Drevaleva v. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8

10 TATYANA EVGENIEVNA DREVALEVA, 11 No. C 19-02665 WHA Plaintiff, 12

v.

13 ORDER REVOKING IN FORMA ROBERT WILKIE, United States Secretary PAUPERIS STATUS ON APPEAL 14 of Veterans Affairs, 15 Defendants.

17 INTRODUCTION 18 In this serial employment discrimination case, our court of appeals asks whether pro se 19 plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status should continue on appeal. Because the multiplicity of suit 20 indicates abuse, plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status on appeal is REVOKED. 21 STATEMENT 22 This is the third lawsuit arising from the same set of facts (Dkt. No. 38). While working 23 at the New Mexico Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC), Ms. Drevaleva suddenly left for 24 Russia in May 2017, evidently to undergo in-vitro fertilization (IVF). She was terminated for 25 absence without leave in July and only returned in August. In 2018, both the Minneapolis and 26 West Los Angeles VAMC’s declined to employ Ms. Drevaleva upon learning of her 2017 27 termination. 1 Contending she was the victim of discrimination, Ms. Drevaleva engaged in several 2 mediation sessions with the West Los Angeles VAMC before filing a formal Equal 3 Employment Opportunity complaint with the Office of Resolution Management, to no avail. 4 So she filed several lawsuits. This is the third. 5 Ms. Drevaleva received IFP status in her first case, No. C 18-03748 WHA, which a 6 December 2018 order dismissed. Following substantial briefing — and a motion for recusal 7 which the Honorable Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denied — the undersigned denied Ms. 8 Drevaleva’s motion to reconsider and two motions to vacate. And though her IFP status 9 continued through several petitions, our court of appeals declined to intervene. 10 Ms. Drevaleva received IFP status again in her second case, No. C 19-01454 WHA, 11 which a September 2019 order dismissed. After substantial briefing, a November 2019 order 12 denied Ms. Dreveleva’s motion to vacate. Her IFP status continued on appeal again, and that 13 appeal still pends before our court of appeals. 14 This is Ms. Drevaleva’s third case. She again obtained IFP status. A November 2019 15 order dismissed the case. Following about 90-pages of supplemental briefing, a January 2020 16 order denied Ms. Drevaleva’s motion to vacate, demand to de-publish, and affidavit of bias 17 (Dkt. Nos. 12, 38, 44–46, 65). Ms. Drevaleva again appealed. Our court of appeals now 18 remands this appeal for the limited purpose of deciding whether Ms. Drevaleva’s IFP status 19 should continue (Dkt. No. 71). 20 Since obtaining IFP status in this case, Ms. Drevaleva filed three more cases against the 21 Department of Veterans Affairs, case numbers C 19-05927 WHA, C 19-06127 WHA, and C 22 20-0820 DMR. The first two cases were initially filed in the Federal Circuit and transferred to 23 this Court. Though Ms. Drevaleva’s IFP applications there were never granted, due to 24 procedural snafus in transit, she has litigated in this Court without ever paying the filing fees or 25 receiving IFP status. Indeed, in the first of those two cases, Ms. Drevaleva obtained a decision 26 on the merits in December 2019 (dismissal as res judicata) and her motion to vacate pends 27 before this Court. Ms. Drevaleva’s application for IFP in her sixth case currently pends before 1 ANALYSIS 2 Congress’ goal in creating the IFP statute was to put indigent plaintiffs on a similar 3 footing with paying plaintiffs. Congress recognized, however, that a litigant whose filing fees 4 and court costs are assumed by the public, unlike a paying litigant, lacks an economic incentive 5 to refrain from filing frivolous, malicious, or repetitive lawsuits. To prevent such abuse on 6 appeal, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) states “[a]n appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the 7 trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.” Ellis v. United States, 356 U.S. 8 674 (1958); see also Hooker v. American Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th Cir. 2002). 9 It is now clear that Ms. Drevaleva is abusing her IFP status. Instead of diligently pursing 10 her two pending cases before our court of appeals, she has opened three new cases. These 11 repetitive suits stem from the same events. Ms. Drevaleva is entitled to her day in court — she 12 is not entitled to overwhelm the Secretary of Veterans affairs, and indeed impact other 5 13 litigants’ access to the limited resources of the courts, by filing a multitude of suits at public 14 expense. The public will not be made to fund another front in Ms. Drevaleva’s apparently 3 15 endless campaign against the Secretary. Her IFP on appeal is revoked, but Ms. Drevaleva 16 remains free to pay the filing fee and proceed. CONCLUSION 18 Ms. Drevaleva’s IFP status is REVOKED on appeal. This revocation is without prejudice 19 to subsequent appeals. The Clerk shall please notify the United States Court of Appeals for the 20 Ninth Circuit of this order. 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 Dated: February 18, 2020. 25 26 Al = Pree ILLIAM ALSUP 27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28