TATYANA DREVALEVA V. DENIS MCDONOUGH, ET AL, No. 23-15308 (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NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED MAR 29 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS TATYANA EVGENIEVNA DREVALEVA, No. 23-15308 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:22-cv-04995-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. Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002) (dismissal based on claim preclusion); Omar v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987) (sua sponte dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)). 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 motion to file an oversized opening brief (Docket Entry No. 11) is granted. The Clerk will file the opening brief submitted at Docket Entry No. 12. The motion for an extension of time to serve the opening brief (Docket Entry No. 18) is denied as unnecessary. All other pending motions are denied. AFFIRMED. 2 23-15308

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.