Drevaleva v. United States of America
- William Alsup
- 4:19-cv-01454
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Drevaleva v. United States, Judge Alsup corrected a statement about her job application, provided a cited case, and closed the case to further motions.
Tatyana Evgenievna Drevaleva, the pro se plaintiff, and the defendants in the closed case were affected by the court’s response; the court also stated that it would not consider further motions.
What happened
In Drevaleva v. United States of America, pro se plaintiff Tatyana Evgenievna Drevaleva asked the court to clarify an earlier order and complained that she could not access a cited case.
The court said the communication was improper but provided the cited case as an exhibit. It also revised a statement about Drevaleva’s 2018 job application to say that she had not disclosed the full details of a 2017 termination, and that the job offer was later withdrawn after the employer learned those details. The court said the additional information would not have changed its earlier decision.
Judge William Alsup stated that the file was closed and that the court would not consider any more motions in the case.
The detailed version
- Drevaleva v. United States of America · No. 4:19-cv-01454
- William Alsup
- Nov. 21, 2019
Background
Pro se plaintiff Tatyana Evgenievna Drevaleva sent the court a “Request for Clarification.” The court described the communication as improper. She complained that she could not access Burroughs v. MSPB, a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which the court had cited in an earlier order.
Court’s response
The court stated that the cited decision was available through Westlaw at public law libraries and appended the decision as an exhibit for Drevaleva’s benefit.
Drevaleva also challenged a statement in the court’s November 6, 2019 order concerning her application for a job at the Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center. Based on the record then before it, the court had stated that she had not disclosed her 2017 termination, received a tentative job offer, and lost the offer after a background check revealed the termination. After considering additional information Drevaleva provided, the court replaced that statement with a more precise one: she had not disclosed the full details of the 2017 termination, and the offer was rescinded after the Minneapolis facility learned those details.
Disposition
The court stated that even if the additional information had been available earlier, it would not have changed the result. Judge William Alsup said that the file was closed and that the court would not entertain any more motions in the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.