Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-02665/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-02665-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 445
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Employment
Cause of Action: 29:633 Job Discrimination (Age)

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TATYANA EVGENIEVNA 

DREVALEVA,

Plaintiff,

v.

ROBERT WILKIE, United States Secretary 

of Veterans Affairs,

Defendants.

No. C 19-02665 WHA 

ORDER REVOKING IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS STATUS ON APPEAL

INTRODUCTION

In this serial employment discrimination case, our court of appeals asks whether pro se

plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status should continue on appeal. Because the multiplicity of suit 

indicates abuse, plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status on appeal is REVOKED.

STATEMENT

This is the third lawsuit arising from the same set of facts (Dkt. No. 38). While working 

at the New Mexico Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC), Ms. Drevaleva suddenly left for 

Russia in May 2017, evidently to undergo in-vitro fertilization (IVF). She was terminated for 

absence without leave in July and only returned in August. In 2018, both the Minneapolis and 

West Los Angeles VAMC’s declined to employ Ms. Drevaleva upon learning of her 2017 

termination. 

Case 4:19-cv-02665-HSG Document 72 Filed 02/18/20 Page 1 of 3
2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Contending she was the victim of discrimination, Ms. Drevaleva engaged in several 

mediation sessions with the West Los Angeles VAMC before filing a formal Equal 

Employment Opportunity complaint with the Office of Resolution Management, to no avail. 

So she filed several lawsuits. This is the third. 

Ms. Drevaleva received IFP status in her first case, No. C 18-03748 WHA, which a 

December 2018 order dismissed. Following substantial briefing — and a motion for recusal 

which the Honorable Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denied — the undersigned denied Ms. 

Drevaleva’s motion to reconsider and two motions to vacate. And though her IFP status 

continued through several petitions, our court of appeals declined to intervene. 

Ms. Drevaleva received IFP status again in her second case, No. C 19-01454 WHA, 

which a September 2019 order dismissed. After substantial briefing, a November 2019 order 

denied Ms. Dreveleva’s motion to vacate. Her IFP status continued on appeal again, and that 

appeal still pends before our court of appeals. 

This is Ms. Drevaleva’s third case. She again obtained IFP status. A November 2019 

order dismissed the case. Following about 90-pages of supplemental briefing, a January 2020 

order denied Ms. Drevaleva’s motion to vacate, demand to de-publish, and affidavit of bias 

(Dkt. Nos. 12, 38, 44–46, 65). Ms. Drevaleva again appealed. Our court of appeals now 

remands this appeal for the limited purpose of deciding whether Ms. Drevaleva’s IFP status 

should continue (Dkt. No. 71). 

Since obtaining IFP status in this case, Ms. Drevaleva filed three more cases against the 

Department of Veterans Affairs, case numbers C 19-05927 WHA, C 19-06127 WHA, and C 

20-0820 DMR. The first two cases were initially filed in the Federal Circuit and transferred to 

this Court. Though Ms. Drevaleva’s IFP applications there were never granted, due to 

procedural snafus in transit, she has litigated in this Court without ever paying the filing fees or 

receiving IFP status. Indeed, in the first of those two cases, Ms. Drevaleva obtained a decision 

on the merits in December 2019 (dismissal as res judicata) and her motion to vacate pends 

before this Court. Ms. Drevaleva’s application for IFP in her sixth case currently pends before 

the Honorable Donna Ryu. 

Case 4:19-cv-02665-HSG Document 72 Filed 02/18/20 Page 2 of 3
3

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

ANALYSIS

Congress’ goal in creating the IFP statute was to put indigent plaintiffs on a similar 

footing with paying plaintiffs. Congress recognized, however, that a litigant whose filing fees 

and court costs are assumed by the public, unlike a paying litigant, lacks an economic incentive 

to refrain from filing frivolous, malicious, or repetitive lawsuits. To prevent such abuse on 

appeal, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) states “[a]n appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the 

trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.” Ellis v. United States, 356 U.S. 

674 (1958); see also Hooker v. American Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th Cir. 2002). 

It is now clear that Ms. Drevaleva is abusing her IFP status. Instead of diligently pursing 

her two pending cases before our court of appeals, she has opened three new cases. These 

repetitive suits stem from the same events. Ms. Drevaleva is entitled to her day in court — she 

is not entitled to overwhelm the Secretary of Veterans affairs, and indeed impact other 

litigants’ access to the limited resources of the courts, by filing a multitude of suits at public 

expense. The public will not be made to fund another front in Ms. Drevaleva’s apparently 

endless campaign against the Secretary. Her IFP on appeal is revoked, but Ms. Drevaleva 

remains free to pay the filing fee and proceed. 

CONCLUSION

Ms. Drevaleva’s IFP status is REVOKED on appeal. This revocation is without prejudice 

to subsequent appeals. The Clerk shall please notify the United States Court of Appeals for the 

Ninth Circuit of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 18, 2020.

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:19-cv-02665-HSG Document 72 Filed 02/18/20 Page 3 of 3