Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-01454/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-01454-4/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. 19-01454 WHA

ORDER DENYING 

MOTION TO VACATE

INTRODUCTION

This concerns the second of a series of three (so far) civil actions brought against the

Veterans Administration by an applicant for employment. This order denies her motion to

vacate the judgment against her in the second action.

STATEMENT

In July 2017, New Mexico Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC) terminated medical

instrument technician and pro se plaintiff Tatyana Drevaleva for allegedly taking leave without

permission (Dkt. No. 1 at 29, 30). 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the 2017 VAMC termination and subsequently rescinded the offer (Dkt. No. 12 at 3). 

Case 3:19-cv-01454-WHA Document 45 Filed 11/06/19 Page 1 of 5
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

Specifically, a Human Resources official determined that she was not suitable for a

medical instrument technician position citing “[s]uitability factor 1 of 5 CFR 731.202(b) and

Additional consideration 1, 4, and 7 of 5 CFR 731.202(c) . . . As [plaintiff] did not properly

request [her] time off for [her] trip thru the proper chain, this is misconduct and negligence in

employment, making [her] unsuitable for a position at the MPLS VAMC.” When plaintiff asked

for reconsideration, the official declared that “. . . the suitability determination was made [in

accordance with] 5 CFR 731.202 . . . ” and closed the matter (Dkt. No. 12-1 at 4-6). 

Plaintiff filed suit in March 2019 against defendants United States of America, United

States Department of Veterans Affairs, the Office of Resolution Management of the Department

of Veterans Affairs, and Acting United States Secretary of Affairs Mr. Peter O’Rourke. A prior

order dated September 20, 2019 granted defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter

jurisdiction (Dkt. No. 35). That order held that the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA)

authorized the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) with jurisdiction to review Minneapolis

VAMC’s suitability determination and, therefore, precluded judicial review under the APA. 

On September 28, plaintiff moved to vacate the judgment pursuant to Rule 60(a) (Dkt. No. 37). 

ANALYSIS

Rule 60(a) sets forth that “[t]he court may correct a clerical mistake or a mistake arising

from oversight or omission whenever one is found in a judgment order, or other part of the

record. The court may do so on motion or on its own, with or without notice.” Plaintiff argues

that because she applied for a position in excepted service, the aforementioned order wrongly

held that the MSPB had jurisdiction to hear her complaint (Dkt. No. 37 at 15). This order

disagrees.

Our court of appeals holds that the CSRA’s comprehensive remedial nature indicates

congressional intent to preclude federal judicial review of certain government employment

actions. Veit v. Heckler, 746 F. 2d 508, 509 (9th Cir. 1984). The CSRA created the MSPB

and gave it jurisdiction over suitability determinations. See 5 U.S.C. § 1204(a)(1); 5 C.F.R.

§ 731.501. The MSPB has appellate jurisdiction over (5 C.F.R. § 1201.3(a)(9)):

[a]ction based on suitability determinations, which relate to an

individual’s character or conduct that may have an impact on the

Case 3:19-cv-01454-WHA Document 45 Filed 11/06/19 Page 2 of 5
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

3

integrity or efficiency of the service. Suitability actions

include the cancellation of eligibility, removal, cancellation

of reinstatement eligibility, and debarment. A non-selection

or cancellation of eligibility for a specific position based on

an objection to an eligible or a pass over of a preference eligible

under 5 CFR 332.406 is not a suitability action. 

Section 731.101(a) from Title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations establishes the

criteria and procedures that agencies must follow when making suitability determinations. 

A covered position is in the competitive service, the excepted service where the incumbent

can be noncompetitively converted to the competitive service, and a career appointment in

the Senior Executive Service. 5 C.F.R. § 731.101(b). An applicant is a person who is being

considered or has been considered for employment. Ibid. Section 731.202(b) lists specific

factors that agencies must consider when determining whether a person is suitable for

employment. Section 731.202(c) then lists additional considerations that agencies must regard

with discretion. 

Although our court of appeals has not spoken precisely on this issue, the Court of

Appeals for the Federal Circuit clarified that the MSPB has jurisdiction to review an applicant’s

non-selection resulting from a suitability determination considered under Section 731.202. 

In Burroughs v. MSPB, the Federal Aviation Administration found an applicant unsuitable

for hire because he lacked requisite education and experience. 73 F. App’x 415, 417 (Fed. Cir.

2003). The MSPB dismissed applicant’s appeal because the suitability determination was not

based on any of the suitability factors set forth in Section 731.202. The Federal Circuit affirmed

that the applicant failed to allege an appealable non-selection. It held that the MSPB had

jurisdiction over adverse suitability determinations based on factors related to performance

and behavior including misconduct or negligence in employment. Ibid. 

In Folio v. Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Circuit held that the MSPB has

“. . . jurisdiction to review all aspects of an unsuitability determination, including whether the

charged conduct renders an individual unsuitable for the position in question.” 402 F.3d 1350,

1356 (Fed. Cir. 2005). In that case, the agency rescinded a job applicant’s tentative offer for

employment following a background check. An administrative judge misinterpreted Section

731.501 as limiting the MSPB’s jurisdiction to review the relationship between the “specific

Case 3:19-cv-01454-WHA Document 45 Filed 11/06/19 Page 3 of 5
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

4

factors” set forth in Section 731.202(b) and the “additional considerations” set forth in Section

731.202(c). The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded that judgment. It clarified that the

MSPB was only precluded from reviewing or modifying the ultimate “action” taken, which was

left to the Office of Personnel Management or the appropriately delegated agency. The general

determination based on the factors listed in Section 731.202, however, is still reviewable by

the MSPB. Id. at 1355. 

Both Burroughs and Folio are persuasive and not in conflict with our court of appeals’

view that the CSRA supplants any jurisdiction of the MSPB by federal courts under the APA. 

Veit v. Heckler, 746 F. 2d 508, 509 (9th Cir. 1984). Plaintiff replies that because she did not

apply for a position in competitive service, she could not be subject to a suitability action

pursuant to Part 731 (Dkt. No. 37 at 15). The Minneapolis VAMC official, however, declared

that the agency rescinded the job offer because of a suitability determination made under

Section 731.202. The Federal Circuit holds that the MSPB has jurisdiction to review all

aspects of determinations deeming an applicant unsuitable for hire under Section 731.202. 

See Burroughs v. MSPB, 73 F. App’x 415, 417 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Folio v. Dep’t of Homeland

Sec., 402 F. 3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2005). So too here. Neither the MSPB nor Federal Circuit

have held that an applicant must apply to a covered position to maintain the MSPB’s jurisdiction

over a suitability determination. Plaintiff’s motion to vacate the previous order for this reason is,

therefore, DENIED.

Plaintiff then argues for judicial review of Minneapolis VAMC’s decision because it

allegedly violated both the substantive due process and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth

Amendment. These constitutional violations were never pled. Because these claims do not

introduce any instances of mistake, newly discovered evidence, or misconduct, this order will

not reopen the case on those matters at this late stage. 

At the end of her motion to vacate, plaintiff mistakenly asserts that 5 U.S.C. § 702 allows

judicial review of her amended petition under the APA. This order disagrees. The APA is

inapplicable where particular statutes preclude judicial review, or where agency action is

Case 3:19-cv-01454-WHA Document 45 Filed 11/06/19 Page 4 of 5
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

5

committed to agency discretion by law. 5 U.S.C. § 701(a). The CSRA preempts APA review in

this case for the reasons stated above. 

CONCLUSION

In light of the foregoing, plaintiff’s motion to vacate is DENIED. No more motions by

plaintiff will be entertained herein.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 6, 2019. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:19-cv-01454-WHA Document 45 Filed 11/06/19 Page 5 of 5