By Lalit K Jha
Washington, Sept. 19: A California woman has filed a civil rights lawsuit in US federal court naming Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, and U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro, alleging surveillance, harassment and attempts on her life, according to court documents.
The complaint, lodged on Aug. 15 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, was brought by Diane Demmar, who is representing herself. Filed under the civil rights statute 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the suit asserts that the defendants acted “under colour of law” in alleged attempts to harm her.
In a nine-page filing, Demmar claims that Modi watched her under surveillance “organized group assisted murder attempts through hired hitmen” to cover up supposed criminal acts of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.
She accuses Modi of being a “witness and participant in attempts to kill me” and of abusing artificial intelligence technology to observe her “every move, 24/7.
Demmar further alleges that Modi practised “Hindu rituals to harm” her and sought to fabricate symptoms of mental illness that would allow U.S. officials to file a complaint against her.
The complaint also names Pirro, who has been serving as the US Attorney for Washington, DC, since May 2025, after a career as a judge, prosecutor and television host. Demmar alleges Pirro participated in “violence” and covert surveillance aimed at discrediting her.
Khamenei, she claims, oversaw surveillance and “organised group-assisted murder attempts” against her, again allegedly to shield Roberts from unspecified future legal issues.
Court records show it was initially assigned to U.S. District Judge Christina A. Snyder and Magistrate Judge Maria A. Audero.
On Sept. 8, Demmar filed a motion seeking to disqualify both judges, requesting reassignment to a male judge and alleging bias. That motion was denied on Sept. 17 by U.S. District Judge Percy Anderson, who ruled that she had not provided a sufficient factual basis. “Conclusory allegations … do not justify disqualification,” Anderson wrote, citing established standards for judicial recusal.
Civil rights complaints under §1983 typically involve claims of violations by state or federal officials. Legal experts said the inclusion of foreign heads of state and the top federal prosecutor in Washington makes this filing unusual and unlikely to proceed.
“Sitting prime ministers and heads of state are generally immune from such suits under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and principles of head-of-state immunity,” said a Los Angeles-based attorney specialising in federal litigation, who was not involved in the case.
The court has not yet ruled on the substance of the allegations, and none of the named defendants has filed a response.
The lawsuit may face early dismissal on jurisdictional and immunity grounds.
[5WH/VS]
Suggested Reading: