Drevaleva v. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
- William Alsup
- 4:19-cv-02665
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Drevaleva v. Wilkie, Judge Alsup denied Drevaleva’s motions to undo the dismissal, make the prior order private, and disqualify him.
Tatyana Evgenievna Drevaleva’s requests to reopen the case, remove the prior order from public access, and disqualify Judge Alsup were denied; the prior dismissal remained in place.
What happened
Tatyana Evgenievna Drevaleva, representing herself, had sued Veterans Affairs offices and officers over her termination and their refusal to rehire her. The court had previously dismissed this case for failure to state a claim and lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Drevaleva asked the court to provide relief from that judgment, remove the earlier order from public access, and consider her affidavit alleging bias and prejudice. The court found that she had not identified a clerical error, specific legal error, new material facts, misconduct, or extraordinary circumstances that could justify relief from the judgment. It also found no sufficient reason to remove the prior order from public access or disqualify the judge.
In Drevaleva v. Wilkie, Judge Liam Alsup denied all three motions. He ordered that the prior order remain public and stated that there would be no further referrals based on alleged bias.
The detailed version
- Drevaleva v. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs · No. 4:19-cv-02665
- William Alsup
- Jan. 21, 2020
Background
Tatyana Evgenievna Drevaleva, a self-represented plaintiff, had filed employment suits against Veterans Affairs offices and officers concerning her termination for going absent without leave and their refusal to hire her back. In this case, the court had previously dismissed her suit for failure to state a claim and for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Motions and analysis
Drevaleva filed three requests: a motion under Rule 60 for relief from the judgment, a motion to remove the prior order from public access, and an affidavit alleging bias and prejudice.
The court denied the Rule 60 motion. It explained that Rule 60(a) addresses clerical mistakes, which Drevaleva had not alleged. Rule 60(b) can provide relief in circumstances such as excusable neglect, misconduct by the opposing party, newly discovered evidence, lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, or other extraordinary circumstances. The court found that Drevaleva’s motion and supplemental briefs mainly repeated disagreements with the dismissal order, raised new claims, and sought to relitigate issues already addressed. She did not identify specific legal errors, new material facts, misconduct, or extraordinary circumstances warranting relief.
The court also denied the request to remove the prior order from public access. It cited the strong public policy favoring openness in the court system and stated that the order would remain public.
Finally, the court denied the affidavit of bias and prejudice. It acknowledged Drevaleva’s strong disagreement with prior rulings but stated that the rulings against her were based on the merits rather than bias. The court also noted that other judges who had considered her bias affidavits had found no bias or improper conduct. The judge stated that there would be no further referrals on grounds of bias and assured Drevaleva that she would continue to receive fair and impartial proceedings.
Disposition
Judge Liam Alsup denied Drevaleva’s motions for relief under Rule 60, to remove the prior order from public access, and to disqualify the judge. The opinion did not alter the earlier dismissal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.