RAMIREZ_ProSe_Petition4Rehearing_5_12_17

1
№ _16-7880
IN THE
Supreme Court of the United States
________________________________________
CARLOS RAMIREZ — Pro Se PETITIONER
VS.
BAUSCH AND LOMB, INC. — RESPONDENT
________________________________________
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari
to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
________________________________________
PETITION FOR REHEARING
________________________________________
Pro Se Petitioner Carlos Ramirez
General Delivery,
Tampa, Florida 33675
scoobyrx790@yahoo.com
813.474-2038

2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES............................................................................................II
PETITION FOR REHEARING........................................................................................1
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND……………………………………………………….……3
A.
Proceedings Below…………………….……………………………………………………………3
B. Proceedings Before This Court.…………………………………………………………….7
REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION.................................................................8
The Court should grant Rehearing because the Plurality Overlooked Text, are now presented
with a more in depth, not previously presented substantial grounds and Regulatory Content
that Require a Different Result.
CONCLUSION .....................................................................................................................11

3
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
Brown v. Allen, 344 US 443, 540 (1953)…………………………………………………………………………..14
Notes regarding the Cases cited by Petitioner and Respondent Briefs………………….……12, 13
RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Rule 44………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………....4
Rule 30.1……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..10
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT LOCAL RULES
11th Cir. R. 30-1(c) Appendix –Appeals from District Court Time for Filing…………………..13
11th Cir. R. 42-2(e) Motion to Set Aside Dismissal and Remedy Default ……………………..4

4
PETITION FOR REHEARING
Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 44, Petitioner (‘Ramirez’) Pro Se and in Forma Pauperis
respectfully and humble petitions this Court for rehearing of its April 17, 2017 denial to my
Petition for Writ of Certiorari.
Also, Petitioner duly swears and states that this Petition is presented in good faith and
not for delay. Besides, it’s in the interest of the Supreme Court Justices to rehear petitions
where, good cause and importance to the public (In this case; eye patient’s consumers safety
and health) is presented for its consideration, discretion and, decision.
The petition contains grounds of real worth not previously presented on the briefs and thus,
raises ‘red flags’ (to say the least);
The ‘Uniformity application of the Eleven Cir. R. i.e., Time for Filing an Appendix,
The Clerks from the Appeals court lost, disappeared, never logged at the ECF, or
misplaced a Timely mailed and delivered Motion that would have cured the dismissal, at the
Eleven Circuit Court of Appeals. 11th Cir. R. 42-2(e)
Rarely this type of case and circumstances is presented to the Justices considering the
well known and substantial facts, where the respondent has other ongoing investigations by
Federal agencies like the; FBI, FDA, the Senate Aging Committee and other federal Judicial
Courts cases in New York, Philadelphia, and Boston involving I.e. white collar crimes, price hikes
and products non conformances investigations by the FDA. The illicit activities by the
respondent and its parent owner corporation, Valeant Pharmaceutical ($VRX) touches
substantial aspects and sectors of society such as; Eye patients-consumers, Federal agencies

5
and regulations governing Pharmaceutical manufacturers (FDA, OSHA, GMP’S and CFR’S), ethics
and transparency during the manufacturing of Medical devices and last but not least, Federal
Government Agencies like the V.A., Medicare and, Medicaid who purchases their products.
Hence, only this Court can resolve the unanswered question of, how and why the appeal of
Ramirez v. Bausch and Lomb Inc., got dismissed by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals under
odd, circumstances.

6
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A. Proceedings Below
Petitioner Carlos Ramirez (“Ramirez”) on May 26, 2010 sued Bausch & Lomb, Inc., in Florida
state court complaint under the Florida Civil Rights Act and a Florida common-law claim of
negligent supervision, training, or retention. The case was removed on September 10, 2010, to
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division. (Pet App. 55. #2, #1)
After removal, Ramirez amended a claim under the Florida’s Private Sector Whistleblower Act.
Fla. Stat. § 448.101 et seq. (Pet App. 55. #7)
The Case Management and Schedule Order stated that Jury Trial was scheduled for 4/2/2012
before Judge Richard A. Lazzara. (Pet App. 56. #15) However, Respondent petitioned for
rescheduled (Pet App. 63-64. #131, #140, #141 and #146). Respondent filed a MSJ.
Subsequently, the Petitioner’s case was reassigned to Judge Mary S. Scriven who granted
Defendants’ MSJ (Pet App. 60. #78, #85 #155) and later rendered a, BILL OF COSTS taxed
against Petitioner. (Pet App. 66. #169)
Ramirez, pro se and in forma pauperis, took a first appeal to the Eleventh Circuit. № 12-
14669-E. A. (Pet App. 65. #159-#160) Ramirez prevailed in his first appeal and the Eleventh
Circuit vacated and remanded for further proceedings; a new causation analysis by the lower
court Judge . (Pet App. 17–25.)
Citations to Petitioner’s Appendix will be in the following form: “Pet App. [page number],
Citations to Petitioner’s Brief will be in the following form: “Pet Br. [page number]
Citations to Respondent’s Appendix will be in the following form: “Res App. [page number],
Citations to Respondent’s Brief will be in the following form: “Res Br. [page number]

7
After remand, the district court’s new causation analysis stated that; “Plaintiff has
established the following; ‘Causal connection prong and established a Prima Facie case of
retaliation under the FWA’ (Pet App. 12) but, she concluded; “Ramirez has failed to establish
that B&L’s proffered reason for his termination was pretext or that his termination would not
have occurred “but for” his alleged protected activity.” (Pet App.16) therefore, entered
summary judgment in favor of Respondent. (Pet App. 4–16).
Consequently, the necessity of the Petitioner to appeal for a second time with the 11th Cir
Court of appeal in order to, show and or probe; ‘Pretext’ ‘But For’. Ramirez proceeded pro se
and in forma pauperis. (Pet App. 53–54.) During Ramirez second appeal he has been homeless;
slept in shelters, on the street or under substandard living conditions; and could only access
computer equipment for research and drafting at the public library among a mirage of
hardship’s life extraordinary circumstances. (Pet App. 69–71, 97–99). He received mail through
general delivery at the local post office. Ramirez made the lower court aware of his situation
from the very beginning of the appeal. E.g., (Pet App. 69–70)
In September 2015, Ramirez timely filed a brief and appendix. (Pet App. 49)
Afterwards, the Respondent filed an “opposed motion to strike portions of Appellant’s
Appendix and Brief” because, they included material outside the record which, were nothing
but pages from six (6) of its ‘deposed employee’s transcripts’ (Pet App. 80-83) that amounted
to probe the; “But For” “Pre Text” vital, requested, and necessary for the Middle District Court
Judge
Consequently, Petitioner filed his Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Strike hoping, for the
Eleventh Circuit Court’s authority to allow the record on appeal to be supplement nonetheless,

8
the lower court granted respondent’s request and struck Ramirez Pro Se brief and appendix in
their entirety. (Pet App. 26–27). Ramirez’s corrected brief and corrected appendix were due
on April 11, 2016.
Petitioner prepared his corrected brief and corrected appendix. See narrative of Extraordinary
Circumstances occurred with the corrected appendix, filed via Priority Mail a day late,
04/12/16. (Pet Br. 4-5.)
Moreover, (Not Previously Presented ‘SUBSTANTIAL RELEVANT GROUND’) on May 2, 2016,
Ramirez mailed four (4) copies of his free of minor deficiencies Briefs, via U.S.P.S. See (Pet App.
111) which, cured an issued ‘brief deficiency letter’ (Pet App. 109) and, according to its tracking
number a package weighing almost ‘five (5) lbs’ was, delivered at 11:44 am to the Eleven
Circuit on May 4. See (Pet App. 112) Along with the Briefs Ramirez included, his first ‘opposed’
Motion titled; “APPELLANT OPPOSED MOTION TO REINSTATE THE APPEAL UNDER RULES 42-2
and 42-3. SWORN MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DISMISSAL AND REMEDY THE DEFAULT,” which
included a Sworn and Notarized Affidavit of a witness (Pet App. 97-99.) Notwithstanding, the
petitioner’s Motion was, ‘Lost at the Clerk’s office’ (Emphasis Added) However, The ‘Lost’
Motion to reinstate arrived, ‘timely’ at the Eleven Circuit according to own respondent’s brief in
opposition that states:
“…An appeal dismissed pursuant to Eleven Cir R. 42-2(e) “may be reinstated only upon the
timely filing of a motion to set aside the dismissal and remedy the default showing
extraordinary circumstances, accompanied by the required brief and appendix.” See 11 th Cir. R.
42-2(e) “Such a motion must be filed within 14 days of the date the clerk enters the order
dismissing the appeal.” (Res. Br. 19-20)
“…Here the motion to reinstate the appeal would have been timely if the clerk received it
by May 4, 2016… Cir. R. 42-2(e)” (Res. Br. 19-20)

9
Ramirez had called the clerk to inquire about his unopposed motion, and one of the clerks even
thought the unopposed motion might have gotten lost in the clerk’s office. A. 91. Apart from
the possibility that the clerk may have made a simple mistake—in which event this Court should
grant relief under Part A, supra.
Further evidentiary proof of this odd incident comes from the Lower court, first ‘docket
text’ entry for 04/14/2016. See (Pet App. 51);
“***SEE CORRECTED BRIEF*** Appellant's brief filed by Carlos Ramirez. Deficiencies:
Missing page numbers. Service date: 04/11/2016 [15−11914] Attorney for
Appellee: Peppard − US mail.−−[Edited 05/04/2016 by MSB] “
Furthermore, another substantial grounds that shows ‘bad faith’ from respondent’s counselor
in reference to the ‘Lost Motion to reinstate the appeal’ Incident is evidentiary at its Brief filed
in Opposition with this Honorable court where complete ‘silence’ and not a single sentence
about it was written. By the contrary, it is a clear intent to show an inexistent Time Gap.
“After the Appeal was dismissed, Petitioner untimely filed two motions to reinstate the
appeal on June 2, 2016 and on August 1, 2016” See (Res. Br. 2, 11)
“…Nevertheless, Ramirez waited until June 2, 2016 to file “Appellant Oppose Motion to
Reinstate the Appeal under the Extraordinary Circumstances rule 42.2 and 43.3….” See
(Res. Br. 9)
However, respondent counselors were properly delivered of their corresponding copies by
USPS carrier on 05/04/16. See (Pet App. 111) Moreover, neither of the motions seeking
reinstatement of the appeal were issued ‘deficiencies letters’
Furthermore, the petitioner has never received any kind of ‘Returned Mail’ from any of his
Mailed out motions either from the Eleven Circuit or the respondent’s counselors who were
the, served parties on that ‘lost’ mailed motion.

10
B. Proceedings before This Court
Honorable Justice Thomas granted, Ramirez an extension of time requested, so he could
find legal counsel to file on my behalf a petition for writ of certiorari. (Pet. App 52)
Ramirez now prays for this Honorable Court to; grant this Pro Se rehearing petition, have a
second look to his previous counselor’s petition for Writ of Certiorari, revisit the Petitioner’s
reply to response in opposition and use its supervisory power On April 17, 2017, this Court
denied the petition for a writ of certiorari. Newly sworn Honorable Junior Justice, Gorsuch took
no part in the consideration or decision of this petition on April 17, 2017, which coincided with
Justice Gorsuch's first day on the bench. As noted on the Supreme Court Docket.
Pro Se Petitioner, Ramirez, time to file this petition for rehearing to and including Friday
May 12, 2017. This petition was mailed on the following Friday May 12, 2017, and it is therefore
timely. Rule 30.1.

11
REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION
Respondent’s reply Brief in Opposition intentionally distorts and ignores crucial key facts
which supported my Petition for Writ of certiorari and it is unclear to this Pro Se
Petitioner if these played a deceiving role that ultimately convinced the Justices.
Another substantial ground not discussed in the briefs is the inconsistent application of
11th Cir. R. 30-1 (c.) If the lower court would have applied this rule, consistently, towards
the petitioner’s Appendix filing, the Appeal would have not been dismissed. See (Pet App.
48. Docket Text of Page 28) (Pet App. 49. Docket Text of Page 84) (Pet App. 50. Docket Text
of Page 122)
o 11th Cir. R. 30-1(C) “Time for Filing an Appendix.” A party must file an appendix
or supplemental appendix within seven days of filing the party’s brief.”
Another omitted but, substantial ground that was ‘conveniently’ not mentioned by the
respondent because it uncovered, cured, and set aside the dismissal. This new
uncontroversial fact involves a:
2 nd “Opposed Motion (filed in abundance of caution) to Reinstate the Appeal
under the Extraordinary Circumstances 11 th Cir. R. 42” which, it was mailed via
U.S.P.S on 05/02/16. And according to its tracking number it was delivered on
05/04/16 (Pet App. 89, 91, 111-112)
The fact that Petitioner filed, via U.S.P.S. Mail, four (4) free of minor deficiencies
Briefs copies on 05/02/16 which, were accompanied by an “Opposed Motion to
Reinstate the Appeal and Remedy the Default” that it was curiously lost, never filed

12
or logged by the Eleventh Circuit however, the Briefs were. See (Pet App. 91) See
Argument presented at (Pet Br. 9-10) that cites the rules and the ‘Clerk Duties’ that
were violated a second time.
Petitioner cannot understand the abusive way/form used by the Eleven Circuit Court of
Appeals in dismissing Ramirez appeal is compelling enough to grant this petition based on;
the factual background, evidence, importance of the issue and the legal arguments
presented.
Notes Regarding the Cases Cited By Petitioner:
The timely filing of the corrected appendix is not a jurisdictional requirement. As
elsewhere, in the Eleventh Circuit “non-jurisdictional defects in the prosecution of [an] appeal
[can be] consider[ed] insufficient to warrant dismissal.” Phillips v. Employers Mut. Liab. Ins. Co.
of Wis., 239 F.2d 79, 82 n.2 (5th Cir. 1956)
Ramirez surpassed the circumstances on Phillips’ case because; Ramirez had no Attorney
Representation on Appeal at the lower court, He is homeless and suffers hardship life
circumstances.
In reference to Marcaida v. Rascoe, 569 F.2d 828, 830 (5th Cir. 1978) All of Pro Se Ramirez’s
motions for extension of time for filing briefs were procedural, not opposed and, did never
obviate any requirements such as, properly served ‘with proof of service’ on the opposing
party. Opposing counsel was always serve hence, informed of every extension of time
requested thus, there was no prejudice ever suffered. By the contrary Ramirez suffered an
incident in relation to, not properly served paperwork by the respondent party where, Ramirez

13
was not ‘served’ 2 Volumes of Supplemental Appendix by the Appellee. See ‘docket text’ entry
for 12/11/2015 (Pet App. 50) Appellant emailed respondent counselors asking for an
explanation however, they replied with a non clear-detailed response via email.
Comparing Bonner’s case v. City of Pritchard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1207, 1209 (11th Cir.
1981) (en banc) petitioner states that; Bonner as a prisoner had the constitutional right to
legal representation on his case however, Ramirez could not afford one hence, his Pro Se
status. Furthermore, Appellant Ramirez was not even allowed to file a Petition for
Rehearing En Banc because of, the Eleventh Circuit final Order.
Ramirez’s case is unique because of many odd occurred events and because of his
‘extraordinary life hardship circumstances hence, not comparable to other dismissed cases by
the Eleven Circuit court of Appeals due to, the filing of an Appendix a day late.
Although, the Eleventh Circuit routinely grants Ramirez’s requested relief in other cases
which present less meritorious facts. By way of example the recent case of, Robertson v. Social
Security Administration, No. 15-15549, the appendix was due on February 25, 2016. On March
15, the Eleventh Circuit issued a 11th Cir. R. 42-2(c) dismissal for failing to file the appendix. On
April 4, appellant’s counsel filed an untimely 11th Cir. R. 42-2(e) motion to reinstate the appeal
and attached the appendix as required. The Eleventh Circuit granted that motion and
reinstated the appeal, even though the motion was filed after the fourteen-day deadline and
the appendix was filed forty days after it was due. While the Eleventh Circuit reinstated the
Robertson appeal, it did not even consider Ramirez’s unopposed motion; it dismissed his case;
and it refused to reinstate the case later.

14
As Justice Robert H. Jackson observed once of the United Sates Supreme Court: “We are not
final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final.”
Any way it is viewed, the clerk’s returning Ramirez’s unopposed motion as unfiled and
misplacing a second timely Motion is erroneous and somewhat showed, a lack of tolerance for
Pro Se Litigants/Appellants that it reflected by holding Ramirez to a much more stringent
standards than attorneys.
CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE and the foregoing reasons this Court should GRANT this petition for rehearing,
VACATE the order denying the writ of certiorari, and restore this case to its merits docket.
Pro Se Petitioner Carlos Ramirez
General Delivery,
Tampa, Florida 33675
scoobyrx790@yahoo.com
(813) 474-2038

15
CERTIFICATE OF PETITIONER
I hereby certify that this petition for rehearing is presented in good faith and not for delay.
______________________
Pro Se Petitioner Carlos Ramirez
General Delivery,
Tampa, Florida 33675
scoobyrx790@yahoo.com
Petitioner’s Declaration
(813) 474-2038
State Of Florida, Hillsborough County.
Carlos Ramirez sworn to the truthfulness of the contents herein
Pro Se Petitioner Carlos Ramirez
General Delivery,
Tampa, Florida 33675
__________________________________
Signature
Date