1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JESSICA KING, Case No. 3:24-cv-03397-JD

8 Plaintiff,

ORDER RE DISMISSAL

v. 9

10 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, et al., 11 Defendants.

12 13 Pro se plaintiff Jessica King sued the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal 14 Trade Commission, Meta Platforms, NVIDIA Corporation, Maxar Technologies, Google, Secutus 15 Technologies, Via Path/Global Tel-Link, Inter Active Corporate, Match Group, Bumble, and Meet 16 Group. The magistrate judge originally assigned to the case granted King leave to proceed in 17 forma pauperis, Dkt. No. 6, which moots her subsequent IFP request, Dkt. No. 15. The magistrate 18 judge also reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), and dismissed it as frivolous, with 19 leave to amend. Dkt. No. 7. After that, the Clerk of the Court directed King to consent to or 20 decline magistrate judge jurisdiction. Dkt. No. 8. King declined, and the case was re-assigned to 21 this Court. Dkt. Nos. 9, 12. 22 King filed a document that the Court construes as an amended complaint. Dkt. No. 14. 23 The Court reviewed the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), which applies the 24 same standards as under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Nordin v. Scott, No. 3:21-CV- 25 04717-JD, 2021 WL 4710697 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 8, 2021), aff’d, No. 22-15816, 2023 WL 4418595 26 (9th Cir. July 10, 2023). The review was liberal in light of King’s pro se status, but the amended 27 complaint still must satisfy the requirements of Rule 8 and state facts sufficient to allege a 1 plausible claim. Nguyen Gardner v. Chevron Capital Corp., No. 15-cv-01514-JD, 2015 WL 2 12976114, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2015). 3 The amended complaint is dismissed with prejudice. Much like the original complaint, it 4 || is alargely unintelligible series of statements about purported surveillance and similar conduct by 5 || tech companies. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 14 at 4 (Meta engaged in a “‘Military Base’ operation which 6 || illegally revolved around the Plaintiff since she was young”). Nothing in the amended complaint 7 || comes close to plausibly alleging a claim. 8 King was afforded an opportunity to amend after an order that explained the shortcomings 9 || of the original complaint. The record indicates that further amendment will not result in a 10 || cognizable complaint. Consequently, the case is closed. No further filings by King will be 11 accepted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13 Dated: August 22, 2024 14 15

JAMES PONATO

= 16 United fates District Judge

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28