Court Opinion

ID: 9955858
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-29 17:00:41.108461+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:35.329632
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAR 29 2024
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TATYANA EVGENIEVNA DREVALEVA, No. 22-16733

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 4:22-cv-00887-HSG

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
DENIS McDONOUGH, in his Official
Capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department
of Veterans Affairs; UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA; DEPARTMENT OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Northern District of California
                 Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted March 26, 2024**

Before:      TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and KOH, Circuit Judges.

      Tatyana Evgenievna Drevaleva appeals pro se from the district court’s

judgment dismissing her action alleging federal and state law claims. We have

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s

dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) on the basis of claim preclusion. Stewart

v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.

      The district court properly dismissed Drevaleva’s action on the basis of

claim preclusion because Drevaleva raised, or could have raised, her claims in her

prior federal actions, which involved the same parties or their privies and resulted

in final judgments on the merits. See Mpoyo v. Litton Electro-Optical Sys., 430

F.3d 985, 987 (9th Cir. 2005) (setting forth elements of claim preclusion under

federal law).

      The district court did not abuse its discretion by declaring Drevaleva a

vexatious litigant and entering a pre-filing review order against her because all of

the requirements were met. See Ringgold-Lockhart v. County of Los Angeles, 761

F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2014) (setting forth standard of review and requirements

for pre-filing review orders).

      All pending motions are denied.

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                    22-16733