Tatyana Drevaleva v. Alameda Health System

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 21 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT TATYANA EVGENIEVNA DREVALEVA, No. 22-15547 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:16-cv-07414-LB v. MEMORANDUM* ALAMEDA HEALTH SYSTEM; DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, Division of Labor Standards Enforcement; CATHERINE DALY; JOAN HEALY; BOBBIT SANTOS; ERIC ROOD, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Laurel D. Beeler, Magistrate Judge, Presiding** Submitted March 14, 2023*** Before: SILVERMAN, SUNG, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). *** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).  Tatyana Evgenievna Drevaleva appeals pro se from the district court’s post- judgment orders denying her motions for relief from judgment in her employment action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Garamendi v. Henin, 683 F.3d 1069, 1077 (9th Cir. 2012) (Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a)); Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993) (Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)); United States v. Sierra Pac. Indus., Inc., 862 F.3d 1157, 1166 (9th Cir. 2017) (Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(d)(3)). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Drevaleva’s post- judgment motions because Drevaleva failed to demonstrate any basis for relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1262-63 (grounds for relief under Rule 60(b)); see also Sierra Pac., 862 F.3d at 1167-68 (grounds for relief under Rule 60(d)(3)); Garamendi, 683 F.3d at 1077-80 (9th Cir. 2012) (factors warranting relief under Rule 60(a)). All pending motions are denied as moot. AFFIRMED. 2 22-15547