TATYANA DREVALEVA V. DENIS MCDONOUGH, ET AL, No. 22-16733 (9th Cir. 2024)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED MAR 29 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS TATYANA EVGENIEVNA DREVALEVA, No. 22-16733 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:22-cv-00887-HSG v. MEMORANDUM* DENIS McDONOUGH, in his Official Capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 26, 2024** Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and KOH, Circuit Judges. Tatyana Evgenievna Drevaleva appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her action alleging federal and state law claims. We have * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) on the basis of claim preclusion. Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Drevaleva’s action on the basis of claim preclusion because Drevaleva raised, or could have raised, her claims in her prior federal actions, which involved the same parties or their privies and resulted in final judgments on the merits. See Mpoyo v. Litton Electro-Optical Sys., 430 F.3d 985, 987 (9th Cir. 2005) (setting forth elements of claim preclusion under federal law). The district court did not abuse its discretion by declaring Drevaleva a vexatious litigant and entering a pre-filing review order against her because all of the requirements were met. See Ringgold-Lockhart v. County of Los Angeles, 761 F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2014) (setting forth standard of review and requirements for pre-filing review orders). All pending motions are denied. AFFIRMED. 2 22-16733

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.