No. 25-5547

Samreen Riaz v. Shazib Riaz

Lower Court: California
Docketed: 2025-09-04
Status: Dismissed
Type: IFP
IFP
Tags: appellate-review due-process fourteenth-amendment judicial-bias procedural-error property-division
Key Terms:
DueProcess Privacy Jurisdiction JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2025-11-07
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Does a state supreme court's summary denial of a petition for review violate the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of fair adjudication and meaningful access to appellate relief?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

: Does a state supreme court ’s summary denial of a petition for review s291778on july 23 25—despite a documented record of procedural due process violations, statutory misapplication, exclusion of timely-filed evidence, and affirmance of a trial judgment rendered in the Petitioner's absence despite timely requests for continuance and filing evidence, and by affirming misclassification of separate property as community property in disregard of statutory presumptions and recorded title—violate the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of fair adjudication and meaningful access to appellate relief?(Exhbhit A) Did 5th district court make an error and show bias in the decision given on jun 11 25? (Exhibit B) Did 5th District, err in denying rehearing on July 8, 2025, where petition identified substantial procedural and constitutional errors in a judgment ? (Ex C) .Did 5th district erred by failing to find that Judge Mathis committed reversible error and showed bias in the 03 15 204 ruling in the appellant ’s absence despite prior notice of unavailability, failing to adjudicate pending motions and discovery requests, and mischaracterizing separate property as community property in disregard of substantial evidence and statutory presumptions? ( See exhibit B ROA pgs 945 -951,687) Did the Fifth District err by failing to find Judge Mathis violated due process showed bias by holding trial on February 16, 2024, despite advance notice of her unavailability and a pending continuance request? . Did 5th District err by not finding Judge Mathis violated Samreen ’s due process and constitutional rights? Did the Fifth District Court of Appeal err by failing to recognize that Judge Mathis in Error, abuse discretion and show biased in Dec 12 23 Ruling (( attached as Exhibit G, Record on appeal 889—890)). when authorized Shazib Riaz(Ex husband) to communicate with the Samreen ’s bank and to speak with the Samreen ’s bank regarding all aspects of Samreen ’s Sole and separate property(1534 S manzanita )? Did the Fifth District of Appeal err by failing to recognize that Judge Mathis in Error And Prejudice in Dec 12 23 and March 15 24 Ruling Where The Trial Court divided Samreen Riaz sole and separate property (1534) as a Communal Property? Did the Fifth District of Appeal err by failing to recognize that Judge Mathis is in Error And Prejudice in Dec 12 23 and March 15 24 Ruling Where The Trial Court Failed To divide equally the Communal Property Distribution ( B) DW ODESSA, TX 79762? Did the Fifth District of Appeal err by failing to recognize that Judge Mathis is in Error And Prejudice in dec 12 23 and march 15 24 Ruling Where The Trial Court Failed d To divide equally the Communal Property interest C) SJP INC 2021 , SLAD Enterprises/Metro Account,new business address green river rd, Suit 317, Corona , Ca 92878? Did the Fifth District of Appeal err by failing to recognize that Judge Mathis i in March 15 24 Ruling divide communal loan/debt on the property 1534 ( separate property samreen ) equally among parties? Did the Fifth District err by failing to recognize that Judge Mathis in Error And Prejudice in March 15 24 Ruling when failed to divide credit card debt equally as well as watch business equally among parties? Did the Fifth District err by failing to recognize that Judge Mathis is in Error And Prejudice when failed to compel production of discovery request on watch business B) DW ODESSA, C) SJP INC 2021, SLAD Enterprises/Metro Account, new business : green river rd,Suit 317, Corona,Ca 92878 & watch business? Did the Fifth District of Appeal err by failing to address whether the cumulative effect of the trial court ’s procedural irregularities, evidentiary omissions, and adverse credibility findings against Appellant constituted structural error requiring reversal? Suggestive Answer: YES 2 Certificate Of Interested Entities Or Persons: Certificate of Interested Entities or Persons: Certificate of Interested Entities or Persons: Pursuant to Rules

Docket Entries

2025-11-10
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied, and the petition for a writ of certiorari is dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As the petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court's process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and the petition is submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1 (1992) (per curiam).
2025-10-23
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/7/2025.
2025-07-29
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due October 6, 2025)

Attorneys

Samreen Riaz
Samreen Riaz — Petitioner
Samreen Riaz — Petitioner