Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-05927/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-05927-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination

---

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 Veteran’s Affairs,

Defendant.

No. C 19-05927 WHA 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 

MOTION TO VACATE AND

VACATING HEARING

INTRODUCTION

Pro se plaintiff Tatyana Drevaleva has filed three previous employment suits against 

various Veterans Affairs offices and officers alleging discrimination for her termination and 

for their refusal to rehire her after she left without leave. Here, in her fourth of six lawsuits, 

Ms. Drevaleva’s claims have been previously dismissed as res judicata (Dkt. No. 34). 

Ms. Drevaleva now objects, filing: (1) a Rule 60 motion for relief from judgment; and 

(2) an affidavit of bias and prejudice. For the following reasons, all relief is DENIED. 

First, Ms. Drevaleva does not satisfy her burden under Rule 60. A Rule 60(a) motion for 

relief from judgment corrects clerical mistakes or mistakes arising from oversight or omission 

in an order. A Rule 60(b) motion permits relief from a judgment, where “appropriate to 

accomplish justice,” in cases such as a party’s excusable neglect, opposing party’s misconduct, 

Case 4:19-cv-05927-HSG Document 55 Filed 03/02/20 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

discovery of new evidence, lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, or other “extraordinary 

circumstances.” See Henson v. Fidelity Nat’l Fin., Inc., 943 F.3d 434, 443 (9th Cir. 2019). 

Ms. Drevaleva argues no such errors in her motion. Instead she conveys her disagreement, 

raises new claims, and re-litigates issues already addressed in the dismissal order. She fails to 

point to specific errors of law, new material facts, misconduct, or extraordinary circumstances 

warranting relief. Rule 60 permits district judges to realize and repair a glaring error without 

troubling the court of appeals. There is no such instance here. 

Ms. Drevaleva argues res judicata was misapplied because no privity exists between 

Ms. Drevaleva and the Secretary of Veteran Affairs and that she raised new claims (Dkt. No. 

37 at 30). Res judicata continues to be applicable whenever there exists (1) identity of claims, 

(2) a final judgment on the merits, and (3) privity between parties. Tahoe-Sierra Pres. 

Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, 322 F.3d 1064, 1077 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal 

citations and quotations omitted). Ms. Drevaleva raised the same claims that have been 

already dismissed in case number C 19-02665 WHA against the same defendant, the Secretary 

of Veteran Affairs (Dkt. No. 34). 

Additionally, Ms. Drevaleva argues this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over her 

own lawsuit. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit already addressed this 

question. Ms. Drevaleva, additionally, concedes subject-matter jurisdiction when she asserts 

in her motion that the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit “transferred [her] 

claim to the District Court because [her] discrimination claims had been already pending there” 

(Dkt. No. 37 at 20). In its order to transfer Ms. Drevaleva’s matter to this district, the United 

States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit stated that it did “not have authority to decide 

Ms. Drevaleva’s case.” It stated that “[a]lthough we have jurisdiction to review decisions of 

the Board [of Veteran Affairs] concerning personnel actions . . . our jurisdiction does not 

extend to cases in which the petitioner pursues a discrimination claim.” The Federal Circuit 

then explained that while Ms. Drevaleva had timely filed her petition for review, she 

simultaneously had filed complaints in the Northern District of California alleging 

discrimination on the same matter; therefore, she lost jurisdiction in the United States Court of 

Case 4:19-cv-05927-HSG Document 55 Filed 03/02/20 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

Appeals for the Federal Circuit when she filed in the Northern District of California (Dkt. No. 

1 at 2). Thus, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit confirmed this Court 

properly retains subject-matter jurisdiction. 

Second, the undersigned judge has carefully considered Ms. Drevaleva’s affidavit of bias 

and prejudice and continues to appreciate Ms. Drevaleva’s vigorous disagreement with prior 

rulings. However, as with prior affidavits to disqualify (see, e.g., No. C 19-03748 WHA, 

Dkt. No. 102; No. C 19-02665 WHA, Dkt. No. 44), the undersigned judge remains determined 

to give Ms. Drevaleva fair hearings and proceedings (see No. C 19-03748 WHA, Dkt. No. 

129). All rulings against Ms. Drevaleva cut to the merits, not to any bias. Indeed, other judges 

of our District, taking Ms. Drevaleva’s affidavits of bias on referral, have already found no bias 

or impropriety (see id., Dkt. No. 138). As already ordered, there will be no further referrals on 

grounds of bias (see No. C 19-02665 WHA, Dkt. No. 67). The undersigned judge continues to 

assure Ms. Drevaleva she will continue to be heard fairly, impartially, and in accord with the 

law, but she must also appreciate that her prolix and repetitive litigation of the same basic issue 

may lead to a sanction. 

Ms. Drevaleva’s motion for relief under Rule 60 and to disqualify is DENIED. This order 

hereby VACATES hearing on this motion, originally scheduled for March 12, 2020. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 2, 2020.

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:19-cv-05927-HSG Document 55 Filed 03/02/20 Page 3 of 3