# Sreedhar v. Google, LLC

> District Court, D. Massachusetts · May 16, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10200244

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, D. Massachusetts
- **Decided:** May 16, 2022
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10200244

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that named defendants were properly dismissed when the complaint's factual allegations did not associate those defendants with the constitutional violation alleged

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

CIVIL ACTION NO. 22-10322-RGS

SRIKANTH SREEDHAR

v.

GOOGLE LLC, PARSONS CORPORATION, KPMG LLP, RAVI DUVVURI,
US CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR EBSA, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
LABOR W&H DIVISION, TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES, and DSS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

May 16, 2022

For the reasons set forth below, the court grants plaintiff’s motion for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis and denies plaintiff’s motions to appoint
counsel and to remove from Northeast Housing Court. Defendants Tata
Consultancy Services, US Citizenship and Immigration Services, the United
States Department of Labor EBSA, the United States Department of Labor
W&H Division, and DSS [the State Department] are dismissed because,
other than being named in the case caption of the complaint, there are no
factual allegations concerning these defendants. As to defendants Google,
LLC, Parsons Corporation, KPMG LLP and Ravi Duvvuri, if plaintiff wishes
to proceed with this action, the court grants him time to file an amended
complaint that cures the pleading deficiencies noted below.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Srikanth Sreedhar (“Sreedhar”) filed a pro se complaint on the

preprinted Pro Se 1 form provided by the Administrative Office of the United
States Courts. See Docket No. 1. Named as defendants are Google, Inc.;
Parsons Corporation; KPMG LLP; Ravi Duvvuri; United States Citizenship
and Immigration Services; the Employee Benefits Security Administration of

the United States Department of Labor; the United States Department of
Labor Wage and Hour Division; Tata Consultancy Services and DSS
[Department of State]. Id. at case caption, ¶ I(B), ¶ II(B)(2), p. 6 - 10.1

Sreedhar checked the boxes indicating “federal question” and “diversity of
citizenship” jurisdiction. Id. at ¶ II (basis for jurisdiction).
Sreedhar alleges that the defendants violated his federal rights under
“18 USC 1542, a ‘violation of the Federal Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2510, et

seq, the California Invasion of Privacy Act, Cal. Penal Code §§ 631 and 632;
the California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, Cal. Penal Code § 502,
eq seq; Invasion of Privacy; Intrusion Upon Seclusion; Breach of Contract;
and California Business & Professions Code § 22576.’ SAC ¶¶¶ 279, 281.

Diminution-career https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-

1 Citations to page numbers on documents appearing on the court’s
electronic docket reference the document and page numbers assigned by
CM/ECF.
content/uploads/2021/12/brown-google-incognito-mtd-order.pdf.” Id. at ¶
II(A) (if the basis for jurisdiction is a federal question).

Sreedhar identifies himself as a citizen of India and a Resident of
Massachusetts. Id. at ¶ II(B) (if the basis for jurisdiction is a diversity of
citizenship). Defendant Duvvuri is identified as a citizen either of California
or India, id. at ¶ II(B) (2)(a), and Defendant Parsons is identified as

incorporated under the laws of Virginia and having its principal place of
business in Virginia. Id. at ¶ II(B) (2)(b). Streedhar states that the amount
in controversy exceeds $75,000 because “Parsons owes $1820000

(APPROXIMATELY) as it includes ESOP Shares both before and after a 3-
way-split.” Id. at ¶ II(B) (3) (the amount in controversy).
For relief, Streedhar seeks “return to [his] home in Malden, MA [to
secure] ESOP/Compensation as promised by the Employer (approx.

$1,820,000)[,] Protection of privacy on the Internet[,] Recovery of due
amount from Duvvuri[, an order for] Google to make complete disclosure to
the Delhi High Court as it involves probe into the death of a student at NITK.”
Id. at ¶ IV (relief). In his statement for relief, Streedhar explains that he is

“facing a prospect of a 3-months-jail in India for making defamatory
complaints but [he stands by his] complaint of Institutional Murder,
Corruption, Stalking, Attempted Murder, Privacy Violations.” Id.
Additionally, Streedhar states that he requests “the court to take
cognizance of the conduct of the Northeast Housing Court staff, who refused

to ensure entering [Streedhar’s] case as a Criminal Case through the
limitations of the eFileMA prevent [Streedhar] from filing criminal case
[pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1542].” Id. Streedhar speculates that “[h]ad the
Housing Court Staff followed General Laws Part II Title I Chapter 185C

Section 20 & Rule 3.2 of Judicial Conduct Guidelines, perhaps [Streedhar]
would have [received] justice sooner.” Id. Streedhar explains that he doesn’t
“have financial means to approach US Court and requested employer several

times by email to act.” Id. He also states that “[h]ad Northeast Housing
Court staff cooperated by following rules, then the matter would have
entered AUTOMATICALLY in the Appeals Court in Massachusetts for
Criminal Cases as Housing Court Cases go to Appeals Court and not to

Superior Court.” Id.
Streedhar’s statement of claim consists of ten sentences. Id. at ¶ III
(statement of claim). As to Defendant Duvvuri, Streedhar alleges that he
“lent money to Duvvuri as he was a student [and roommate who] promised

to return on getting job but didn’t.” Id. As to Defendant Google, Streedhar
alleges that it “violated [his] privacy in incognito mode besides informing the
Delhi High Court that there are no Indian Internet Privacy laws [and by
displaying] a link to [Streedhar’s] marks secured in an undergrad course.”
Id. Streedhar contends that the “link is blocked in the European Union

region” and that “Google failed to make complete disclosure to Delhi High
Court.” Id. As to Parsons, Streedhar alleges that it “owes [Streedhar]
approximately $1,820,000 for ESOP Benefits and Compensation until [his]
return to [his] home happens.” Id. Sreedhar alleges that “Parsons, KPMG

caused filing of incorrect tax returns in Canada.” Id.
Attached to the complaint are copies of several employment related
documents. Docket No. 1-1.

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Upon review of Plaintiff’s financial disclosures in his motion for leave
to proceed in forma pauperis, the court concludes that he has adequately
demonstrated that he is without income or assets to pay the filing fee.
Accordingly, Plaintiff will be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis.
MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL
To the extent Plaintiff seeks appointment of counsel, his request is

denied without prejudice. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), the court “may
request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford counsel.” 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). However, a civil plaintiff lacks a constitutional right to
free counsel. Desrosiers v. Moran, 949 F.2d 15, 23 (1st Cir.1991). At this
early stage of the proceedings, and because the complaint fails to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted, Plaintiff’s motion for appointment

of counsel is denied, without prejudice.
MOTION TO REMOVE

To the extent plaintiff seeks to remove Sreedhar v. Carol S. Hamilton
Agent for U.S. Dep’t of Labor, et al., No. 21H77CV000187, from Eastern
Housing Court, the state court docket indicates that the case was dismissed
on November 23, 2021, several months before plaintiff filed the instant
action.2 Docket No. 3, Plaintiff’s Motion to Remove.

Removal is only appropriate when the case might have originally been
brought in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), (b). Additionally, only a
defendant has the power of removal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441; see also, e.g.,
Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100 (1941) (it is just and

proper to require plaintiff to abide by initial selection of forum; plaintiff
cannot remove case based on federal question counterclaim).

2 The Court takes judicial notice of Sreedhar v. Carol S. Hamilton
Agent for U.S. Dep’t of Labor, et al., No. 21H77CV000187 (Northeast
Housing Court complaint filed Oct. 5, 2021). “It is well-accepted that federal
courts may take judicial notice of proceedings in other courts of those
proceedings have relevance to the matters at hand.” Rodi v. New Eng. Sch.
of Law, 389 F.3d 5, 19 (1st Cir. 2004) (quoting Kowalski v. Gagne, 914 F.2d
299, 305 (1st Cir.1990)).
Although Sreedhar’s purpose in seeking remove is not entirely clear,
it appears that he may seek to have this court review a final state court

decision. If so, such review is prohibited by the Rooker–Feldman doctrine,
which precludes a litigant who was unsuccessful in state court from seeking
reversal of that decision in federal court once the state court litigation is
completed. See Coggeshall v. Mass. Bd. of Registration of Psychologists,

604 F.3d 658, 663 (1st Cir.2010) (citing Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic
Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 291 (2005)). Thus, this court lacks appellate
jurisdiction over the housing court case, and the removal of that closed case

to this court would be improper.
SCREENING OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
Because Sreedhar is proceeding without the prepayment of the filing
fee, the complaint is subject to review to determine if it satisfies the

requirements 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (proceedings in forma pauperis). Section
1915 authorizes the federal courts to dismiss an action in which a plaintiff
seeks to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee if the action lacks an
arguable basis either in law or in fact, Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,

325 (1989), or if the action fails to state a claim on which relief may be
granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from
such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2); Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25,
32-33 (1992).

When examining the sufficiency of the pleadings, the court considers
whether the plaintiff has pled “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
(2007). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual

content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 678 (2009) (citation omitted).

Because Sreedhar is proceeding pro se, the court will construe his
complaint generously. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972);
Rodi v. New Eng. Sch. of Law, 389 F.3d 5, 13 (1st Cir. 2004).
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FAILS TO COMPLY
WITH THE BASIC PLEADING REQUIREMENTS
OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

To state a claim upon which relief may be granted, a complaint must
include “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader
is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The “fundamental purpose” of
this pleading rule “is to protect a defendant’s inalienable right to know in

advance the nature of the cause of action being asserted against him.”
Martinez v. Petrenko, 792 F.3d 173, 179 (1st Cir. 2015 (quoting Ruiz Rivera
v. Pfizer Pharm., LLC, 521 F.3d 76, 84 (1st Cir. 2008)); see Twombly, 550
at 555 (stating that Rule 8(a)(2) “requires only a ‘short and plain statement

of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief’ in order to ‘give
the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon
which it rests’” (alteration in original) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) and
Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957))). “The statement should be plain

because the principal function of pleadings under the Federal Rules is to
give the adverse party fair notice of the claim asserted so as to enable him
to answer and prepare for trial.” Kamdem-Ouaffo v. Huczko, 810 Fed.

App’x 82, 84 (3d Cir. 2020) (per curiam) (quoting Salahuddin v. Cuomo,
861 F.2d 40, 42 (2d Cir. 1988)). The “complaint should at least set forth
minimal facts as to who did what to whom, when, where, and why—
although why, when why means the actor's state of mind, can be averred

generally.” Educadores Puertorriqueños en Acción v. Hernandez, 367 F.3d
61, 68 (1st Cir. 2004).
The claims must be “set forth in numbered paragraphs, each limited
as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b).

Because it promotes clarity, “each claim founded on a separate transaction
or occurrence. . . must be stated in a separate count.” Id. In essence, the
complaint must succinctly set forth as to each defendant what he claims
they did (or failed to do), where it occurred, when it occurred, and the relief
he seeks as to each defendant. Put another way, a complaint must clearly

identify the claims and relief Sreedhar seeks as to each defendant, and
provide sufficient factual bases for each of the elements of the claims that
he asserts. The caption must identify all defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a).
The complaint only refers to Tata Consultancy Services, US

Citizenship and Immigration Services, the United States Department of
Labor EBSA, the United States Department of Labor W&H Division, and
DSS [the State Department] in the case caption. The rest of the complaint

makes reference to defendants Google, LLC, Parsons Corporation, KPMG
LLP and Ravi Duvvuri. Because of this, defendants Tata Consultancy
Services, US Citizenship and Immigration Services, the United States
Department of Labor EBSA, the United States Department of Labor W&H

Division, and DSS [the State Department] are dismissed. Morabito v.
Blum, 528 F. Supp. 252, 262 (S.D.N.Y. 1981) (when a “complaint names a
defendant in the caption but contains no allegations indicating how the
defendant violated the law or injured the plaintiff,” the plaintiff fails to state

a plausible claim to relief against that defendant); Douglas v. Yates, 535
F.3d 1316, 1322 (11th Cir. 2008) (holding that named defendants were
properly dismissed when the complaint's factual allegations did not
associate those defendants with the constitutional violation alleged).

As to the remaining defendants, the major deficiency with Sreedhar’s
complaint is that the factual allegations as to Google, LLC, Parsons
Corporation, KPMG LLP and Ravi Duvvuri are conclusory and fail to
identify which specific facts are attributed to which claim. Sreedhar

combines several different causes of action against multiple defendants. He
alleges state and federal statutory violations without stating which facts
relate to which claim or how the facts relate to the legal claims raised. The

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure place the onus on Sreedhar to submit a
pleading that identifies and sets forth, in an organized fashion, the legal
causes of action he seeks to assert against each defendant, and the factual
grounds therefore. Here, it is unclear what legal claims are asserted against

which defendants, which would make it difficult for the defendants to file a
meaningful response.
Additionally, Sreedhar seeks to bring in one complaint several
different claims against unrelated defendants. While Rule 18(a) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits Streedhar “to bring multiple
claims against a defendant in a single action . . . it does not permit the
joinder of unrelated claims against different defendants.” Chase v. Chafee,
No. 11-586ML, 2011 WL 6826504, at *2 (D.R.I. Dec. 9, 2011), report and
recommendation adopted, No. 11-586 ML, 2011 WL 6826629 (D.R.I. Dec.

28, 2011); see Spencer v. Bender, No. 08–11528–RGS, 2010 WL 1740957 at
*2 (D. Mass. April 28, 2010) (citing George v. Smith, 507 F.3d 605, 607
(7th Cir. 2007)). Instead, Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
provides that separate defendants “may be joined in one action as

defendants if. . . any right to relief is asserted against them jointly,
severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same
transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and . . .

any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the
action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2). While there might be overlap with some
of the parties, Sreedhar is cautioned that it is impermissible to bring
multiple unrelated claims against unrelated parties in a single action.

ORDER
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED

1. Plaintiff’s motion (Docket No. 2) for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis is granted.
2. Plaintiff’s motion (Docket No. 3) to remove from Northeast
Housing Court is denied.

3. Plaintiff’s motion (Docket No. 4) to appoint counsel is denied.
4. Defendants Tata Consultancy Services, US Citizenship and
Immigration Services, the United States Department of Labor EBSA, the

United States Department of Labor W&H Division, and DSS [the State
Department] are dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B)(ii) for
failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. If plaintiff wishes
to proceed with his claims against Google, LLC, Parsons Corporation, KPMG

LLP and Ravi Duvvuri, he must file, within 42 days of the date of this
Memorandum and Order, an amended complaint curing the pleading
deficiencies of the original complaint and setting forth plausible claims upon

which relief may be granted.3 Failure to do so will result in the dismissal of
the complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915
(e)(2)(B)(ii).
SO ORDERED.

/s/ Richard G. Stearns
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3 If plaintiff files an amended complaint, he is advised that an amended
complaint will completely replace, not supplement, the original complaint.
Brait Builders Corp. v. Massachusetts, Div. of Capital Asset Mgt., 644 F.3d
5, 9 (1st Cir. 2011).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10200244. Public record. Not legal advice.