Orloski v. Terrorist Screening Center et al

Filing 14

ORDER: Plaintiff Christopher Orloski's Motion for Extension of Time and Continuance (Doc. # 13 ) is DENIED. This case is dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk shall close the case. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 10/2/2017. (KAK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
CHRISTOPHER ORLOSKI,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 8:17-cv-1815-T-33AAS

TERRORIST SCREENING CENTER,
ET AL.,
Defendants.
/
ORDER
This matter is before the Court pursuant to Plaintiff
Christopher

Orloski’s

Motion

for

Extension

of

Time

and

Continuance (Doc. # 13), which was filed on September 19,
2017.

As explained below, the Court denies the Motion and

dismisses this action without prejudice and with leave to refile after the exhaustion of all relevant administrative
remedies.
Discussion
Mr. Orloski initiated this action on July 31, 2017, by
filing his Complaint, accompanied by a Motion for Leave to
Proceed In Forma Pauperis. (Doc. ## 1, 2). With leave of the
Court, Mr. Orloski filed an Amended Complaint. (Doc. ## 10,
12). Mr. Orloski’s Amended Complaint is 100 pages in length,
and is brought against the Terrorist Screening Center, the
National

Counterterrorism

Center,

the

Federal

Bureau

of

Investigation, the director of National Intelligence, and the
Florida Department of Law Enforcement. (Doc. # 12).

Among

other contentions, Mr. Orloski alleges that various government
agencies placed him on a terrorist watch list, which has made
airport travel more difficult. Mr. Orloski’s Amended Complaint
is not divided into counts or numbered paragraphs.

It is a

lengthy narrative that includes a list of his favorite films,
his hobbies, his life experiences, his desires for revenge,
but does not contain a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that he is entitled to relief.

This violates the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure - specifically Rules 8 and
10.
Mr. Orloski indicates that by disseminating information
about his prior criminal arrest and related court documents,
he has been falsely dubbed a terrorist by federal and state
agencies.

Mr. Orloski seeks entry of an order requiring

Defendants to purge and remove all information about Mr.
Orloski from their databases.

He also seeks approximately

$50,000,000 in punitive and compensatory damages, among other
relief.
The Amended Complaint contains detailed definitions of
terms

such

as

“cyber-bullying,”

“national

security,”

“terrorism,” and “national intelligence program.” The Amended
2

Complaint also provides a comprehensive discussion of Mr.
Orloski’s

mental

disability.

He

explains

that

he

“is

diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder” and “experiences
delusions of grandeur, including an unshakeable belief that he
is an internal affairs officer . . . [who] remotely audits and
investigates various intelligence agencies, military agencies,
and government bodies . . . using telepathy.” (Doc. # 12 at
74).

He also states: “From September 2013 to approximately

September 2014 Mr. Orloski experienced an extended period of
psychiatric illness and traveled from the United States to the
United Kingdom and Greece.

Mr. Orloski transited Turkey at

the Istanbul airport on his way from London to Thessaloniki.
In his delusional state, Mr. Orloski generated various absurd
and

irrational

graphical

reports

on

the

Greek

economy,

suspected human trafficking, suspected black ops sites, etc.
Mr.

Orloski

was

subsequently

hospitalized

in

London

for

psychiatric treatment from September 2014 to February 2015
where he was medicated with olanzapine.” (Id. at 35-36).
Mr.

Orloski

included

“sample

encrypted

graphical

economic security report that Mr. Orloski produces while in
psychosis” in the Amended Complaint. However, the Court finds
these images to be troubling, inappropriate, and offensive.
(Id. at 36, 38, 39).
3

Recently, Mr. Orloski filed a “Motion for Extension of
Time and Continuance.” (Doc. # 13).

He seeks a six-month

extension of time “to pay the filing fees and to serve process
upon Defendants.” (Id. at 1).

In the Motion, however, Mr.

Orloski concedes that he “may have filed this civil action
prematurely as he has not exhausted administrative remedies
under the Federal Tort Claims Act.” (Id.).

Notably, the

Amended Complaint makes no reference to the Federal Tort
Claims Act.

Mr. Orloski indicates that he “does not request

voluntary dismissal of his complaint” and that he plans to
“move the Court for leave to amend his complaint to add a tort
claim under the FTCA.” (Id. at 3).
The Court “must take an active role in managing cases on
[its] docket.” Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp., 123 F.3d 1353,
1366 (11th Cir. 1997).

The Court recognizes that Mr. Orloski

would prefer that the action be stayed for a six-month period
for administrative exhaustion, but the Court declines to
approve such a lengthy stay at the beginning of the case.
This is a Track Two Case that was filed on July 31, 2017.

As

explained in Local Rule 3.05(c)(2)(E), “It is the goal of the
court that a trial will be conducted in all Track Two Cases
within two years after the filing of the complaint, and that
most such cases will be tried within one year after the filing
4

of the complaint.” Local Rule 3.05(c)(2)(E), M.D. Fla. If the
Court were to enter the requested six month stay, the case
would lie dormant until March 26, 2018, and would not be on
target for a timely adjudication.
Here, Mr. Orloski submits that he filed the Complaint
prematurely, he has not exhausted administrative remedies, and
he

has

not

Furthermore,

yet
he

served

any

contemplates

of

the

filing

named
a

Defendants.

Second

Amended

Complaint. And, the Amended Complaint currently on file spans
over 100 pages, is not organized into separate paragraphs or
counts, and does not comply with the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. “Any allegations that are material are buried
beneath innumerable pages of rambling irrelevancies.
type

of

pleading

completely

disregards

Rule

This

10(b)’s

requirement that discrete claims should be plead in separate
counts.”

Magluta v. Samples, 256 F.3d 1282, 1284 (11th Cir.

2001).
Rather than stay a complaint that needs to be amended and
that is not in compliance with the applicable procedural
rules, the best approach available is to dismiss the action
without prejudice.

Mr. Orloksi may re-file this action after

he has exhausted administrative remedies.

Under 28 U.S.C. §

2675(a), a federal court may not exercise jurisdiction over a
5

suit under the FTCA unless the claimant first files an
administrative claim with the appropriate agency. See also
McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 107 (1993)(“The Federal
Tort Claims Act (FTCA) provides that an action shall not be
instituted upon a claim against the United States for money
damages

unless

the

claimant

has

first

exhausted

his

administrative remedies.”). If Mr. Orloski chooses to re-file
this

action,

he

should

be

mindful

of

these

specific

requirements as well as the dictates of the Federal Rules of
Civil

Procedure.

He

should

also

be

careful

inappropriate graphic images in his filings.

to

omit

The Court

recognizes that Mr. Orloski may have been trying to illustrate
the nature of his psychiatric condition by including the
images in his Amended Complaint, but these images are not
necessary to Mr. Orloski’s claims and merely distract from Mr.
Orloksi’s cause.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED:
(1)

Plaintiff Christopher Orloski’s Motion for Extension of
Time and Continuance (Doc. # 13) is DENIED.

(2)

This case is dismissed without prejudice.

(3)

The Clerk shall close the case.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida, this
6

2nd day of October, 2017.

7