Court Opinion

ID: 9381001
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-21 19:00:47.220332+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:28.982617
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                          FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAR 21 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TATYANA EVGENIEVNA DREVALEVA, No.                      22-15731

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 4:21-cv-00500-HSG

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
JOSEPH GLAZER, in his both official and
individual capacities as a Hiring Official of
the Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical
Center; et al.,

                Defendants-Appellees.

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

                            Submitted March 14, 2023**

Before:      SILVERMAN, SUNG, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.

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

judgment dismissing her Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) action. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Watison v. Carter, 668

      *
             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).
F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B));

Mpoyo v. Litton Electro-Optical Sys., 430 F.3d 985, 987 (9th Cir. 2005) (dismissal

on the basis of claim preclusion). 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, 430 F.3d at 987-88 (elements of

federal claim preclusion).

      The appeal of the district court’s vexatious litigant order is pending in appeal

No. 22-16733 and will be addressed in that docket.

      All pending motions are denied as moot.

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                   22-15731