Drevaleva v. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs ( 2020 )

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 7 TATYANA EVGENIEVNA DREVALEVA, 8 No. C 19-02665 WHA Plaintiff, 9 v. 10 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ROBERT WILKIE, United States Secretary VACATE, MOTION TO DEPUBLISH, 11 of Veteran’s Affairs, & AFFIDAVIT OF BIAS & PREJUDICE 12 Defendant. 13 14 Pro se plaintiff Tatyana Drevaleva has filed several employment suits against various 15 Veterans Affairs offices and officers for her termination based on her going absent without 16 leave and for their refusal to hire her back. In this round, Ms. Drevaleva’s suit was previously 17 dismissed for failure to state a claim and for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (Dkt. No. 38). 18 Ms. Drevaleva now objects, filing: (1) a Rule 60 motion for relief from judgment; (2) a motion 19 to de-publish the prior order; and (3) an affidavit of bias and prejudice. For the following 20 reasons, all relief is DENIED. 21 First, Ms. Drevaleva does not satisfy her burden under Rule 60. A Rule 60(a) motion for 22 relief from judgment is for correction of clerical mistakes in an order. Ms. Drevaleva alleges no 23 such errors in her motion. A Rule 60(b) motion permits relief from a judgment, where 24 “appropriate to accomplish justice,” in cases such as a party’s excusable neglect, opposing 25 party’s misconduct, discovery of new evidence, lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, or other 26 “extraordinary circumstances.” See Henson v. Fidelity Nat’l Fin., Inc., 943 F.3d 434, 443 (9th 27 Cir. 2019). 1 Ms. Drevaleva’s motion (Dkt. No. 44) is a rehash disagreement with the dismissal order 2 (Dkt. No. 38). Her supplemental briefs (Dkt. Nos. 48, 50, and 52) articulate similar 3 disagreements of law, raise new claims, and re-litigates issues already addressed in the 4 dismissal order. She fails to point to specific errors of law, new material facts, misconduct, or 5 extraordinary circumstances warranting relief. Rule 60 permits district judges to realize and 6 repair a glaring error without troubling the court of appeals. This is no such instance. 7 Second, Ms. Drevaleva’s request (Dkt. No. 45) does not show cause for “de-publication” 8 of the prior order (Dkt. No. 38). There is a strong public policy in favor of openness in our 9 court system and the public is entitled to know to whom we are providing relief (or not). See 10 Kamakana vy. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006). The order will 11 remain public. 12 Third, the undersigned has carefully considered Ms. Drevaleva’s affidavit of bias and 13 prejudice (Dkt. No. 46) and realizes Ms. Drevaleva’s vigorous disagreement with prior rulings. 14 But, as with prior affidavits to disqualify (see, e.g., No. C 19-03748 WHA, Dkt. No. 102), the 3 15 undersigned remains determined to give Ms. Drevaleva fair hearings and proceedings (see id., a 16 Dkt. No. 129). All rulings against Ms. Drevaleva hew to the merits, not to any bias. Indeed, 3 17 other judges of our District, taking Ms. Drevaleva’s affidavits of bias on referral, have found no 18 bias or impropriety (id., Dkt. No. 138). There will be no further referrals on grounds of bias. 19 The undersigned assures Ms. Drevaleva she will continue to be heard fairly, impartially, and in 20 accord with the law. 21 Ms. Drevaleva’s motions for relief under Rule 60, to de-publish, and to disqualify are 22 DENIED. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 25 Dated: January 21, 2020. 26 LIAM ALSUP 28 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE