Drevaleva v. Beeler

Background

Tatyana Evgenievna Drevaleva, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler, in her individual capacity as a magistrate judge, and the United States. The claims concerned Judge Beeler’s rulings and handling of an earlier case to which Judge Beeler had been assigned.

The court previously dismissed this case with prejudice and entered judgment against Drevaleva because judicial immunity barred the claims. Judicial immunity generally protects judges from liability for actions taken in their judicial role; in this order, the court applied that protection to Drevaleva’s claims concerning Judge Beeler’s judicial actions.

Motion to Vacate

Drevaleva moved to vacate the judgment, arguing that the result was inconsistent with the Federal Tort Claims Act and related regulations. She said the case had not been presented to the Attorney General or the United States Attorney for the Northern District of California to certify whether Judge Beeler acted within the scope of her office.

The court explained that the certification procedure under the Federal Employees Liability Reform and Tort Compensation Act authorizes the Attorney General to certify that a federal employee acted within the scope of employment. When certification is given in a civil action, the statute provides for substituting the United States for the employee and, when applicable, removing a state-court action to federal court.

The court held that this procedure was not relevant because Drevaleva filed this action in federal court and named both Judge Beeler and the United States as defendants. The court further held that judicial immunity barred not only the claims against Judge Beeler but also Drevaleva’s Federal Tort Claims Act claim against the United States, because federal law allows the United States to assert defenses based on immunity that would have been available to the employee.

Disposition

The court concluded that its earlier dismissal with prejudice of the Federal Tort Claims Act claim based on judicial immunity was appropriate. It denied Drevaleva’s motion to vacate the judgment. The court also ordered that Drevaleva may not file new motions in the closed case without express permission from the court and advised that failure to comply would result in termination of her electronic filing access.