Drevaleva v. Glazer

Background

Tatyana Evgenievna Drevaleva filed this case after pursuing multiple lawsuits arising from employment disputes with the Department of Veterans Affairs. The court stated that she had filed ten cases since 2018 connected to those disputes: eight in the Northern District of California, one in the Court of Federal Claims, and one against a judge concerning the handling of her cases. The opinion also described hundreds of filings, motions, and appeals, including filings made after cases had closed or in violation of court orders.

In the present case, Drevaleva filed a 143-page complaint alleging that a New Mexico federal court's judgment was void and that she could therefore refile her claims. Defendants moved to declare her a vexatious litigant. The opinion states that the present case had been dismissed as barred by res judicata, a rule generally preventing a party from relitigating claims that have already been resolved.

Legal standard

The court relied on the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), which gives federal courts authority to issue prefiling orders against vexatious litigants. A prefiling order requires a litigant to obtain court review before filing certain new cases. The court described this as an extreme remedy that should be used rarely because it can affect access to the courts.

Under Ninth Circuit precedent, the court had to determine whether: (1) Drevaleva received notice and an opportunity to oppose the order; (2) the record was adequate for review; (3) the court could make substantive findings that her litigation was frivolous or harassing; and (4) the proposed order was narrowly tailored to the misconduct identified.

Court's analysis

The court found the notice requirement satisfied because defendants filed the motion and Drevaleva filed several oppositions. It found the record adequate based on the prior cases and the hundreds of filings, motions, and appeals described in the opinion.

The court found Drevaleva's conduct frivolous and harassing. It concluded that she had repeatedly attempted to relitigate the same issues through new cases and repeated motions, had refused to accept prior rulings, and had continued filing despite warnings, court orders, and the loss of filing privileges. The court also found that many filings were duplicative, lacked a legal basis, or threatened attorneys and judges with lawsuits. It stated that her repetitive litigation burdened the courts and wasted defendants' time and resources.

The court recognized that defendants' proposed restriction was broad because it covered complaints naming any federal entity or any current or former federal employee. It nevertheless found the restriction necessary because Drevaleva had repeatedly added or attempted to add government entities and employees—including judges and defense counsel—as defendants in cases arising from the same employment dispute. The court limited the order to those employment disputes and related challenges to the rulings or handling of the cases.

Disposition

The court GRANTED defendants' motion and DECLARED Drevaleva a vexatious litigant. The clerk may not file or accept further complaints filed by or on behalf of Drevaleva that name a federal entity or a current or former federal employee as a defendant when the allegations concern her prior or subsequent employment disputes with the VA or the rulings in, or handling of, cases arising from those disputes.

For a complaint covered by the order, Drevaleva must provide the clerk with the complaint, a letter requesting filing, and a copy of the order. The clerk must forward those materials to the duty judge, who will decide whether the complaint should be accepted for filing. The court warned that an action filed in violation of the order will be subject to dismissal. The order also terminated as moot the pending motion to declare Drevaleva a vexatious litigant in the separate case Drevaleva v. Glazer, No. 4:21-cv-00500-HSG, and directed the clerk to place a copy of this order in that case.