Drevaleva v. United States of America
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:19-cv-01454
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Drevaleva v. United States, Judge Gilliam denied Tatyana Drevaleva’s motions to vacate two judgments and revoked her electronic filing privileges.
Tatyana Evgenievna Drevaleva was denied relief from the two judgments and lost her electronic filing privileges in the closed cases and any related case. The defendants’ judgments remained in place.
What happened
In Drevaleva v. United States of America, Tatyana Drevaleva asked the court to vacate two earlier judgments entered for the defendants. Each motion was her third request to vacate a judgment in these cases.
The court explained that this type of request is allowed only in rare situations involving certain jurisdictional errors or a lack of notice or opportunity to be heard. The court found that Drevaleva’s motions did not meet that standard and noted that the Ninth Circuit had dismissed her appeals in both cases as frivolous several years earlier.
The court denied all of Drevaleva’s motions. It also revoked her electronic filing privileges and directed the Clerk not to accept further filings from her in the closed cases or any related case. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., issued the order.
The detailed version
- Drevaleva v. United States of America · No. 4:19-cv-01454
- Haywood Gilliam
- Oct. 24, 2023
Background
Tatyana Evgenievna Drevaleva filed related motions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) seeking to vacate the judgments previously entered in favor of the defendants in two cases. Rule 60(b)(4) allows a court to set aside a judgment when the judgment is legally invalid because of certain jurisdictional errors or because a party was denied due process, including notice or an opportunity to be heard. The court stated that each motion was Drevaleva’s third motion to vacate a judgment in the respective case.
Court’s analysis
The court held that the motions did not satisfy the limited standard for relief under Rule 60(b)(4). It also noted that the Ninth Circuit had dismissed Drevaleva’s appeal in each case as frivolous several years earlier. The opinion did not reconsider the underlying judgments on their merits.
Ruling and filing restriction
The court DENIED Drevaleva’s motions in Case No. 19-1454, Docket Nos. 91 and 92, and in Case No. 19-2665, Docket No. 101. The court further stated that, because of Drevaleva’s long history of repetitive and abusive lawsuits and her refusal to recognize that the cases were over, it REVOKED her electronic filing privileges. The Clerk was DIRECTED not to accept any further filings from her in those closed cases or any related case. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.