Drevaleva

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 TATYANA EVGENIEVNA Case No. 21-cv-00500-HSG

DREVALEVA,

ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S Plaintiff, CLAIMS 9 v. 10 JOSEPH GLAZER, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 Through her Amended Complaint filed as of right in June 2021, pro se Plaintiff brings multiple claims related to her employment disputes with the Department of Veterans Affairs. See generally Dkt. No. 52. Although Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis was previously granted, see Dkt. No. 4, the sufficiency of the complaint for the purpose of 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(b) and service of process has not yet been assessed. After reviewing the Amended Complaint, the Court concludes that all of Plaintiff’s claims are barred by res judicata and DISMISSES each cause of action WITH PREJUDICE under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). I. BACKGROUND A. Allegations When Plaintiff began working as an EKG technician at the Raymond G. Murphy Veterans Affairs Medical Center in New Mexico (the…