Drevaleva v. United States of America

Opinion

1 2 3 6 7 TATYANA EVGENIEVNA Case No. 19-cv-01454-HSG DREVALEVA, 8 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO Plaintiff, VACATE JUDGMENT 9 v. Re: Dkt. Nos. 91, 92 10 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 Case No. 19-cv-2665-HSG TATYANA EVGENIEVNA 13 DREVALEVA, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO VACATE JUDGMENT 14 Plaintiff, Re: Dkt. No. 101 15 v.

16 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., 17 Defendants.

18 Before the Court are Plaintiff’s related motions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4) to 19 vacate the judgments long ago entered in favor of Defendants. Each motion is the third motion to 20 vacate that Plaintiff has filed in these cases. Rule 60(b) “provides an ‘exception to finality’ that 21 ‘allows a party to seek relief from a final judgment, and request reopening of [her] case, under a 22 limited set of circumstances.’” United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa, 559 U.S. 260, 269, 130 23 S.Ct. 1367, 176 L.Ed.2d 158 (2010). “Rule 60(b)(4) applies only in the rare instance where a 24 judgment is premised either on a certain type of jurisdictional error or on a violation of due 25 process that deprives a party of notice or the opportunity to be heard.” Id. at 271. 26 Plaintiff’s motions fail to meet this standard, especially given that the Ninth Circuit 27 dismissed her appeal in each case as frivolous several years ago. See Case. No. 19-2665, Dkt. No. 1 98; Case No. 19-1454, Dkt. No. 88. Accordingly, the court DENIES Plaintiff's motions in Case 2 No. 19-1454, Dkt. Nos. 91, 92 and Case No. 19-2665, Dkt. No. 101. In addition, given □□□□□□□□□□□ 3 long history of repetitive and abusive lawsuits and her refusal to recognize that these cases are 4 over as confirmed by the Ninth Circuit, her electronic filing privileges are REVOKED, and the 5 Clerk is again DIRECTED not to accept any further filings in these closed cases or any related 6 case. 8 Dated: 10/24/2023 ° wiadog S. GILLIAM, JR. / 10 United States District Judge 11 12

© 15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28