Drevaleva v. McDonough

Background

Tatyana Drevaleva filed this case after a series of lawsuits arising from employment disputes with the Department of Veterans Affairs. The court stated that she had filed ten related cases since 2018: 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 court also described hundreds of filings, motions, and appeals, including filings made after cases had closed or despite orders prohibiting further filings. The court stated that the prior cases had been dismissed or had reached a court of appeals’ final action.

In this case, Drevaleva filed a 143-page complaint claiming that a New Mexico district court’s judgment was void and that she could therefore refile her claims. The court stated that this case had been dismissed as barred by res judicata, meaning that the claims could not be relitigated because of an earlier judgment. While this case was pending, Drevaleva filed numerous additional motions that the court said lacked a basis in the local or federal rules.

Legal standard

The defendants moved to declare Drevaleva a vexatious litigant under the All Writs Act, a federal law allowing courts to issue orders needed to protect the functioning of the judicial system. A pre-filing order requires a litigant to obtain court review before filing specified new cases. The court explained that such orders are an extreme remedy because they can affect a person’s access to the courts.

The Ninth Circuit’s four-factor test requires the court to find that the litigant received notice and an opportunity to respond; that there is an adequate record for review; that the litigant’s actions were frivolous or harassing; and that the restriction is narrowly tailored to the misconduct. Because Drevaleva represented herself, the court said it would proceed cautiously in deciding whether and how to impose a restriction.

Discussion

The court found all four factors satisfied. Drevaleva received notice and an opportunity to be heard because she filed several oppositions to the defendants’ motion. The record included the related cases and the hundreds of filings, motions, and appeals described by the court.

The court found Drevaleva’s conduct frivolous and harassing. It said she sought to relitigate the same issues through repetitive cases and persistent motions, refused to accept earlier rulings as binding, filed duplicative or unauthorized documents, and sometimes threatened attorneys and judges with lawsuits. The court also found that warnings, orders, loss of filing privileges, and other measures had not stopped the conduct.

The court considered the requested restriction relatively broad because it would cover complaints naming any federal entity or any current or former federal employee, whether sued personally or officially. The court nevertheless found the restriction necessary because Drevaleva had repeatedly added 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 resulting cases.

Disposition

The court GRANTED the defendants’ motion and DECLARED Drevaleva a vexatious litigant. The clerk may not file or accept complaints filed by or for 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.

To seek filing of such a complaint, Drevaleva must provide the complaint, a letter requesting that it be filed, 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 terminates as moot the pending motion to declare Drevaleva a vexatious litigant in the related Glazer case.