1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 GURPREET SINGH, Case No. 24-cv-02162-SI

8 Plaintiff, SECOND SCREENING ORDER 9 v. DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHOUT 10 PRIYANKA CHOPRA JONAS, et al., LEAVE TO AMEND 11 Defendants. Re: Dkt. No. 8

12 13 14 BACKGROUND 15 On April 1, 2024 self-represented plaintiff Gurpreet Singh filed a complaint against 16 numerous defendants, asserting numerous claims under federal and California law. Dkt. No. 1. 17 Magistrate judge Westmore granted plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis on April 18 18, 2024. On May 17, 2024, this Court issued a screening order dismissing plaintiff’s complaint 19 with leave to amend, and directing plaintiff to be specific about what defendants allegedly did to 20 him and why what happened to him constitutes a violation of each of his federal causes of action. 21 Dkt. No. 7. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on June 15, 2024, listing 31 different “causes of 22 action.” Dkt. No. 8 (“FAC”). In this amended complaint, plaintiff removes from his long list of 23 defendants the one defendant listed in his initial complaint who was also a citizen of California.1 24 Plaintiff now alleges that all the remaining defendants – over 30 in number -- are citizens and 25 residents of India. FAC ¶ 2. 26 In his amended complaint, plaintiff includes a long list of mostly conclusory allegations, all 27 1 challenging defendants’ alleged “unauthorized use” of his Instagram account, 2 “gurpreetsingh23065.” Plaintiff alleges nothing specific about any individual defendant. He 3 alleges that “the defendants” have impersonated him on various online platforms, appropriated 4 messages without his consent, exploited his Instagram post for a political campaign, and 5 orchestrated a campaign to restrict his freedom and subject him to surveillance and scrutiny. He 6 alleges that “the defendants” copied unique content from his Instagram account, resulting in 7 violations of his intellectual property rights. He alleges that “the defendants” used content from his 8 Instagram account in movie productions and promotional materials. He alleges that “the 9 defendants” have orchestrated situations to isolate him, and he repeatedly alleges that defendants’ 10 actions were done with the purpose of restricting his social interactions and relationships with 11 females of his preference. He alleges a defamatory campaign aimed at tarnishing his character and 12 reputation. He alleges defendants’ interference with his relationships and social interactions resulted 13 in violations of his rights to freedom of association and privacy. Finally, he alleges that he has 14 suffered severe emotional distress, mental anguish, reputational damage, and financial harm because 15 of defendants’ actions, and requests an award of $800,000,000,000 in compensatory damages. 16 17 LEGAL STANDARD 18 The statute that authorizes courts to allow lawsuits to proceed without prepayment of the 19 filing fees also requires the Court to dismiss the case if the action is frivolous, malicious, fails to 20 state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is 21 immune from such relief.

(e)(2)(B). For purposes of

, a frivolous 22 claim is one that “lacks an arguable basis either in law or fact.” Neitzke v. Williams,

, 23 325 (1989). To state a claim for relief, the complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of 24 the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The plaintiff must 25 allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 26

(2007).2 The complaint need not contain “detailed factual allegations,” but the 27 1 plaintiff must “provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief,” which “requires more than labels 2 and conclusions”; a mere “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action” is insufficient. 3

(internal quotations omitted). Pleadings by self-represented plaintiffs must be liberally 4 construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t,

(9th Cir. 1990). 5 6 DISCUSSION 7 Plaintiff alleges that the Court has both diversity jurisdiction and federal question 8 jurisdiction. Plaintiff alleges the following causes of action, some of which are not recognized 9 causes of action: (1) defamation, (2) invasion of privacy and other privacy violations, (3) intentional 10 infliction of emotional distress, (4) copyright infringement, (5) cyberbullying, (6) intentional 11 interference with contract, (7) unjust enrichment, (8) false advertising, (9) intentional 12 misrepresentation, (10) conspiracy, (11) intentional torts, (12) unfair competition, (13) civil rights 13 violations under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Fair Employment and Housing Act, and California 14 Government Code § 12900, (14) stalking and cyberstalking, (15) harassment, (16) emotional 15 distress damages, (17) negligent infliction of emotional distress, (18) trespass to chattels, (19) 16 unlawful surveillance, (20) intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, (21) 17 violation of right to publicity, (22) violation of California’s anti-cyberharassment laws, (23) 18 violation of California’s consumer protection laws, (24) misappropriation of likeness, (25) false 19 endorsement, (26) fraudulent misrepresentation, (27) conversion, (28) international interference 20 with relationships, (29) conspiracy to weaponize relationships, (30) discrimination based on age, 21 and (31) digital rights violations. 22 Although plaintiff has made some effort to add language to his complaint, he has still pled 23 insufficient facts to support any one of his long list of claims and has not identified anything any 24 individual defendant has done. He has not alleged what “unauthorized use” each individual 25 defendant, or any individual defendant, made of his Instagram account. Plaintiff has also not 26 explained how the alleged “unauthorized use” of his Instagram account resulted in any of the 27 1 individual causes of action listed. Because the complaint still contains insufficient factual 2 allegations to state a claim and plaintiff has not cured the deficiencies identified in the first screening 3 order, the Court DISMISSES plaintiff's amended complaint without leave to amend. This dismissal 4 || is without prejudice. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: August 23, 2024 8 SUSAN ILLSTON 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12

13

15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28