Home/Ninth Circuit/Tatyana Drevaleva v. United States

Tatyana Drevaleva v. United States

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedNovember 18, 2020
Docket19-17286
StatusUnpublished

This text of Tatyana Drevaleva v. United States (Tatyana Drevaleva v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Tatyana Drevaleva v. United States, (9th Cir. 2020).

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 18 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TATYANA EVGENIEVNA No. 19-17286 DREVALEVA, D.C. No. 3:19-cv-01454-WHA Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM*

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees,

and

PETER O’ROURKE,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California William Alsup, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 9, 2020**

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

Tatyana Evgenievna Drevaleva appeals pro se from the district court’s

* 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). judgment dismissing her action under the Administrative Procedures Act related to

her appointment for a position with the Department of Veterans Affairs. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s

dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Mangano v. United States, 529

F.3d 1243, 1245 n.2 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Drevaleva’s action because it is

precluded by the Civil Service Reform Act (“CSRA”). See Brock v. United States,

64 F.3d 1421, 1425 (9th Cir. 1995) (“The CSRA is the exclusive remedy for all

prohibited personnel actions.”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Drevaleva’s post-

judgment Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion because Drevaleva failed

to demonstrate any basis for such relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty.,

Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of

review, and grounds for reconsideration under Rule 60).

All pending motions are denied as moot.

AFFIRMED.

2 19-17286

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation E.J. Bartells Company, a Washington Corporation A.P. Green Refractories Company, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation, and Fibreboard Corp., a Delaware Corporation as Successor in Interest to the Paraffine Companies, Inc., Pabco Products, Inc., Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation, Plant Rubber & Asbestos Works and Plant Rubber & Asbestos Co., School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Keene Corporation, a New York Corporation Individually and as Successor in Interest to the Baldwin Ehret Hill Company, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Us Gypsum Company, a Delaware Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Flintkote Company, a Delaware Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation
5 F.3d 1255 (Ninth Circuit, 1993)
Brenda L. BROCK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee
64 F.3d 1421 (Ninth Circuit, 1995)
Mangano v. United States
529 F.3d 1243 (Ninth Circuit, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Tatyana Drevaleva v. United States, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tatyana-drevaleva-v-united-states-ca9-2020.