2020) cert,

denied, 141 S. Ct. 1517, 209 L. Ed. 2d 255 (2021); Doe v. National Bd. of Med.

Exam’rs, 199 F.3d 146, 154-155 (3d Cir. 1999); Katz v. Nat’l Bd. of Med. Exam'rs

751 F. App'x 231 (3d Cir. 2018); Powell v. National Bd. of Medical Examiners , 364

F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2004); Jenkins v. Nat'l Bd. of Med. Exam'rs, No. 08-5371, 2009 U.S.

App. LEXIS 2660 (6th Cir. Feb. 11, 2009); Gonzales v. National Bd. of Medical

Examiners, 225 F.3d 620 (6th Cir. 2000); Biank v. Nat'l Bd. of Med. Examiners, 130

F. Supp. 2d 986, 988 (N.D. Ill. 2000) ; Currier v. National Board of Medical

Examiners, 965 N.E.2d 829, 462 Mass. 1 (2012) ; Gonzalez v. National Bd. of

Medical Examiners, 60 F. Supp. 2d 703 (E.D. Mich. 1999); Wright v. NBME,

2021WL 5028463, *9 (D. Colo. 2021); Black v. Nat’l Bd. of Med. Examiners, 281 F.

Supp. 3d 1247, 1249-50 (S.D. Fla. 2017); Berger v. Nat'l Bd. of Med. Exam’rs, No.

l:19-cv-99, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145666 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 27, 2019); Price v.

National Bd. of Medical Examiners, 966 F. Supp. 419 (S.D.W. Va. 1997); Rush v.

National Board of Medical Examiners, 268 F. Supp.2d 673 (N.D. Tex. 2003); Scheibe

v. Nat'l Bd. of Med. Examiners, Civ. A. No. 05-180, 2005 WL 1114497, at *3 (W.D.

Wis. May 10, 2005)) effects not only Plaintiff, but other medical students who are

not treated fairly by Defendants.

The result of Defendants actions is that they impede the creation of qualified

physicians when they prevent individuals from completing their training and taking

they exams which affects the public. In addition to this individuals such as Plaintiff

are affected because they cannot pursue their chosen profession because they are

held up by defendants repetitive discriminatory practices See Ramsay v. National

Board of Medical Examiners, 968 F.3d 251, 263 (3d Cir. 2020) See also Rush v.

National Board of Medical Examiners, 268 F. Supp.2d 673 (N.D. Tex. 2003) (Delay

in medical education and pursuing career as a physician caused by Defendants

examinations constituted irreparable harm) They were also recently sued in New

York District Court in Sampson v. National Board of Medical Examiners, No.

2:2022cv05120 (E.D.N.Y. 2022) and the court emphasized this point as explained in

the courts opinion:

Because Sampson cannot proceed to his final year of medical school until he

passes Step 1, any further delay pending a trial on the merits would continue

to deprive Sampson of his opportunity to pursue his medical training. Berger

v. Nat’l Bd. of Med. Exam’rs, No. 19-CV-99, 2019 WL 4040576, at *28 (S.D.

Ohio Aug. 27, 2019) ( finding that “a delay in taking the Step 2 CK exam

pending the resolution of this lawsuit would deprive [plaintiff] of the

opportunity to practice his chosen profession of medicine”); Doe v. Samuel

Merritt Univ., 921 F. Supp. 2d 958, 964 (N.D. Cal. 2013) (medical student

was likely to suffer irreparable harm by inability to participate in clinical

rotations and earn medical degree while lawsuit was pending, delaying her

professional career); Bonnette v. D.C. Ct. of Appeals, 796 F. Supp. 2d 164,

186-87 (D.D.C. 2011) (“Because [plaintiff] cannot practice law until she

successfully passes the D.C. Bar Examination, any delay in taking the MBE

deprives her of time to practice her chosen profession.”); Jones v. Nat’l Conf.

of Bar Exam’rs, 801 F. Supp. 2d 270, 286-87 (D. Vt. 2011) (“[W]hile Plaintiff

is losing opportunities to take the MPRE, there is no countervailing benefit

she obtains through the passage of time. Indeed, the passage of time is likely

to exacerbate her harm as it may delay completion of her law school

education and may delay her entry into her chosen professional field.”)

This court has not decided if a delay in education meets the requirements for

the "irreparable harm" portion of an application for an Injunction. Plaintiff asks for

the sake of the individual immediately affected by Defendants actions such as

himself and for the sake of the public for this court to decide this question.

Legal Argument

A Circuit Justice may issue an injunction when there is a “significant

possibility” that the Court would take the case on appeal and reverse, and where

“there is a likelihood that irreparable injury will result if relief is not granted.” Am.

Trucking Ass’ns, Inc. v. Gray, 483 U.S. 1306, 1308 (1987) (Blackmun, J., in

chambers). In this matter, it is clear that under the circumstances presented the

court would reverse the lower courts as irreparable harm has and will occur to

Plaintiff as a result of Defendants actions and the lowers courts inaction. Here,

"plausible arguments exist for reversing the decision below and there is at least a

fair prospect that a majority of the Court may vote to do so." See California v.

American Stores Co.. 492 U.S. 1301, 1306 (1989) (O'Connor, J., in chambers).

When Plaintiff filed his appeal, Defendants did not file a motion to dismiss

the appeal, did not file a response when served with a motion to expedite the

appeal and did not oppose his motion for an Injunction as proven by the docket

entries. This taken into account with the harm to Plaintiff and the interest of the

public in his case should be considered by the court as they "explore the relative

harms to Applicant and respondent, as well as the interests of the public at large."

Bellotti v. Latino Pol. Action Comm., 463 U.S. 1319, 1320 (1983) (Brennan, J., in

chambers)

Conclusion

Concluding based upon the information presented in this application,

Plaintiff requests this court act accordingly.

Dated: 5/12/2022

7

Jason A. Zangara, MPH, MA

573 Sidorske Avenue

Manville, New Jersey 08835

(908) 672-0626

firefighterjazzyj@yahoo.com

Plaintiff, Pro Se