Tatyana Drevaleva v. Denis McDonough

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: March 29, 2024
• Docket: 23-15308
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 29 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

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