Blaise v. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) et al

Filing 9

ORDER denying 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; Denying 6 motion to amend/correct; Adopting Report and Recommendations - re 7 Report and Recommendations. The Amended Complaint (Doc. 6) is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk is directed to close this case. Signed by Judge Carlos E. Mendoza on 12/30/2016. (DJD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION

DIE K. BLAISE,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 6:16-cv-1124-Orl-41TBS

CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
(CIA), DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE
AGENCY (DIA), NATIONAL
SECURITY AGENCY (NSA), FEDERAL
BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (FBI),
DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY
(DEA), RICHARD BURR and PAUL D.
RYAN,
Defendants.
/
ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court
Without Prepaying (“Motion to Proceed,” Doc. 2) and Plaintiff’s combined Motion to Amend,
Amended Complaint, and Motion to Cease Mind Control Activity (Doc. 6). United States
Magistrate Judge Thomas B. Smith submitted a Report and Recommendation (“R&R,” Doc. 7), in
which he recommends that the Motion to Proceed be denied, the Motion to Cease Mind Control
Activity be denied, and the Amended Complaint (Doc. 6) 1 be dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff
filed an Objection (Doc. 8).
After a de novo review of the record, the Court agrees with the analysis in the R&R. The
Court further finds that, to the extent Plaintiff clarifies his claims by way of his Objection, his

1

Although it is filed as a Motion to Amend, Plaintiff was already given leave to file an
amended pleading. (June 29, 2016 Order, Doc. 3, at 3). Thus, the Court will deny the Motion to
Amend as moot and will treat the filing as an Amended Complaint.

Page 1 of 3

claims are still due to be dismissed. With respect to Count I, based on Plaintiff’s Objection, it
appears it was his intention to bring a claim for violation of his Fourth Amendment right against
an unlawful search. However, Plaintiff has failed to plead sufficient detail to plausibly allege that
an unlawful search occurred. Furthermore, Plaintiff only alleges that the “[i]ntruder . . . appear[ed]
to be a law enforcement” officer, (Doc. 6 at 4), but fails to specify with what department or how
the purported intruder was connected in any way to a named Defendant. Thus, Plaintiff has failed
to state a claim in Count I. As to Count II, based on evidence submitted with Plaintiff’s Objection,
the Court believes that Plaintiff is attempting to bring a claim for violation of Federal Rule of
Criminal Procedure 41, outlining procedures for searches and seizures. However, there is no
independent cause of action for violation of Rule 41. See Black v. Mt. Pleasant Tenn. Police Dep’t,
No. 1-14-00087, 2015 WL 4459158, at *9 (M.D. Tenn. July 20, 2015).
Counts III, IV, and VII, appear to be an attempt to assert claims under the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act, 50 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq. Although the Act does provide a private
cause of action, see 50 U.S.C. § 1810, Plaintiff is required to comply with the procedures set forth
in 18 U.S.C. § 2712 in order to bring such a claim. As relevant here, “[a]ny action against the
United States . . . may be commenced only after a claim is presented to the appropriate department
or agency under the procedures of the Federal Tort Claims Act.” Id. § 2712(b)(1). Plaintiff has not
alleged that he first submitted his claim to the appropriate agency or agencies or that he has
exhausted his administrative remedies prior to bringing this suit. Therefore, Counts III, IV, and
VII must be dismissed. See Iqbal v. F.B.I., No. 3:11-cv-369-J-37JBT, 2012 WL 2366634, at *6
(M.D. Fla. June 21, 2012).
To the extent Plaintiff objects to the dismissal of Count V, as set forth in the R&R, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 2520, there is no private right of action against the United States for alleged

Page 2 of 3

violations of the Federal Wiretap Act, including officials sued in their official capacity. See
Loadholt v. Obama, No. 2:13-cv-2607-MCE-EFB PS, 2015 WL 848549, at *3 n.5 (E.D. Cal. Feb.
26, 2015). Finally, Plaintiff has still failed to establish any private right of action under 18 U.S.C.
§ 2242 or 18 U.S.C. § 1513, both of which are federal criminal statutes, and therefore, Counts VI
and VIII also fail to state cognizable causes of action.
Therefore, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 7) is ADOPTED and CONFIRMED and
made a part of this Order.
2. Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying (Doc. 2) is
DENIED.
3. The combined Motion to Amend and Motion to Cease Mind Control Activity (Doc.
6) is DENIED.
4. The Amended Complaint (Doc. 6) is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk
is directed to close this case.
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on December 30, 2016.

Copies furnished to:
Unrepresented Party

Page 3 of 3