Drevaleva v. McDonough

Background

Tatyana Evgenievna Drevaleva filed this action on August 29, 2022, labeling her pleading a “Fourth Amended Complaint.” The opinion says the case concerns the same alleged employment discrimination connected to her employment as a medical instrument technician at the Raymond G. Murphy Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Albuquerque, New Mexico. The opinion states that Drevaleva began that employment in April 2017, requested unpaid leave to travel to Russia for in-vitro fertilization, left on May 18, 2017, and was terminated on July 3, 2017. She was told that the termination resulted from taking leave without permission.

The court recounted several earlier related proceedings. An earlier employment-discrimination case was dismissed with prejudice in the District of New Mexico, and the Tenth Circuit affirmed. Other related cases were dismissed, including one seeking disclosure of an Equal Employment Opportunity investigation, one dismissed with prejudice, one dismissed based on claim preclusion, and one dismissed as frivolous and duplicative. The opinion also states that Drevaleva was declared a vexatious litigant in one of those earlier proceedings. The Ninth Circuit dismissed several of her appeals as frivolous.

Order to Show Cause

The court ordered Drevaleva to show cause—meaning to explain—why her claims are not barred by res judicata, also called claim preclusion. Claim preclusion generally prevents a party from bringing a claim that was already decided. The court stated that the rule applies when an earlier case involved the same claim, reached a final judgment on the merits, and involved the same parties or legally connected parties. To determine whether claims are the same, courts consider whether they arise from the same facts, whether the earlier judgment’s rights would be impaired by the later case, whether the same right was allegedly violated, and whether substantially the same evidence would be used.

Disposition

This order did not grant or deny a dispositive motion and did not dismiss the case. Magistrate Judge Allie Kim ordered Drevaleva to file a written response by January 20, 2023. The order warned that if she failed to respond or failed to show why claim preclusion should not apply, the court would reassign the case to a district judge with a report and recommendation to dismiss the case.