Tatyana Drevaleva v. United States ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED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