khattab V Morehouse Abusing residents

Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to DEFENDANT’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE(Docket 472). Introduction
1
Defendant failed to present any genuine issue of material fact in its Motion for summary judgment , Therefore this case should go to trial .
Defendant could not comment on plaintiffs solid Denial/Objections to Morehouse alleged statement of genuine fact as to which there is NO dispute .
Defendants Response and Brief have Mischaracterized this case and falsified Facts in an effort to manipulate this Honorable court. Defendants Motion is supported by statements which contradict same defendant and its own employees statements under oath during discovery ,Therefore plaintiffs provided a clear evidence of perjury and genuine issue (dispute)for trial .
The party seeking summary judgment bears the burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine dispute as to any material fact. Herzog v. Castle Rock Entm’t, 193 F.3d 1241, 1246 (11th Cir. 1999). Once the moving party has met this burden, the non movant must demonstrate that summary judgment is inappropriate by designating specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial. Graham v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 193 F.3d 1274, 1282 (11th Cir. 1999). 2
Defendant Morehouse numerous contradictory statements under oath must be construed against it as a matter of law.
Contradictory testimony must be construed against defendant as a matter of law. See generally Rollins v. TechSouth, Inc., 833 F.2d 1525, 1530 (11th Cir. 1987). (“[A] party cannot give clear answers to unambiguous questions in a deposition and thereafter raise an issue of material fact [at summary judgment] in a contradictory [factual assertion] that fails to explain the contradiction.”) . Depositions taken in this case contradict defendant allegations, Said allegations were submitted under oath during discovery and Motion For summary judgment ,Therefore Morehouse Motion For Summary judgment Should be denied .
In reviewing the evidence “the court must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party, and it may not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence.” Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products Inc., 120 S.Ct. 2097, 2110 (2000). Factual controversies are to be resolved in favor of the nonmovant, “but
only when . . . both parties have submitted evidence of contradictory facts.” Little, 37 F.3d at 1075. 3
Answers to interrogatories, and admissions in this case , contradict what defendant claimed in its Motion For summary judgment , Therefore Defendants’ said Motion Should be denied . This Honorable court is bond by clear decisions of the US Supreme Court .Summary judgment is proper where “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The moving party has the burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986).
4
Defendant’s Motion For summary judgment Should be denied because this honorable court is bond by the Supreme court decisions about US court Functions and responsibilities at summary judgment stage.
At the summary judgment stage the court’s function is NOT to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter, but rather to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249. In doing so, the court must construe the facts and inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Curley v. Klem, 298 F.3d 271, 277 (3d Cir. 2002).
A fact is material if it “might affect the outcome of the suit.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). There is a genuine issue if the evidence would allow a reasonable jury to find for the non-moving party. Id. In other words, the inquiry is “whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.” Id. at 251-52. On a motion for summary judgment, the Court must view all the evidence and all factual inferences drawn there from in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and determine whether that evidence could reasonably sustain a jury verdict. Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 322-23; Allen, 121 F.3d at 646.
5
Plaintiff submitted to this court numerous Deposition transcripts , Affidavits and Documents’ prepared and signed by the defendant and its employees ,Therefore Plaintiffs Documents’ should never be considered inadmissible or unauthenticated hearsay .
6
This case should go to trial as defendant failed to provide a solid, logic and truthful statement of material facts as to which there is no genuine issue to be tried . The party seeking summary judgment bears the burden of demonstrating the Absence of a genuine dispute as to any material fact. Herzog v. Castle Rock Entm’t, 193 F.3d 1241, 1246 (11th Cir. 1999)
Plaintiffs Admissible Evidence Plaintiffs admissible evidence includes (but is not limited to) the following: 1-Requests for admission and Interrogatories signed by Morehouse former attorney Mrs. Sara Lynn Doyle ,The Supreme Court and the eleventh circuit will never accept that said signed discovery documents are not admissible.
2-Stipulation about Dr Rao Mikkiinine work evaluation and his letter of recommendation .The Said Stipulation was signed more than once by defendant attorney Mrs Sara Lynn Doyle , Therefore this court should consider it as an undisputed evidence.(See attached , an example of Mrs Sara Doyle February 2008 signed stipulation).
3-All the documents which were submitted and or prepared by dependent employees Mr William E Booth and Yolanda Christie. Defendant GME Director-Mr Booth- admitted that all documents being labeled khattab 0201 through 0646 are contained in plaintiffs File , The File which defendant keep and should be liable for all its contents (See Booth November 14 sworn affidavit ,Paragraph 16 –attached to Defendant Motion for Summary Judgment).
4-All documents labeled (Bates) Khattab number were submitted, compiled and or created by defendant , Therefore it should be an evidence for trial.
5-Most if Not all e-mail referred to them in defendant recent Motion were compelled, created and produced by the defendant ,therefore Defendant cannot argue that what it produced and what its employees admitted is NOT an evidence.
6-All documents labeled (khattab- number )were produced by defendant attorney Mrs Sara L Doyle, Therefore they should be an evidence used at trial . See Ms Sara L Doyle March 2008 letter to plaintiff indicating that pursuant to court order she is releasing More documents labeled also as khattab 600 ,//1100, Those documents were released by defendant.
7-Plaintiffs evidence include 2 letters of recommendations attached to ERIC Flenaugh MD deposition as Exhibit 3 &4 . Flenaugh admitted that the documents were truthful and he have copies of them (See Flenaugh 2nd Deposition Page P70 L 12-25 Page 71 L1-15 specifically line 14(I accept that what is written in the document came from him) . See Also Page 72 about Drs Griffith and Odowole Letters of recommendation opinion , for example See P72 L 19 I have his evaluation right in front of me.
During Flenaugh 1st deposition he stated (I ADMIT I have a copy of Dr Oduwole, evaluation/Letter of recommendation) ,Further Dr Oduwole was deposed and his testimony statements is a clear an evidence .
8- defendant RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS PER HONORABLE JUDGE WALKER ORDER ISSUED ON AUGUST 14, 2008 ,For example see Requests 6 admitting plaintiffs overall clinical competence as Satisfactory or superior.
9- Plaintiff’s numerous exhibits attached to James W Reed MD 2nd part Deposition testimony.
10-Plaintiff’s first and second exhibits to AKOMOLAFE M.D Deposition testimony.
This Honorable court should consider a higher court legal opinion about Summary Judgment stage and Credibility .
At Summary Judgment stage ,The Court must view all evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion and must resolve all reasonable doubts in the non-movant’s favor. United of Omaha Life Ins. Co. v. Sun Life Ins. Co. of Am., 894 F.2d 1555, 1558 (11th Cir. 1990). “[C]redibility determinations, the weighing of evidence, and the drawing of inferences from the facts are the function of the jury . . . .” Graham, 193 F.3d at 1282. “If the record presents factual issues, the court must not decide
them; it must deny the motion and proceed to trial.” Herzog, 193 F.3d at 1246. PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE is supported by clear evidence and Deposition transcripts that can NOT be disputed.
Defendant failed to respond to the numerous evidence presented in Plaintiffs Response to defendant’s Motions for summary judgment ,said evidence includes the contents of those Sections :
1- RAC conspiracy / Negligence. 2-Failure to investigate plaintiff’s complaints . Defendant sham investigations /Retaliation.
3- Work Time /load –Patient Numbers (Negligent/Abuse).
4-Defendant failed to respond to the numerous contradicting statements under oath plaintiff referred to them for example see, Fleanugh Reed/Red,- Rose,-Elks /smith,-Elks/Rose,-Elks Booth contradicting statements included in plaintiffs Motion.
5- Eric Flenaugh False allegations /Bad faith affidavit about RAC Voting
6- Reed Conspiracy / single Vote to terminate plaintiff on behalf of Morehouse / Violating RAC QUORUM Policy
Contrary to defendant allegations ,Plaintiff’s attempts to refute MSM’s decisions about his employment is supported by clear evidence submitted to this honorable this Court . Eric Fleanugh clearly indicated during his 2nd deposition that WE(Morehouse RAC)DO NOT HAVE Sort of voting and that the RAC made the decision without voting ,However Defendant claimed that he voted and the RAC voted based on his affidavit. Plaintiff PRESENTED EVIDENCE Proving THAT Defendant’s Alleged LEGITIMATE, NON DISCRIMINATORY REASONS WERE PRETEXTUAL , DISCRIMINATORY, Fake and NOT Logic . Pretext may be demonstrated either through additional evidence
showing “the employer’s proffered explanation is unworthy of credence,” Burdine, 450 U.S. at 256, or by relying on the same evidence that comprised the prima facie case. St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 511 (1993).
The Plaintiff must, however, be able to show “such weaknesses, implausibilities, inconsistencies, incoherencies, or contradictions in the employer’s proffered legitimate reasons for its action that a reasonable fact finder could find them unworthy of credence.” Cooper
v. Southern Co., 390 F.3d 695, 725 (11th Cir. 2004) (quoting Combs v. Plantation Patterns, 106 F.3d 1519, 1528 (11th Cir. 1997)). Defendant failed in creating a genuine issue about the reasons for terminating plaintiffs employment ,Therefor this case should be advance to trial . The followings prove that defendant reasons for terminating plaintiffs employment are ,False ,Non logic ,and pretext for discrimination. 1- Plaintiffs legitimate Work- Satisfactory /Superior Work evaluations and excellent patient care. See Plaintiffs original response –pages 4-5-6.
2- See Facts included in Plaintiffs Motion paragraph : Discrepancies/Contradicting Discovery & Deposition statements are pretext for Discrimination.
2 A- Defendant contradicting statement under oath should be considered as a Pretext for Discrimination.
2 B-One of the defendant confusing/misleading statements is identification plaintiffs race as Other during discovery and alleging under oath that Defendant and all its employees did NOT Know plaintiffs religion(Muslim)until he filed this lawsuit .On November 14 ,2008 Morehouse claimed in its Summary Judgment that it knew plaintiff is Caucasian and Muslim before hiring him .
This Court should never accept Filing Contradicting statements under Oath ,One during Discovery and another one at Summary Judgment.
Discrepancy should be considered as a material fact for Trial as a pretext for discrimination Per US Courts decisions. ( See Hernandez v. Hughes Missile Systems Co., 362F.3d 564 (2004) , the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that an issue of material fact was created when an employer offered differing justifications and explanation 3-See Plaintiffs Motions evidence about contradicting information between Morehouse allegations about plaintiff work and alleged RAC meeting dates and plaintiffs undisputed Letters of recommendations and work evaluations. 4-Contrary to the Defendant allegations plaintiff could easily prove that Morehouse reasons for terminating plaintiff employment as indicated within defendant summary judgment Motion is simply a false , PRETEXT for discrimination False and Further NOT Logic.
4A- Defendant raised allegations about Plaintiff understanding of the essential written and spoken English , communicating adequately in English –See ABIM report ..etc (See Summary Judgment Rose Affidavit Exhibit A –Document khattab 0298). See document khattab 1625 created by Myra E Rose and she wrote in the last 2 lines concerned about reported lack of clinical focus that is reflected in spoken communication .
Plaintiff proved that he can communicate verbally in English Further Rose Herself admitted during her deposition that there is NO problem about plaintiff verbal communication (Rose Dep 2nd part P 18 L7-11)Rose Admitted under oath that plaintiff has a valid English language tests (Rose Dep 2nd part P 93 L 19-23) .Rose said under oath (There's no question that you speak and understand English well) Rose 2nd Dep page 94 Line 9.
Honorable Judge Walker and Morehouse Attorney Sara L Doyle accepted that plaintiff can communicate adequately verbally in English ,Further Judge Walker stated in an open court hearing that there is NOTHING wrong with plaintiff English (Verbal English ) and her honor can understand plaintiff. 4B Defendant raised False allegations about plaintiffs Medical knowledge , understanding of the essential of patient care, relationship with patients and clinical skills.. See for example Summary Judgment Rose Affidavit Exhibit A –Document khattab 0298-0310-).
It is extremely easy to prove that Morehouse allegations are false and should be a pretext for discrimination .See All the documents mentioned in Plaintiffs Response paragraph (Plaintiffs legitimate Work- Satisfactory /Superior Work evaluations and patient care.)See Defendant Employees 2004 National Scoring exams as submitted by Morehouse per court order and compare it with plaintiff score. Non of plaintiffs Black or Nigerian co-workers (peers) were harassed, or denied sick off days in 2004 or 2005 . Most Plaintiffs Black and Nigerian coworkers scored less than him in their 2004 US Medical exams ,However based on their color and origin defendant claimed that they have superior medical knowledge although their US percentile was very law (For example 1%,4%,8%,11%,14%). plaintiff percentile was 71%( Per Defendant released and approved by attorney Mrs Sara L Doyle).
See also defendant RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS PER HONORABLE JUDGE WALKER ORDER ISSUED ON AUGUST 14, 2008 Requests 6,13, 14.
5-Defendant presented several different reasons for its decision to terminate plaintiff employment .Plaintiff proved that the reasons were FALSE ,Non Logic and contradicted Morehouse employees opinions ,Therefore the said reason are pretext for discrimination.
Plaintiffs undisputed superior and satisfactory work evaluations contradict Morehouse and Myra E Rose allegations ,the said false allegations are pretext for discrimination (See documents attached to Rose Affidavit and compare it with documents 0851,0370, 0371, 0259,0260, Dr Oduwole Deposition pages 22 ,23 ,24, Akomolafe Deposition page 14 L9-24, See also defendant RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS PER HONORABLE JUDGE WALKER ORDER ISSUED ON AUGUST 14, 2008 Requests 6,13, 14).
6-Morehouse claimed that Plaintiff does not understand the essential of medicine and his medical knowledge is far below average and he further does not know the essential of medical knowledge, Facts admitted later by defendant proved that plaintiff medical knowledge is far above average and is better than his peers and even supervisors. There is No doubt that defendant allegation is a pretext for discrimination .
7- Defendant ignored the fact that Eric Flenough , David Anderson and Akomolafe statementes under oath contradict Morehouse allegations about RAC meetings / RAC voting .The voting allegation was created during this case discovery by defendant and its aggressive lawyers and should be considered a pretext for Discriminating (This Court should compel certifying under oath the RAC members names ,There identity should be released under Oath in a certified document supported by an affidavit sworn by a Morehouse Agent, so that agent can be responsible for lying under Oath. During discovery Attorney Sara Doyle admitted that she was against releasing the RAC members identity –See Booth Deposition Page 154 L 13-19.) Morehouse allegations about its RAC meetings and voting is a pretext for Discrimination, and the All alleged RAC members should be known to this court and plaintiff ,The Supreme Court will never accept that Defendant does not certify the identity of all its RAC members .(See plaintiffs Motions Section RAC conspiracy). 8- Defendant False ,unsupported allegation about plaintiffs patient care is a pretext for discrimination because :
(a) Morehouse Failed to prove its false allegations about plaintiffs patient care. Indeed Morehouse failed to provide one single prescription ,medical diagnoses or a name of a human being who used to be a patient in Georgia and who have any concerns about plaintiff . Myra E Rose MD(Morehouse Medicine Chairman) who created false unsupported allegation about plaintiff admitted under oath That No patient in the state of Georgia complained against plaintiff.( (Rose Deposition 2nd part March , Page 120 L 1-3) (b) numerous Morehouse employees testified in favor of the plaintiffs satisfactory or superior patient care.
(c) Defendant Refused to inspect documents about plaintiff quality of patient care and further refused to compare plaintiffs Patient care with his coworkers.
(d)Finally Attorney Sara Doyle claimed that patient care is NOT relevant to this case . Attorney Ms Doyle instructed Morehouse employees to refuse inspecting plaintiff documents about his excellent patient care quality and a few Morehouse employees horrible negligence of uninsured Grady Hospital patient . For example See Rose 2nd Deposition Page 130 L 22 and page 131 ,See the content of plaintiffs Motion to Send a Subpoena to the CSBME(Georgia Medical Board)and Morehouse opposition to said Motion.
9-All evidence about violating Defendant bylaw , Morehouse RAC appointing and grievance policy .Discrimination policy is a prove that Morehouse alleged RAC, Due process and reasons for diosmosing plaintiff is a Pretext for discrimination and abuse.
(See Plaintiff Response/Objections to the Defendants statement of Material facts As to Which there is NO Genuine Issue to be triad Statements 8,9,11
See also Plaintiff’s Response/Opposition to the Defendant Brief in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment. RAC Conspiracy /Negligence, Flenaugh False allegations /Bad faith affidavit about RAC Voting , Reed Conspiracy / single Vote to terminate plaintiff on behalf of Morehouse / Violating RAC QUORUM Policy /See the discrepancies and clear evidence submitted in section failure to investigate . 10- In May 2005 ,Myra E Rose accepted/recommended in a writing that plaintiff be promoted .the said promotion is based on a sworn affidavit signed by Myra E Rose in May 2005 , (See Rose affidavit to the CSBME-Georgia Medical Board ). The said sworn affidavit information about plaintiffs promotion contradict what Morehouse alleged in its Motion for summary judgment .
11-Finally Defendant presented several different reasons for its alleged RAC decision to terminate plaintiff employment .Plaintiff proved that the reasons were FALSE ,Non Logic and contradicted Morehouse employees opinion ,Therefore the said reason are pretext for discrimination. A- Morehouse claimed Plaintiff does not understand the essential of medicine and his medical knowledge is far below average and he further does not know the essential of medical knowledge. Facts admitted later by defendant proved that plaintiff medical knowledge is far above average and is better than his peers and even supervisors. B-Plaintiffs undisputed superior and satisfactory work evaluations contradict Morehouse RAC and Myra E Rose allegations (See documents attached to Rose November 2008 Affidavit and compare it with Plaintiffs Positive work evaluations ). C- Eric Flenaugh , David Anderson and Akomolafe statements under oath ,contradict Morehouse allegations about RAC meeting with plaintiff and RAC voting .The voting allegation which was created during this case discovery by defendant and its aggressive lawyers . Finally It is important to note that If Morehouse said the truth about RAC members meeting and voting ,Then There is NO Doubt that Defendant violated its own RAC QUORUM Policy (See Plaintiff original Response Page 28-31).
(This Court should compel releasing the RAC members identity under Oath in a certified document supported by an affidavit sworn by a Morehouse Agent, so that agent can be responsible for lying under Oath).
Plaintiff’s Prima Facie Case of Discrimination
1
Defendant Failed to respond logically to What plaintiff submitted as an evidence and argument about his legitimate Prima Facie Case of Discrimination ,Indeed defendant ignored the 9 statements (A to I)about establishing the fourth element of plaintiffs Prima Facie(See Plaintiffs Motion Pages 36-39).
2
There is No doubt that Defendant promoted plaintiffs coworkers who were Non Muslim and Non Caucasians although they had lesser or equal qualifications.
There is No doubt that Defendant promoted plaintiffs coworkers who had (1)a very low National scores and (2)medical knowledge that is far below plaintiffs Medical Knowledge . None of the mentioned promoted coworkers is Caucasian .For example See Scores of Doctors W Bhatti,, G Eliana,G Liliana,H Eunice, M VEnkata , N anitha , N Nicole, N Casmir,O Adebola, R Maria, W Prune H , and G Ayodeji.( 12 coworker).
Under McDonnell Douglas, a plaintiff must first establish aprima facie case of discrimination. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973). A prima facie case ofdiscrimination in a failure to promote case is established by “proving that (1) the plaintiff is a member of a protected group; (2) the plaintiff was qualified for and applied for the promotion; (3) the plaintiff was rejected in spite of his qualifications; and (4) the individual who received the promotion is not a member of a protected group and had lesser or equal qualifications.” Carter v. Three Springs Residential Treatment, 132 F.3d 635, 642 (11th Cir. 1998) In order to establish a prima facie case of race
discrimination, Plaintiff must establish: (1) that he is a member of a protected class, (2) that he was qualified for the job, (3) that
he was subjected to an adverse employment action, and (4) that he was replaced by someone outside her protected class or was treated differently than similarly situated employees. Wilson v. B/E Aerospace, Inc., 376 F.3d 1079, 1087 (2004); Hawkins v. CECO Corp.,883 F.2d 977, 982 (11th Cir. 1989) (1) It is undisputed that Plaintiff is a member of a protected class(Defendant provided No Dispute about Plaintiffs a protected class). (2) Plaintiff proved that he was qualified for the job.
Defendant claimed that Dr Khattab is a Medical Doctor , a holder of requisite academic degree for the general practice of medicine an employee employed in a bona fide professional capacity. (Defendant Statement -docket 98. – Plaintiff hold a valid indefinitely ECFMG certificate which includes valid indefinitely English requirement and -Medical-Clinical skills Assessment ,The said certificate is issued by a US Federal Commission in 2003 , defendant Residency Manager is aware of this fact (See Defendant answer to Plaintiffs 3rd Set Request of admissions –Request 12 ). Plaintiff passed the United States Medical licensing examination before being interviewed by defendant ,Further plaintiff passed the US Medical exam -Clinical skills assessment -before applying for a Job at Morehouse (See ECFME Certificate-See direct report defendant received before interviewing plaintiff, See Flenaugh ,Anderson Job interview evaluation) . See also Plaintiff original response Plaintiff hold a valid ECFMG Certificate –Passed USMLE(United states Medical Licensing examination
(3) Plaintiff waw subjected to an adverse employment action (It is beyond doubt that termination of an employment is an adverse action
(4) Plaintiff was replaced by someone outside his protected class(Dr M Taylor a African –Black) or was treated
differently than similarly situated employees(Plaintiff provided information about favorably treating his 12 coworkers who are Non Caucasians, Non Muslims , and Black born in Africa. 3
Failure to Promote-Prima Facie
A prima facie case of discrimination in a failure to promote case is established by “proving that (1) the plaintiff is a member of a protected group; (2) the plaintiff was qualified for and applied for the promotion; (3) the plaintiff was rejected in spite of his qualifications; and (4) the individual who received the promotion is not a member of a protected group and had lesser or equal qualifications.” Carter v. Three Springs Residential Treatment, 132 F.3d 635, 642 (11th Cir. 1998).
Defendant CAN NOT DISPUTE the fact that None of the promoted individuals mentioned in paragraph (2) ,None of them was Caucasian. 4
Defendant , Did not deny the fact that its Internal Medicine Chair, Director and alleged RAC , made the decision to employee Ms Michelle Taylor (African) to replace Plaintiff Dr Khattab, Further Morehouse Medicine program director /Faculty member interviewed Ms Taylor before firing Dr Khattab.
(See Booth Deposition Page 163 L 3-25)page 164L (1-8).
(See Rose Deposition Page 75). 5
It is important to note that attorney Sara L Doyle and her client refused to give plaintiff a document indicating the number of patients Dr Khattab took care of them during his employment ,further she instructed Defendant employees not to answer this request (See Booth Deposition Page 152 L 4-17.
6 To establish a prima facie case of race discrimination under the McDonnell Douglas framework, Plaintiff must
show that: (1) he belongs to a protected class, (2) he suffered an adverse employment action, (3) he was qualified for the job, and (4) similarly situated individuals outside of the protected class were treated differently. Holifield v. Reno, 115 F.3d 1555, 1562 (11th Cir. 1997). Defendant did not dispute that plaintiff is a member of a protected class (Muslims ,Syrian Arabs and Caucasians should be considered protected under US Law).
A person of Arab ancestry may sue under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 if he can prove discrimination based upon ancestry or ethnic characteristics. Saint Francis College v. Al-Khazraji, 481 U.S. 604 (1987). This court decided that Arabs and Muslims are protected under US Anti-discrimination law , See this court case -MIHOUBI .V.CARIBOU , :05-CV-2441-TWT, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA, Honorable Judge Thomas W. Thrash, decision dated August 9,2007. The prove of the forth element of plaintiffs , Prima Facie, is very simple
1-See what plaintiff submitted in his original opposition .
2-Plaintiff proved that his medical knowledge is better than his peers , However Non of his peers received a condemning documents from their Director (Rose) or the alleged RAC .It is obvious that only plaintiff received insulting documents from Rose (Medicine Director) while the Non Caucasians who has far less medical knowledge were promoted .
Plaintiff proved that there is No doubt that he scored more than his peers and that he has a better medical knowledge (per Defendant released documents ,although Rose (Medicine Director) falsely insisted that plaintiff has far below average medical knowledge and he does NOT understand the essential of medicine .
(Rose false and less favorable opinion about plaintiff was based on Dr Khattab color and religion.). 3- Morehouse refused to compare the following aspects /items ,between plaintiff and his peers(Co-workers).
work evaluation ,work load ,work time, work schedule ,number of patient every person took care of them ever week or mouth ,Medical Knowledge..etc
4-Defendant treated Plaintiffs coworkers more favorably by letting them (A)evaluate their coworkers and supervisors , (B)receive a nurse and Para medical staff evolution and (C)written Mid Mouth evaluations ,However Defendenat refused to ensure compliance with its own policy in plaintiffs
case (See Morehouse Medicine Handbook Policy page 32-See Dr Anderson Deposition Page 31 L 7-12).
5-Defendant claimed that plaintiff working hours is NOT relevant to this case (Weather it is 80 hours a week or Not is not relevant per Attorney Sara Doyle-Despite the fact the plaintiff mentioned in this matter in his EEOC Charge and Initial court compliant-See Booth Deposition Page 144.
Defendant Refusal to compare issues between plaintiff and his coworkers who have different color, race and religion is an evidence of discrimination and support plaintiffs fourth element of prima facie case of race discrimination.
7
The comparison between Plaintiff and Dr Mitzi Clayton is appropriate .
Booth plaintiff and Dr Clayton used to be resident physicians at same defendant in the same department (Internal Medicine). Plaintiff is a Muslim Caucasian born in Syria , Dr Clayton is an African American and Not Muslim .
It is clear that Based on the Documents produced by the EEOC Morehouse promoted its African employee Ms Clayton to be a PGY-2 although her first year was ranked marginal and she had a significant patient care problems ,while Morehouse refused to promote plaintiff even if he can finish his first year as Marginal .(See Document khattab 0647-0648). Defendant never insulted Dr clayton by claiming that she has a psychiatric diseases . Defendant never forced Dr Clayton to be on administrative leave .
Defendant let Dr Clayton continue her medical job and promoted her to PGY-2 although her PGY-1 was marginal . (this is based on the document khattab 0648 which Morehouse produced,created ,signed and aproved and then sent it to the EEOC )
Morehouse Clearly indicated in writing that plaintiff will not be promoted to PGY-2 even if he is going to finish his alleged probation successfully (See Exhibit A attached to Rose affidavit).
Contrary to Defendant allegations in it additional response, Mitzi Clayton was NOT Functioning in an acceptable level during her first year (See Khatab 0648 Morehouse claimed in line 9 FACULTY Evaluations indicated that you were NOT Functining at an acceptable lever for your PGY-1 …,Significant deficits in medical knowledge ,ability to organize medical information ..etc ,The previous document Khattab 0648 –clearly indicate that William Booth received a copy of said document . (To show that an employee is similarly situated, the plaintiff must show that he is “similarly situated in relevant respects.” Knight v. S. Baptist Hosp., 330 F.3d 1313, 1316 (11th Cir. 2003). While a comparator employee need not occupy a position identical to that held by the plaintiff, see, e.g., Anderson v. WBMG-42, 253 F.3d 561, 562-63 (11th Cir. 2001) he should at least hold a position that is comparable in nature. (See, e.g., Holifield v. Reno, v115 F.3d 1555, 1563 (11th Cir. 1997) .recognizing that proper comparators to doctor serving as Chief of Health Programs at a correctional institution would be other doctors in supervisory positions at the institution, and noting that “the[r]e are only a limited number of potential ‘similarly situated employees’ when higher level supervisory positions for medical doctors are involved.”). 8
Defendant treated plaintiffs Non Caucasians (African-blacks-Nigerians ) more favorably than plaintiff who was denied Fair due process and most if not all his discrimination and abuse complaints were neglected (See Plaintiffs Motion Section RAC conspiracy ,Failure to investigate ,Violating Due process and refusal to identity RAC members in 2005,2006 and 2007. See plaintiffs Motion to certify under oath RAC members identity).No one at Morehouse School of Medicine was denied his request to know all RAC members. Prohibiting plaintiff from evaluating his coworkers and supervisors is an evidence of Discrimination . Defendant neglected in its Motion a very important fact regarding plaintiff’s evaluations. Plaintiff did not evaluate any of his supervisor or coworkers although this is a part of his job requirements per Morehouse policy and the ACGME rules(Unites States -Credential Council of Graduate medical education). Defendant failed to provide any evaluation prepared by plaintiff (an evaluation of any coworkers or supervisor resident or evean a para medical staff)although all evaluations are keeept at Morehouse per Myea E Rose MD statements under oath during her 2nd Deposition. Retaliation 1
A Plaintiff can easily establish his prima facie case of Retaliation by alleging that (1) he engaged in statutorily protected activity, (2) he suffered an adverse employment action, and (3) the adverse employment action is causally related to the protected activity. Wideman v. Wal-mart Stores, Inc., 141 F.3d 1453, 1454 (11th Cir. 1998).
Once plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of
retaliation, the burden shifts to defendant to articulate a
legitimate non-discriminatory reason for the challenged action.
Pennington v. City of Huntsville, 261 F.3d 1262, 1266 (11th Cir.
2001). The plaintiff can then defeat summary judgment by creating a
question of fact as to whether the defendant’s articulated reason is
pretext for discrimination. Wright v. Southland Corp., 187 F.3d
1287, 1305 (11th Cir. 1999). Plaintiff has established the first element of a prima facie
case of retaliation—he engaged in protected activity when he (1)filed an Internal Discrimination complaint inside Morehouse School of Medicine , (2)contacted lawyers to deal with Morehouse during plaintiffs employment ,(3)Refused to participate in abusing Poor and uninsured patients (See horrible information about Grady Hospital uninsured white trash and homeless Niggers. See also evidence of neglecting patients needs at Grady Hospital )and (4)Finally together with his former attorney had a meeting with defendant GME Chair inside Morehouse campus (See Elks Deposition). 2 “To establish a causal connection, a plaintiff must show that
the decision-makers were aware of the protected conduct, and that the protected activity and the adverse actions were not wholly unrelated.” Shannon v. BellSouth Telecomms. Inc., 292 F.3d 712, 716 (quotation marks and citation omitted). “Close temporal proximity between the protected activity and the adverse action may be sufficient to show that the two were not wholly unrelated.” Id. At 716-17 (quotation marks and citation omitted). Morehouse terminated plaintiffs employment after he filed numerous written complaints and let his attorney contact defendant (in March,April,May and Jun 2005). The attorney asked for a meeting with a legal representative-See attorney invoice attached to Plaintiffs Motion .Elks admitted under oath that she meet the plaintiff and his attorney together inside her office at Morehouse .(ELKS) indicated under oath that she informed Smith (Morehouse dean) about the meeting . Elks is Morehouse GME Chairman, Together ELKS and the Dean are a very important decision makers . See Elks Deposition Page 67 L 20 -23 –Page 68 L 1-12, Page 16 L 13-16). See Plaintiffs Motion and clear evidence that evidence about (1)complaint and (2)Dates of attorney Elkhalil phone calls to Rose(Medicine Chair –Critical decision makes) ,and Yolanda Christie(Medicine Manger-Critical decision makes) ,(3)See Elks admitting under oath that she met plaintiff’s attorney inside her office at Morehouse Campus –
(ELKS and the Dean and very high profile decision makers and booth neglected their obligations under defendant Discrimination ,disciplinary and Due process policy ,Indeed Dean Smith indicated that she has never viewed or reviewed Morehouse Discrimination policy Smith Deposition Page 8 Line 19-22 ). Rohr (Hispanic) is a member of Morehouse alleged RAC committee which terminated plaintiffs employment (See Sara Doyle written discovery) .
There is No dispute that Plaintiff complained against Rohr before Morehouse terminated his employment .Morehouse neglected the fact that Plaintiff complained against ROHR (FACULTY MEMBERS and critical decision makes ).
The Defendant neglected the fact that this case discovery Records prove that plaintiff complained that Rohr told him he is a “NIGGER” and “Nigger is a normal ward In the state of Georgia”.
Defendant claimed that plaintiff did NOT complain about a faculty member during his employment , Contrary to previous false allegation Mr Booth (Morehouse Graduate Medical Education Director) claimed under oath is aware that Plaintiff complained during his employment about verbal faculty member insulting wards (Booth Deposition Page 196 L 15-21).
3 Plaintiffs original Response contain a section about Retaliation and evidence of retaliation ,Therefore there is no need to re-submit what this court already received. This Honorable court should accept the following Eleventh circuit decisions which support plaintiffs requests . Once a plaintiff has shown the existence of statutorily protected expression and an adverse employment action, s/he must demonstrate a causal connection between the two. Shannon v. Bellsouth Telecomms., Inc., 292 F.3d 712, 716 (11th Cir. 2002). To establish a causal connection, a plaintiff must show “that the protected activity and adverse action are not wholly unrelated.” Clover, 176 F.3d at 1354 (quoting Simmons v. Camden County Bd. of Educ., 757 F.2d 1187, 1189 (11th Cir. 1985)). This element is satisfied where the plaintiff provides “sufficient evidence that the decision-maker became aware of this protected conduct, and that there was close temporal proximity between this awareness and the adverse employment action.” Farley v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 197 F.3d 1322, 1337 (11th Cir. 1997). “It is not enough for the plaintiff to show that someone in the organization knew of the protected expression; instead, the plaintiff must show that the person taking the adverse action was aware of the protected activity.” Bass v. Bd. of County Comm’rs, 256 F.3d 1095, 1119 (11th Cir. 2001). Plaintiff submitted numerous requests which proves that Defendant and its numerous important decision makes used to be aware about plaintiffs protected activity .and the said individuals includes :
(1)Marlin Pruitt –Morehouse 2005 -Chief Operating Officer (Defendant claimed in writing that plaintiff contacted and met Pruitt in May 2005).
(2)Myra E Rose –Morehouse Medicine Interim-Chair
(3) Martha Elks Morehouse GME Chair
(4) James W Reed MD Morehouse Medicine Vice-Chair
(5) ERIC FLENAUGH, Morehouse Medicine associate Director (Acting director in Jun 2005)and Grievance Committee chair. Decision Makers Discriminatory Actions.
Defendant ignored the following facts:
A- ERIC FLENAUGH Morehouse Medicine associate program director Eric FLENAUGH (African, black and Non Muslim)admitted under oath that he was the chair of the alleged defendant Grievance committee and the RAC committee which terminated plaintiffs employment .
Eric Flenaugh admitted under oath that his response to one of the plaintiffs discrimination complaints was :
NO matter what is any 3rd or 4th party opinion about the situation. See Flenaugh Deposition page 100/101 , Page 101-Line 8.
Eric Flenaugh refused to compare plaintiffs patient care outcome with his coworkers- peers -work outcome ,the coworkers have a different color race and origin (See for example Eric Flenaugh 2nd Deposition page 75 Line 11-14).
Defendant claimed that Dr Eric Flenuagh investigated part of this lawsuit and plaintiffs allegations form September 2004 through July 2005 (See Defendant response to plaintiffs first Interrogatories, Request 14 page 24/25./26 Page 26 Lines 12,13), However during his deposition Dr Fleanugh could Not remember that he investigated any issues in 2004 . B-Theresa Rohr
1-Theresa Rohr is Faculty member at Morehouse Medicine Department. ,she is Hispanic and a member of the defendant RAC which terminated plaintiff employment. See defendant answer to plaintiffs September 2008 Interrogatories . Contrary to Defendant clear lying in its response , Plaintiff clearly alleged that a decisions maker (Rohr –Hispanic) called him a Nigger.
2-Plaintiff Filed an official grievance against Dr Rohr (Eric Flenaugh 2nd Deposition Page 10 Line 2-8.See -also grievance document khattab 0855, 0854, last paragraph about a faculty member .
3- Defendants Graduate Medical Director (Mr Booth) indicated under oath that plaintiff made an appropriate compliant to his director about Theresa Rohr .(Booth Dep Page 120 L 5-24).
C-Myra E Rose MD
Rose is the Chairman and Director of the Medicine department and the person who admitted under oath that she reported plaintiff to the ABIM (American Board of Internal Medicine).
Rose is a decision maker . Reed clearly indicated during his deposition that Rose was the chair of the RAC meeting which terminated Dr Khattab employment (Reed Dep 1st part Page 14 L 16-25). Rose is a black African faculty member at Morehouse per defendant answer to plaintiffs August 2008 Interrogatories. Rose is the person who retaliated against plaintiff after receiving phone call(s) from plaintiffs former Attorney Hassan El-khalil in April,May and Jun 2005 .
Plaintiff provided evidence about Dr Rose discriminatory actions(See RAC conspiracy section –Summary of Abuse),Further plaintiff mentioned Morehouse former CEO/President Honorable Dr James Gavin testimony about Rose and another faculty member request to remove (Fire)defendant former Medicine Chairman because he was appointing WHITE PHYSICIANS and changing Morehouse face. D-Martha ELKS
Elks is Defendants’ Vice Dean/ GME chairman.
Elks admitted under Oath that plaintiffs former attorney met her inside her office at Morehouse campus (see for example Elks DepPage 65 Line 18-23/page 66 L1-18, See Page 66- L 16 -17-18 I spoke of it when your counsel was with you in my office. ) Plaintiff provided clear evidence about Elks involvement in this case See Failure to investigate plaintiff’s complaints .Defendant sham investigations/Retaliation .paragraphs 4,8.
Elks is a critical decision maker and she was responsible for Morehouse Due process/Discrimination and Grievance Policy (Copies of said Policies were submitted to the court ).
Contradicting statements under Oath.
The law assumes “that there is only one truth about a given set of circumstances ,This Court should resolve all contradicting statements under oath , simply by forwarding them to trial .
1
See Plaintiffs original response about Defendants’ contradicting statements under oath regarding plaintiff’s religion and race.see Plaintiff
Objection /Response to Morehouse statement of Material facts As to Which there is NO Genuine Issue to be triad, statement five (5). See MSM Response to Plaintiffs first Interrogatories Number 9 Page 17 Line 21 (MSM and its employees were without knowledge of Plaintiffs religion until this lawsuit)). 2
Defendant claimed that plaintiff never complained against a faculty member, while Rose (Medicine Director) claimed that she investigated a faculty member based on a plaintiff complaint –a complaint filed during plaintiffs his employment .Rose 2nd Deposition Page 5 L 11-25 and page 6 .
3
Eric Fleanugh claimed that Rose investigated plaintiffs complaint about the Nigger issues , he also added that Rose also investigated a Faculty member ( Eric Fleanugh 2nd Deposition Page 94).Mr Booth also claimed that plaintiff complained appropriately to his director Rose .
Rose contradicted the previous statements and Claimed under oath that plaintiff never complained about being Nigger .(See for example Rose 2nd Deposition Page 8,9 Page Line on I do not recall anybody telling me anything about your being called a nigger.).
4
See Plaintiffs original response about Eric Fleanugh Novermber 14,2008 Affidavit allegations about RAC voting ,said affidavit contradict Eric Fleanugh own statements under oath during his Deposition.
5
See Plaintiffs original response about Elks and Smith contradicting statements (paragraph 3 –Section Failure to investigate plaintiff complaints –Page 15 -16) 6
See Plaintiffs original response ,section ( Reed, Rose-contradicting statements under oath.).
Defendant is liable for Rose unprofessional conduct and misbehavior , for Example See document Khattab 0302/Exhibit A to Rose November 2008 ,affidavit ,that document is full of false and lying information that contradicts facts admitted in this case. Rose can easily commit lying or create false allegations, See Rose letter to Georgia Medical Board indicating that (WE)Morehouse discovered that the EEOC found Dr Khattab claim Not worthy . The EEOC never claimed that plaintiffs claim is Not worthy , Therefore
Rose allegation raise serious concerns about her credibility 7
Rose personal opinion about Dr Khattab behavior contradict her faculty members opinion and GME Director opinion . (See Legitimate Work Section and attached documents about Professionalism and behavior -See positive opinion documents 0851, 0370,0270,0272,0273 ,0271..etc)
Rose opinion even contradict Morehouse Gradate Medical educating opinion-Mr Booth claimed that he Like plaintiff (I used to like you ,,also …,Present tense will do )Both Deposition Page 198L 11-25.
8
Dr David Anderson and Akomolafe MD contradicted Morehouse allegations .See for example denial of attending RAC termination. meeting/Non renewal meeting .denial of voting ..etc ,See RAC conspiracy Section. 9
See Plaintiff original response to Morehouse summary judgment Motion section Flenaugh False allegations /Bad faith affidavit about RAC Voting. Interrupting Justice In May and Jun 2007.
See Plaintiff Motions Filed in July and August 2007 about Interrupting justice ,See Case Docket 183 for more details .
1 This mater was previously addressed in numerous Motions , unfortunately Honorable Judge Walker verbally claimed that her honor does NOT have jurisdiction . (Maybe her honor was mentioning that she does not have jurisdiction over the Immigration or Homeland Department . ). 2
If this Court is going to ignore interrupting justice inside this courthouse building on May 29,2007 ,Then Plaintiff will File a new lawsuit and address this matter with the 11th circuit the District of Columbia and the United States Supreme Court if necessary . 3
Mr Booth admitted that Morehouse asked him to attend Plaintiffs Immigration bond hearing /immigration court hearing(Booth Dep Pa44 L 1-5) . Mr Booth admitted that he testified in the absence of the plaintiff Both admitted informing the court (Bond Hearing) that plaintiff was harassing Morehouse and this happened while plaintiff was NOT available . (Both Deposition Page 45,46), he added that he was expecting to see plaintiff at court but he did not .Mr Booth claimed under oath that he can NOT remember what the immigration judge asked him (example s Booth Deposition Page,43,44,45,46, 168) .
Defamation Plaintiff already established the three requirements of O.C.G.A. § 51-5-1(a).
In Georgia, three elements must be proven in order to
establish that a statement constitutes defamation: (1) the statement was false; (2) the statement was malicious; and (3) the statement was published. O.C.G.A. § 51-5-1(a).(See VALERIA MCINTYRE V ECKERD CORPORATION, 1:06-CV-0371-TWT-NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA). Defendant failed to prove that its communications, are deemed privileged under Georgia law ,Therefore Morehouse is not entitled to any qualified immunity. . O.C.G.A. § 51-5-7(3) (Good faith intent) should never be applied in this case as the defendant intentionally submitted false and negative information about the plaintiff in an effort to damage his reputation and prevent him from finding a medical job inside the United states . The defendant Falsely claimed in its written defamatory documents that what Morehouse submitted to the ABIM was discussed with plaintiff before submitting it , however the evidence in this case proves otherwise . The said evidence includes Myra E Rose MD Deposition testimony ,Rose who created and submitted the defamatory document COULD NEVER claim under oath that she discussed her report with the plaintiff ,indded she claimed under Oath that :when the report was made you(Dr Khattab) were NOT available (See Rose 2nd Deposition) . Consolidation
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) states that “actions involving a common question of law or fact” may be consolidated. In this case, the facts alleged all arise out of the same events or are related to the same defendant . To avoid unnecessary costs or delay, this action should be consolidated pursuant to Rule 42(a) and it should include Fraud and conspiracy to interrupt justice . plaintiff can file a new lawsuit against same defendant based on (1) 42 U.S.C. §1983, §1985 §1986 -status of limitation ,and (2)having clear evidence of interrupting justice . (evidence about interrupting justice in May 2007 includes deposition transcripts ,this Court records ,Immigration court records ..etc). Honorable District Judge did not grant denying plaintiffs state law claims ,Fraud or 42 U.S.C. §1983, §1985 §1986 ,Indeed his honor claimed that Honorable judge Walker pre-trial order are NOT Final . Amendment Memorandum of Law about State Law . This Honorable court should provide a logic reason for refusing to address plaintiffs negligence and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. Defendant can NOT establish Georgia state requirements to constitute an exemption (privileged)from Defamation lawsuit under Georgia law.
“For the defense of qualified privilege to exist, it must be made: (1) in complete good faith; (2) with an interest to uphold; (3) by a statement properly limited in scope; (4) on a proper occasion; and (5) by publication to a proper person.” Smith v. Vencare, Inc., 238 Ga. App. 621, 625 (1999); accord Rabun v. McCoy, 273 Ga. App. 311, 316 (2005). In this case , it is clear that Morehouse and its representatives made the statements in a bad faith and in an effort to damage plaintiffs medical career . Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress To prove a prima facie case of negligent infliction of emotional distress, a plaintiff must prove: (1) a physical impact to the plaintiff; (2) that the physical impact causes physical injury to the plaintiff; and (3) the physical injury to the plaintiff causes Plaintiff’s mental suffering or emotional distress. Canberg v. City of Toccoa, 255 Ga. App. 890, 891 (2001). Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. To state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress under Georgia law, the plaintiff must show that the defendant’s behavior was so extreme or outrageous that “no reasonable man could be expected to
endure it.” Hammer v. Slater, 20 F.3d 1137, 1144 (11th Cir. 1994) (quoting Bridges v. Winn-Dixie of Atlanta, Inc., 176 Ga. App. 227, 230 (1985)). Whether a claim rises to the level of outrageousness and egregiousness to sustain a claim for intentional
infliction of emotional distress is a question of law. Yarbray v. S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 261 Ga. 703, 706 (1991). Plaintiff Filed his Georgia law claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress in January 2007 ,Therefore he Filed it within the applicable status of limitation . Assault, battery , and intentional infliction of emotional distress have a two-year statute of limitations under Georgia law. See M .H .D . v . Westminster Schools, 172 F .3d 797 (11th Cir . 1999)
See Also DANA THOMAS V BEVERLY HARVARD 05 - CV- 1292 – RLV NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA –Honorable Senior jusge ROBERT L .VININ. See also Reese v . City of Atlanta, 247 Ga .App . 701 (2001). Finally Plaintiffs negligence action is legitimate because he can prove the elements required in this state .
To maintain a negligence action, a plaintiff must prove the following elements: “(1) a legal duty to conform to a standard of conduct raised by the law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm; (2) a breach of this standard; (3) a legally attributable causal connection between the conduct and the resulting injury; and (4) some loss or damage flowing to the plaintiff’s legally protected interest as a result of the alleged breach of the legal duty.” Brown v. All-Tech Inv. Group, 265 Ga. App. 889, 893 (2004) (citations omitted). Tortious Interference with Business Relations
Plaintiffs already established the requirements of his state claim about tortuous interference with business relations.
Under Georgia law, in order to prove a claim for tortuous interference with business relations, the claimant must prove that aparty "(1) acted improperly and without privilege,
(2) purposely andwith malice with the intent to injure, (3) induced a third party or parties not to enter into or continue a business relationship with the plaintiff, and (4) for which the plaintiff suffered some~,financial injury ." DeLong Equip . Co . v . Washington Mills Abrasive Co ., 887 F .2d 1499, 1518 (11th Cir . 1989) (internal citation and quotation omitted) . 42 U.S.C § 1985 A § 1985(3) claim requires four elements:
(1) a conspiracy; (2) a purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; (3) an act in furtherance of the conspiracy; and (4) an injury to his person
or property or a deprivation of right Quinones v. Szorc, 771 F.2d 289, 291 n. 1 (7th Cir. 1985). “The language requiring intent to deprive of equal protection, or equal privileges and immunities, means that there must be some
racial, or perhaps otherwise class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus behind the conspirators’ action.” Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88, 102 (1971) In This case Plaintiff provided evidence about a Conspiracy to prevent him from taking deposition , inspecting documents , producing evidence about damaging the health of uninsured patients in the state of Georgia..etc.. 42 U.S.C § 1985 status of limitation is 4 years ,Therefore the court should consider plaintiffs claim or alternatively plaintiff can appeal and in the same time File a new lawsuit based on the appropriate jurisdiction and applicable status of limitation . In order to allege a valid claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2),
a plaintiff must allege that two or more persons conspired to “deter, by force, intimidation, or threat, any party or witness in any court of the United States from attending such court, or from testifying
to any matter pending therein, freely, fully, and truthfully, or [conspired] to injure such party or witness in his person or property on account of his having so attended or testified,”( Singh et V Hannuman, et al., 05-cv-01160-JRT -DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA) Plaintiff presented clear evidence about interrupting justice in May ,Jun an d July 2007. If this court is going ignore plaintiff claim ,then he can file a new lawsuit about interrupting justice before May 29,2007.
(In May 29,2007 plaintiff was arrested inside this Federal Courthouse building ,during deposition, without a written notice of arrest Honorable Judge Story has NOT yet denied or confirmed, his honor knowledge or approval of said arrest during deposition before it took place . Respectfully submitted this 28 day of February ,2009 .
Khaldoun Khattab MD,
• Plaintiff,( Pro Se –In FORMA PAUPERIS )
•