Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-01454/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-01454-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 05:702 Administrative Procedure Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TATYANA EVGENIEVNA DREVALEVA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE

OFFICE OF RESOLUTION MANAGEMENT

OF THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS

AFFAIRS, ROBERT WILKIE, United States

Secretary of Veterans Affairs,

Defendants. /

No. C 19-01454 WHA

RESPONSE BY COURT

TO PLAINTIFF’S

“REQUEST FOR

CLARIFICATION”

The Court received a “Request for Clarification” from pro se plaintiff Tatyana

Evgenievna Drevaleva. Please be advised this is an improper communication. Plaintiff

complains that she cannot access Burroughs v. MSPB, 73 F. App’x 415, 417 (Fed. Cir. 2003). 

She should know that this case is available on WestLaw, which is accessible to the public for

free at any public law library. Still, to accommodate plaintiff, it is appended as an exhibit hereto.

Next, she complains about the following statement in the order herein dated November 6,

2019: “In May 2018, without disclosing her 2017 VAMC termination, plaintiff applied to work

at the Minneapolis VAMC and received a tentative job offer. After conducting a background

check, however, Minneapolis VAMC learned about the 2017 termination . . .” (Dkt. No. 45 at 1). 

On the record before this Court, the statement was justified. Plaintiff now gives additional

information, which leads to the more correct statement: “In May 2018, without disclosing full

Case 3:19-cv-01454-WHA Document 50 Filed 11/21/19 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

details of the 2017 VAMC termination, plaintiff applied to work at the Minneapolis VAMC

and received a tentative job offer. After conducting a background check, however, Minneapolis

VAMC learned the full details of her 2017 termination and subsequently rescinded the offer.” 

Even if this information had originally been before the Court, it would not have made a

difference.

This file has been closed and the Court will not entertain any more motions for this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 21, 2019. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:19-cv-01454-WHA Document 50 Filed 11/21/19 Page 2 of 2