Orloski v. Terrorist Screening Center et al

Filing 51

ORDER denying (Doc. # 44 ) Motion for Reconsideration. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 8/13/2018. (KAK)

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

Case No. 8:18-cv-709-T-33SPF

TERRORIST SCREENING CENTER, ET AL.,
Defandants.
_________________________________/
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court in consideration of Pro Se
Plaintiff

Christopher

Orloski’s

“Ex

Parte

Motion

for

Reconsideration of Plaintiff’s Motion for Judicial Inquiry” (Doc.
# 44), filed on July 10, 2018. As explained below, the Court denies
the Motion.
I.

Background
Orloski is a resident of Clearwater, Florida who suffers from

“a mental disability (schizoaffective disorder).” (Doc. # 14 at ¶¶
25, 26).

He claims that he was “erroneously placed” on TSA’s

Automatic Selectee List, which is a terrorist watchlist. (Id. at
¶ 6). Orloski maintains that during an incident on February 6,
2015, at Tampa International Airport, “all of [his] electronic
equipment including cell phones, computer, mp3 player, etc.” were
seized and transferred to Homeland Security. (Id. at ¶ 33). He
also claims that he was “subjected to extended screening by TSA

1

and restrictive airline boarding pass policies” on April 11, 2015,
April 12, 2015, July 8, 2015, and on several other occasions. (Id.
at ¶¶ 36, 37, 39).

Orloski indicates that his treatment at the

various airports has exacerbated his mental disability and he now
suffers from “depression, suicidality, hopelessness, psychosis,
delusions, paranoia, and other psychiatric symptoms.” (Id. at ¶
50). He also claims that he is “suffering due to the effects of
extreme stress that the TSA/CBP screenings and interrogations and
HSI investigations impose on [him]” such as “mental anguish,
extreme anxiety, paranoia, profuse sweating, [and] a flee-fromterror response.” (Id.).
He initiated this action on March 26, 2018. Orloski seeks an
Order removing him from the No-Fly and Automatic Selectee Lists
maintained by TSA and all other Government databases. (Id. at ¶
7).

He also seeks $40 million dollars in damages.
On June 12, 2018, Orloski visited the Sam M. Gibbons United

States Courthouse in Tampa, Florida. He claims that when he entered
the security checkpoint to gain access to the Court, “there was
some commotion amongst the U.S. Marshals and they browsed a binder
in the security checkpoint and found Plaintiff’s phot and identity
in the binder” showing that he was on a watchlist. (Doc. # 29 at
2).

He was allowed into the Courthouse, but he was “shadowed by

the U.S. Marshals” during his entire visit to the Courthouse.
(Id.).

On the same day, he filed his “Ex Parte Motion for a Small
2

Judicial Inquiry.” (Doc. # 29).

Orloski believes that the U.S.

Marshals’ actions were in retaliation against him for filing the
instant case and argues that this incident is a “Replica of This
Case in Miniature.” (Id.). Orloski provides similar allegations as
the overlying case, purporting to have never been notified by the
U.S. Marshals of his placement on the Tampa Courthouse watchlist
and that he has done nothing to warrant this erroneous placement.
(Id. at 3).
As a result, Orloski requested a judicial inquiry into a
number of questions related to when and why he was placed on the
courthouse watchlist and how to be removed from it. (Id. at 3-4).
Orloski

additionally

requested

that,

if

the

Court

finds

his

escorting by the U.S. Marshals unnecessary, that an Order be
entered directing the removal of his name from the Courthouse
watchlist. (Id. at 4). He also sought to add the U.S. Marshals as
a Defendant in this case.

(Id.).

The Ex Parte Motion for a Small

Judicial Inquiry and other relief was denied by the Honorable Mark
A. Pizzo, United States Magistrate Judge, on July 10, 2018. (Doc.
# 42).

Orloski objects to the denial of his Motion.

II. Legal Standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) permits a district court
to refer any non-dispositive pretrial matter to a magistrate judge
for disposition. A party may object to a magistrate judge's order
on a non-dispositive pre-trial matter within fourteen days after
3

service of the order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).
Motion

is

titled

as

a

“Motion

for

Although Orloski’s

Reconsideration”

it

is

technically a timely filed objection to Judge Pizzo’s Order.
Upon consideration of a timely objection, a district court
must affirm a magistrate Judge's ruling on a non-dispositive matter
unless “it has been shown that the magistrate judge's order is
clearly

erroneous

or

contrary

to

the

law.”

28

U.S.C.

§

636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) (“The district judge in the
case must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any
part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to the
law”).
“Clear error is a highly deferential standard of review....
[A] ‘finding is “clearly erroneous” when although there is evidence
to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left
with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
committed.’” Holton v. City of Thomasville Sch. Dist., 425 F.3d
1325, 1351-52 (11th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted). “An order is
contrary to law ‘when it fails to apply or misapplies relevant
statutes, case law or rules of procedure.’” S.E.C. v. Kramer, 778
F.Supp.2d 1320, 1326-27 (M.D. Fla. 2011) (quoting Tompkins v. R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co., 92 F. Supp. 2d 70, 74 (N.D.N.Y. 2000)).
III. Analysis
A.

Objection to Judge Pizzo’s Order

4

Orloski alleges that Judge Pizzo is a Government protectorate
that has shown his allegiance to the U.S. Government. (Doc. # 44
at 2-3). Orloski references his Response (Doc. # 12) to Judge
Pizzo’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 11), recommending the
case be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 for frivolousness
and failure to state a claim, as purported evidence of Judge
Pizzo’s bias and protection of the Government. Orloski’s Response
alleges, “Magistrate Judge Pizzo spins a dark web filled with
Plaintiff’s supposed fiscal lies, thereby tainting the case and
giving the appearance of a magistrate judge serving as a government
protectorate.” (Doc. # 12 at 2). Orloski also alleges that being
followed by the U.S. Marshals frightens him of imminent arrest,
impacts his ability to perform during hearings, and unfairly and
unjustly assassinates his character. (Doc. # 44 at 3). Orloski
also supplies irrelevant YouTube links related to rockets in
purported support of his Motion for Reconsideration. (Id. at 4).
Orloski is essentially arguing that denying his Motion for a
Small Judicial Inquiry is another example of Judge Pizzo defending
the U.S. Government and, therefore, the Order is “clearly erroneous
and contrary to law and contrary to judicial canons.” (Doc. # 44
at 2-3). Even construed liberally, Orloski has failed to convince
the Court that Judge Pizzo’s Order was clearly erroneous and
contrary

to

law

because

his

Motion

is

based

on

irrelevant

statements and the conclusory and baseless accusation that Judge
5

Pizzo is protecting the Government. In other words, Orloski’s
arguments fail to leave the Court with the firm and definite
conviction that a mistake has been made and to demonstrate that
that the Magistrate misapplied any relevant statutes, case law, or
rules of procedure, thereby demanding affirmation. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).
Orloski does not provide any legal analysis as to how he
reaches the conclusion that Judge Pizzo misapplied any statutes,
case law, or rules of procedure that was contrary to law or any
analysis to show that the order is clearly erroneous. The fear
that Orloski claims to have felt from being followed by the U.S.
Marshals does not convince the Court to reconsider the adjudication
of the Motion for Small Judicial Inquiry because there is an
“obvious alternate explanation” that would suggest Orloski is on
the watch list for a legitimate and lawful reason. Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 681-682 (2009)(quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 567 (2007)).
B.
Even

Ex Parte Motion for a Small Judicial Inquiry
if

the

Court

had

been

convinced

to

revisit

the

disposition of the Motion for Small Judicial Inquiry, the Court
would still find no occasion to grant any relief to Orloski. The
Motion for Small Judicial Inquiry lacked any arguable basis in the
law. Orloski does not supply adequate reasoning meriting any

6