Drevaleva v. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs et al

Filing 71

ORDER DENYING 65 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF REVOCATION OF IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS ON APPEAL. Signed by Judge William Alsup. (whalc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/4/2018)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
TATYANA EVGENIEVNA DREVALEVA,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14

No. C 18-3748-WHA

Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING
RECONSIDERATION OF
REVOCATION OF IN
FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS
ON APPEAL

v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS, et al.,
Defendants.

15

/

16
In this pro se action against the Department of Veterans Affairs for terminating her

17
18

employment, plaintiff moves for reconsideration of the order dated November 26 revoking her

19

in forma pauperis status on appeal. Below are the key events in chronological order.
In her opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss, plaintiff requested appointment of

20
21

counsel pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1)(B) (Dkt. No. 40 at 14). An order dated

22

November 19 advised plaintiff that Mallard v. United States District Court, 490 U.S. 296,

23

304–05 (1989), held that there is no constitutional right to counsel in civil cases. The order

24

further advised plaintiff that she had the option of: (1) showing she met the four factor test

25

under Bradshaw v. Zoological Society of San Diego, 662 F.2d 1301, 1318 (9th Cir. 1981); (2)

26
27
28

contacting the legal help center in person or online at: http://cand.uscourts.gov/proselitigants;
or (3) making an appointment with the legal help center by calling 415-782-9000, extension
8657.

1
2

Instead, plaintiff immediately appealed the November 19 order denying her request for
appointment of counsel (Dkt. No. 58). Our court of appeals then referred the matter to this

3
Court to determine whether plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status should continue on appeal.
4
5
6
7
8

An order dated November 26 found the appeal to be frivolous and revoked plaintiff’s in forma
pauperis status as to the appeal (without prejudice as to subsequent appeals).
Plaintiff now moves for reconsideration of the November 26 order revoking her in
forma pauperis status on appeal. In her motion, plaintiff states that she made one attempt to

9
secure counsel (Dkt. No. 65 at 2). That new fact does not change the conclusion that plaintiff
11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

has not met the standard under Bradshaw (at least on the current record). Accordingly,
plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16

Dated: December 4, 2018.
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2