ORDER1

SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on sua sponte review of Plaintiff Edward Jablonski's Second Amended Complaint (Doc. #68) filed on July 22, 2016. The Court has carefully reviewed the Second Amended Complaint, and Plaintiff has again submitted the type of pleading the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are designed to prevent.

Rule 8 requires a complaint to "contain a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) ("[T]he pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require `detailed factual allegations,' but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation."). Rule 10 further provides, "[i]f doing so would promote clarity, each claim founded on a separate transaction or occurrence . . . must be stated in a separate count[.]" Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). Rules 8 and 10 work together and "`require the pleader to present his claims discretely and succinctly, so that his adversary can discern what he is claiming and frame a responsive pleading, the court can determine which facts support which claims and whether the plaintiff has stated any claims upon which relief can be granted, and, at trial, the court can determine that evidence which is relevant and that which is not.'" Fikes v. City of Daphne, 79 F.3d 1079, 1082 (11th Cir. 1996) (citation omitted).

Plaintiff initiated this action in June 2015. Since that time, the Court has dismissed Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. #2) and Amended Complaint (Doc. #39) for, among other reasons, failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. #20; Doc. #59). After the second dismissal, the Court warned Plaintiff that failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of this District for a third time would result in this action being dismissed. (Doc. #59). Unfortunately, Plaintiff did not heed this warning. Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, like the previous complaints, represents a confusing mixture of allegations with relevant facts, irrelevant facts, disjointed narrative, conclusory accusations, and legal argument. (Doc. #68). As such, the Second Amended Complaint fails to satisfy the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Local Rules of this District. Therefore, the Court finds good cause to dismiss this action for failure to comply with this Court's Orders, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of this District. See Betty K Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V Monada, 432 F.3d 1333, 1337 (11th Cir. 2005) (noting that a district court may sua sponte dismiss an action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) if the plaintiff fails to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or a court order).

Accordingly, it is now

ORDERED:

DONE and ORDERED.