Drevaleva v. Hayo

Background

Tatyana Evgenievna Drevaleva filed an amended complaint asserting numerous claims connected to her employment disputes with the Department of Veterans Affairs. She alleged that she was denied leave to obtain fertility treatment and medical care in Russia, placed on unauthorized-absence status, and terminated from her position as an EKG technician at a VA medical center in New Mexico. She also alleged that she was later denied jobs at VA facilities in Minneapolis and West Los Angeles.

The amended complaint named federal officials and agencies, VA facilities and employees, Judge Alsup, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, and the American Federation of Government Employees. The claims included constitutional, civil-rights, discrimination, Privacy Act, labor, professional-negligence, emotional-distress, and state-law theories. Drevaleva represented herself.

The court noted that Drevaleva had filed numerous earlier lawsuits arising from the same employment disputes. Those earlier proceedings had resulted in dismissals, including dismissals with prejudice, and appellate rulings.

Screening standard

Because Drevaleva had been allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee, the court was required to screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The court had to dismiss claims that were frivolous or malicious, failed to state a legally sufficient claim, or sought money from a defendant protected from that relief. The court also applied the requirement that a complaint provide a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief.

The court stated that factual allegations are generally assumed true at this stage, but legal conclusions and unsupported labels are not. Although pleadings filed by a person without a lawyer are read liberally, dismissal without an opportunity to amend is proper when the defects cannot be fixed by amendment.

Claims against Judge Alsup and the Northern District of California

The court held that portions of Drevaleva’s first through seventh claims, all of her eighth claim, and portions of her state-law claims were duplicative of claims asserted in an earlier related proceeding concerning the handling of her prior cases. The court applied res judicata, also called claim preclusion, which generally prevents a party from relitigating a claim that was previously decided when the later claim arises from the same underlying facts and the earlier case involved the same parties or legally connected parties.

The court held that the prior judgment barred the current claims. It added that the claims would also be barred by absolute judicial immunity for the reasons stated in the earlier proceeding. The court dismissed with prejudice Drevaleva’s claims against Judge Alsup and the Northern District of California.

Claims concerning termination and failure to hire

The court held that claims against the United States, the Department of Veterans Affairs and its subdivisions, the West Los Angeles VA Medical Center, and Secretary Denis McDonough were duplicative of claims Drevaleva had previously asserted.

Claims arising from her termination in New Mexico were barred by the prior dismissal with prejudice of related claims. The court explained that, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41, a dismissal generally operates as an adjudication on the merits unless an exception applies or the dismissal order says otherwise. The court also held that claims arising from the West Los Angeles VA Medical Center’s refusal to hire her were barred by the prior dismissal with prejudice of related claims concerning that decision.

The court further held that Drevaleva’s Privacy Act claim was precluded. The alleged recordkeeping problems were tied to the same adverse employment decisions—her termination, the refusal to reinstate her, and the decisions not to hire her in Minneapolis and Los Angeles—that she had already litigated. The court dismissed with prejudice the claims against the United States, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Office of Resolution Management, the New Mexico VA Healthcare System, the West Los Angeles VA Medical Center, and Secretary McDonough relating to her termination or refusal to hire.

Claims against Dunkelberger and Johnson

The court held that Drevaleva’s claims against Carla Dunkelberger and Phil Johnson arose from the same handling of her leave request and termination involved in an earlier related case. That earlier case had been dismissed with prejudice under the screening statute, and the appeal had been dismissed as frivolous.

The court stated that a prior dismissal as frivolous can have claim-preclusion effect concerning the frivolousness of later complaints filed without paying the filing fee. It alternatively held that the current claims were frivolous because they improperly rehashed claims repeatedly asserted against the Department of Veterans Affairs and its Secretary. The court dismissed with prejudice Drevaleva’s claims against Dunkelberger and Johnson under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

Claims against Hayo

Although Dennis Hayo had not been named in Drevaleva’s earlier cases, the court held that he was legally connected to the federal defendants in those proceedings because he was a federal Equal Employment Opportunity employee acting within his official duties. The court therefore treated the earlier judgment as preclusive of claims against him arising from the same termination and related Equal Employment Opportunity investigation.

The court dismissed with prejudice all of Drevaleva’s claims against Hayo.

Claims against the American Federation of Government Employees

The court held that the American Federation of Government Employees was not shown to be legally connected to the defendants in the earlier cases, so claim preclusion did not independently bar the claims against the union.

Drevaleva’s civil-rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleged that the union deprived her of civil rights. The court explained that § 1983 requires conduct fairly attributable to a state or other covered state actor. Drevaleva did not allege that the union acted on behalf of a state, territory, or the District of Columbia, and the court concluded that amendment could not fix that defect. It dismissed with prejudice, without leave to amend, the § 1983 claim against the union.

Drevaleva’s labor claim alleged that union representative Karen Smith stopped communicating with her and failed to help her obtain relief after her termination. The court explained that this type of fair-representation claim generally arises under the National Labor Relations Act rather than the Labor Management Relations Act, although it may accompany a claim involving a collective-bargaining agreement. The court applied a six-month limitations period and held that the claim was untimely because the alleged failure to communicate occurred in 2017, while Drevaleva first raised the claim in her July 2021 amended complaint. The court found no basis for extending the filing deadline and concluded that amendment would be futile. It dismissed with prejudice, without leave to amend, the LMRA claim against the union.

Disposition

Judge Gilliam dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The dismissal was without leave to amend. The court denied all pending motions as moot because the entire case had been dismissed and directed the Clerk to close the case.