Drevaleva v. Department of Veterans Affairs
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:19-cv-05927
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
Drevaleva v. Wilkie: Judge Alsup denied Drevaleva’s motions to vacate judgment and disqualify him, and canceled the scheduled hearing.
Tatyana Evgenievna Drevaleva’s requests to undo the earlier dismissal and disqualify the judge were denied; the scheduled hearing was canceled. Robert Wilkie remained the named defendant.
What happened
In Drevaleva v. Wilkie, Tatyana Evgenievna Drevaleva asked the court to undo an earlier dismissal of her employment-discrimination claims and argued that the judge was biased. The court said her claims had already been dismissed because they repeated claims from an earlier case.
The court found that Drevaleva had not shown the specific legal error, new evidence, misconduct, or extraordinary circumstances required to undo the judgment. It also rejected her argument that the court lacked authority to hear the lawsuit, explaining that the Federal Circuit had transferred the matter to this court and confirmed its jurisdiction.
Judge Alsup denied both Drevaleva’s request for relief from judgment and her request to disqualify the judge. The court also vacated the hearing that had been scheduled for March 12, 2020.
The detailed version
- Drevaleva v. Department of Veterans Affairs · No. 4:19-cv-05927
- Haywood Gilliam
- Mar. 2, 2020
Background
Tatyana Evgenievna Drevaleva, appearing without a lawyer, had filed several employment lawsuits against Veterans Affairs offices and officers concerning alleged discrimination related to her termination and the refusal to rehire her. In this case, the court had previously dismissed her claims as barred by res judicata, a rule that generally prevents a party from pursuing the same claims after a qualifying final judgment.
Drevaleva filed a motion under Rule 60 seeking relief from that judgment and an affidavit asking that the judge be disqualified for bias and prejudice.
Rule 60 Motion
The court explained that Rule 60(a) permits correction of clerical mistakes or oversights in an order. Rule 60(b) permits relief from a judgment in circumstances such as excusable neglect, opposing-party misconduct, newly discovered evidence, lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, or other extraordinary circumstances.
The court found that Drevaleva had not identified any such basis. Instead, it said she disagreed with the dismissal, raised new claims, and attempted to relitigate issues already addressed. The court concluded that she had not shown a specific legal error, new material facts, misconduct, or extraordinary circumstances warranting relief.
The court also rejected Drevaleva’s argument that res judicata did not apply because there was no legal relationship between her and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. It stated that she had raised the same claims against the same defendant in an earlier case, identified as No. C 19-02665 WHA.
Drevaleva separately argued that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning legal authority to hear the case. The court rejected that argument, relying on the Federal Circuit’s transfer order. According to the court, the Federal Circuit had explained that it could not decide a discrimination claim and that this court properly retained jurisdiction.
Bias and Disqualification Request
The court considered Drevaleva’s affidavit alleging bias and prejudice. It stated that her disagreement with earlier rulings did not establish bias and that the rulings against her were based on the merits rather than prejudice. The court also noted that other judges had previously found no bias or impropriety in connection with her affidavits. It stated that there would be no further referrals based on bias grounds.
Disposition
The court denied Drevaleva’s motion for relief under Rule 60 and her request to disqualify the judge. It also vacated the hearing on those motions that had been scheduled for March 12, 2020. The order did not decide the underlying employment-discrimination claims on their merits.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.