BY LEV D. ZILBERMINTS
NEWARK – Yusuf A. Shabazz says that he has been denied equal access to the court. This has happened because Mr. Shabazz has allegedly not received any notice of his case being dismissed on July 8, 2024. According to Mr. Shabazz, he “did not get any notice – no mail, no electronic notice, no sheriff with paper documents, no phone call – nothing,” about the case being dismissed. Mr. Shabazz found out about case being dismissed on July 14.
“Local Talk” interviewed Mr. Shabazz, checked court papers and viewed YouTube video that was posed by Mr. Shabazz. As per standard practice, diligent research was done to establish the facts of the case. What follows is the story.
Main problem with dismissal of the case
The main problem with the dismissal of the case is that the discovery phase, or evidence and fact-finding part, was supposed to end July 20. Thus, dismissing the case twelve days earlier is a violation of the Fourth Amendment, which guarantees due process, and the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees procedural due process. Dismissing the case early is also a violation of court procedures.
What court papers filed by Plaintiff Yusuf A. Shabazz say
According to court papers, “Plaintiff Yusuf A. Shabazz is seeking reconsideration to have the above-mention(ed) case to proceed to trial. Plaintiff did not receive Order from Court indicating date for hearing to present oral argument opposing the dismissal and any other motions (to) halt proceedings.”
Who is to blame for plaintiff not receiving any notice or documentation? It is not the judge. Rather, Shabazz feels it is the clerk, Mrs. Samantha Graff, Esq.
Court papers state, “Plaintiff was only made aware of dismissal by going to the Courthouse seeking status of case, which was on July 23, 2024. Ombudsman witnessed this date of notice. Further, the Honorable Judge Holmes – Grant, J.S.C., instructed Mrs. Graff, Esq. to send me, Plaintiff, Yusuf A. Shabazz, a hard copy of any and all correspondences through United States Postal Services.
United States Constitution Amendments 1, 4,5 and 14 state that I am entitled access to the court. Further, I would like to address the issue concerning affidavit of merit. The Court explained “it would seem redundant and unnecessary to require a plaintiff to spend the funds necessary to hire such an expert when he or she never intended to utilize the expert at the time of trial, Id. 313, 721, A2D 1038., we are mindful that other states have enacted affidavit of merit statutes that specifically exempt common knowledge cases from affidavit requirements. Also, no affidavit of merit is required when alleged lack of informed consent or where attorney intends to rely solely on the doctrine of “Res ipsa loquitur. …
Pursuant to R.1:6-2(d) plaintiff requests oral argument if this matter is contested and requests oral arguments for the following reasons: …
According to court papers dated July 24, 2024 and received in Superior Court of New Jersey, Civil Division, Essex Vicinage, Mr. Shabazz personally discussed this matter with the attorney for the opposing party, or the opposing party if appearing pro se, in order to resolve the issues raised by this motion. This effort was not successful. Similarly, Mr. Shabazz states in court papers that he made a good faith effort to personally discuss the matter with the attorney of the opposing party, or with the party if appearing pro se, in order to resolve issues raised by this motion. The result was that Mrs. Samantha Graff requested a settlement demand.
Court papers state, “I, Plaintiff Yusuf A. Shabazz, would like the Court to rescind order dismissing the abovemention due to lack of knowledge of ECourt, email and of technologies. As a pro se litigant, I should have access to the Court without hindrance. Had the Court properly reviewed correspondences, the Court would have seen the I was opposed to any moving papers in favor of the Defendants, as well as requested oral arguments in all matters.”
Plaintiff writes to Court opposing dismissal of Defendants from litigation
In court papers dated June 19, 2024, Plaintiff Yusuf A. Shabazz wrote to Honorable Judge Roselyn L. Holmes – Grant to state his “opposition to dismissal of Defendants from litigation.” According to court papers, “an affidavit of merit is not always required in certain instances. When a corporation hire(s) an employee to perform service or duties and that person (employee) (causes) error, cause harm of breach contract, the employee or corporation are held responsible. (This is) Similar to conspiracy when two or more individuals participate in a lawful or unlawful activity in a certain manner.”
Less fortunate at a disadvantage in court
Mr. Shabazz asked the Court to “acknowledge how can the less fortunate obtain an affidavit of merit when lacking funds, resources or legal assistance. Records will reflect that Plaintiff Yusuf A. Shabazz sought in the beginning of litigation to obtain legal help from various legal entities and corporations, public and private. No one was willing to help, (so) still today I search for representation.
It is a shame that Justice is not on the bench in certain courts at certain times, especially attorneys. When some first start out lawyering, they fight until they sell their soul or the soul of their client.”
Facts of the case. Allegations of Medical Malpractice.
According to court papers dated May 7, 2023, “Plaintiff Yusuf A. Shabazz, was and still is experiencing medical related issue that initially brought Plaintiff Yusuf A. Shabazz, to University Hospital, Rutgers, referred to Dr. Aziz Merchant M.D., by Dr. Rachel Kay, M.D., medical records will reflect. Dr. Merchant, without properly evaluating Plaintiff Yusuf A. Shabazz’s condition; misdiagnosed Plaintiff Yusuf A. Shabazz, prepared and medical team and scheduled a surgery which occurred on December 23, 2020. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff Yusuf A. Shabazz complained of issues as an after effect of surgery. This complaint and many others fell on a deaf ear, and went unheard and unacknowledged by Dr. Aziz Merchant, M.D.
On May 5, 2021, Ms. Guadalupe injected a chemical into Plaintiff Yusuf A. Shabazz’s nose causing burning and nose bleeding. When the doctor appeared, he informed Ms. Guadalupe that Plaintiff Yusuf A. Shabazz was not his patient. Plaintiff Yusuf A. Shabazz immediately called for supervisor. None came forward. Plaintiff Yusuf A. Shabazz went to Patient Advocates office to file complaint. Plaintiff Yusuf A. Shabazz followed up with Dr. Rachel Kaye, M.D. for treatment and medicine. Records will reflect. (See complaint filed through Patients Advocates Office attached with Claim. Exhibit A).
Plaintiff Yusuf A. Shabazz complained to Patient Advocates Office at 140 Bergen Street, Newark, New Jersey, 07102 of issues and complication which was acknowledged, but no action was taken. Plaintiff even file tort claim and contacted the Board of Trustees. It was to no avail.
This is the pattern of University Hospital. All complaints go unacknowledged, or uninvestigated, which is a continued pattern of negligence and deviation from standard practices.
After discharge from hospital, during follow-up visits Plaintiff Yusuf A. Shabazz explain to Dr. Aziz Merchant and attending nurses. During follow-up visits (instances) of complications [with] eating, swallowing, and passing bowel movements, as well as developing hernia on right lower side from straining to move bowel. Dr. Aziz Merchant M.D. acknowledged (this) and said it would pass. For six (6) months Plaintiff suffered in pain.
On June 12, 2021, Plaintiff Yusuf A. Shabazz’s daughter, Shalease M. Shabazz, took Plaintiff A. Shabazz, to Mountainside Hospital where an emergency surgery was performed to remove developed hernia from lower side of Plaintiff Yusuf A. Shabazz’s body. Medical records will reflect. Dr. Joao Lopes, M.D. performed surgery. (see Exhibit(1)).
Returning to University (Hospital) for another follow-up, I explain(ed) to Dr. Aziz Merchant M.D., about the recent surgery at Mountainside Hospital to removing hernia caused by surgery DR. Aziz Merchant M.D. performed on December 23, 2020, which resulted to Plaintiff not being able to swallow, eat and the straining to move bowels (passing waste).
Around about May 2022, Dr. Kaven Hajifathalian, M.D., only after the proper consultations, evaluations and work up through medical testing by other doctors in this specialty he scheduled and structure a Poem procedure operation … for June 12, 2022. This procedure (operation) was to correct the error that Dr. Aziz Merchant M.D., committed when he misdiagnosed Plaintiff’s Yusuf A. Shabazz, situation (medical issue).
On June 2, 2022, Dr. Kaven Hajifathalian, M.D., called Plaintiff Yusuf A. Shabazz to inform him (Plaintiff Yusuf A. Shabazz) that his insurance company which was and is Horizon N.J. Family Care, denied coverage for the surgery. See Exhibit 2. Further stating, that it was imperative that I have this corrective surgery to rectify my eating, swallowing, and digestive issue caused by Dr. Aziz Merchant, M.D., on December 23, 2020, so therefore I should come to the Emergency Room at University Hospital in Newark, New Jersey, on June 11, 2022, to be admitted for procedure to be performed. I did as directed. Records will reflect. See Exhibits 3 and 4.”
Unanswered Questions
The big question is, how many indigent people like Yusuf A. Shabazz are denied equal access to the court because they do not have the money, resources or legal assistance? Why do law clinics that are supposed to help poor people turn them down? Could something more be done to help poor people have proper legal representation and equal access to courts?
