JAMES D. WHITTEMORE, District Judge.
Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. 17) after an order was entered dismissing his Amended Complaint (Dkt. 16). However, in his Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff merely "restates the claims and allegations brought in the amended complaint," and then reasserts thirteen of the same fifteen counts that he asserted in his Amended Complaint (abandoning Counts 5 and 13).
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 Second Amended Complaint contains no new factual allegations, but rather argues why the previously asserted allegations were sufficient to show Plaintiff's entitlement to relief. Accordingly, the Second Amended Complaint is due to be dismissed for failure to state a claim for the same reasons discussed in the order dismissing the Amended Complaint. (See Dkt. 16).
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has had three opportunities to bring a legally sufficient complaint against Defendants, including two opportunities after being put on notice of the deficiencies in his pleading.
Plaintiff's claims against Defendants are largely unintelligible. They include allegations such as "psychological warfare on a subject unaware of such methods," being "chipped with a Trap & Trace electronic surveillance device in his body," and "being given food which influenced his mental state," as part of Defendants' "master plan" to "force Plaintiff into an ideological state of resentment towards the world so that he would join enemies of the state and become unknowingly a tool for spying on defendants' foreign enemies." (Amended Complaint, Dkt. 15 at ¶¶ 11, 18, 34, 42, 54-55).
Plaintiff was previously admonished that "[f]ailure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted in a Second Amended Complaint may result in dismissal of this action." (See Order, Dkt. 16 at p. 5); see also Marantes v. Miami-Dade Cnty, 649 F. App'x 665, 673 (11th Cir. 2016) (per curiam). ("[O]ur case law does not require a district court to give a pro se litigant multiple opportunities to amend."). Despite this admonishment, Plaintiff elected to simply restate the insufficient factual allegations of the Amended Complaint, and essentially use the Second Amended Complaint to assert why the original claims are sufficient. Nothing suggests that another opportunity to amend will yield cognizable claims against Defendants.
Accordingly, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. 55) is
The various state law tort claims brought under the FTCA in Counts 3, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, and 15 fail to state claims because they are subject to FTCA exceptions, including exceptions barring claims arising out of "assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, libel, slander, misrepresentation, deceit, or interference with contract rights," see 28 U.S.C. § 2680, and because Plaintiff has not made well-pleaded allegations that he exhausted all administrative remedies, see O'Brien, 137 F. App'x at 301.
Count 4 fails to state a claim because the Federal Wiretap Act precludes damages against the United States and its agencies. 18 U.S.C. § 2520(a); Richard Lawson Excavating, Inc. v. NLRB, 333 F.Supp.2d 358, 360 (W.D. Pa. 2004).
Count 9 fails to state a claim because Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies for being placed on a watch list. The Second Amended Complaint clarifies that "[t]his count refers to placing [sic] on other classified watch lists . . . which do not provide administrative remedies due to their secretive nature." Notwithstanding, Plaintiff fails to state a claim because he has not sufficiently alleged that he suffered damages from being placed on the watch list. (Second Amended Complaint, Dkt. 17 at p. 3); see also Iqbal v. DOJ, Case No. 3:11-cv-369-J-37JBT, 2013 WL 5421952, at *5 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 26, 2013) (concluding that a Privacy Act claim should be dismissed where the plaintiff did not sufficiently allege that he suffered damages from being placed on a watch list).
As noted, Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint abandoned Counts 5 and 13, (Second Amended Complaint, Dkt. 17 at p. 3) ("Plaintiff dismisses counts 5 and 13 . . . .").