Tatyana Evgenievna Drevaleva v. DENIS McDONOUGH

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TATYANA EVGENIEVNA DREVALEVA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
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.
No. 22-16733
D.C. No. 4:22-cv-00887-HSG
MEMORANDUM*
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).
FILED
MAR 29 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 22-16733
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s
dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) on the basis of claim preclusion. Stewart
v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002). 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 district court did not abuse its discretion by declaring Drevaleva a
vexatious litigant and entering a pre-filing review order against her because all of
the requirements were met. See Ringgold-Lockhart v. County of Los Angeles, 761
F.3d 1057, 1062 (9th Cir. 2014) (setting forth standard of review and requirements
for pre-filing review orders).
All pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --