ORDER

THOMAS B. SMITH, Migistrate Judge.

Pending before the Court is Defendant's Renewed Motion to Strike Jury Demand. (Doc. 63). The motion is due to be granted.

Plaintiff Steve P. Theodoropolous' claims arise out of his 2009 termination from the Transportation Security Administration ("TSA"), where he was employed by the Federal Air Marshal Service ("FAMS"). (Doc. 47 ¶¶ 1, 4). On January 20, 2012, he filed this action for review of a final order rendered by the Merit System Protection Board ("MSPB") upholding that adverse employment action. (Doc. 1).1 Plaintiff has amended his complaint three times. (Doc. 3, 20, 47). On February 25, 2014, he filed his third amended complaint ("TAC") against the Department of Homeland Security ("Defendant"). (Doc. 47 ¶¶ 32-34). Plaintiff alleges that he was retaliated against because of his prior participation as a corroborating witness in an Equal Employment Opportunity complaint against his Proposing Official, Randolph Busch. (Id. ¶¶ 10-22, 28-31).

"Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure preserves the right of trial by jury as declared by the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution ..." Mega Life and Health Ins. Co. v. Pieniozek, 585 F.3d 1399, 1403 (11th Cir. 2009). Subsection (b) provides that,

FED. R. CIV. P. 38(b). Subsection (d) cautions litigants that a party may waive this right by failing to file a timely demand. FED. R. CIV. P. 38(d). Pleading amendments that do not introduce new issues "do not renew a party's right to demand a jury trial." Mega Life, 585 F.3d at 1404; La Marca v. Turner, Case No. 82-8196-CIV-PAINE, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31162, at *9-10 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 8, 1986). "If the amended complaint raises new legal issues, the plaintiff would have a right to demand a jury trial on the new issues raised, even if no general demand is made for a jury trial in the initial complaint." Jackson v. Airways Parking Co., 297 F.Supp. 1366, 1383. (N.D. Ga. 1969); La Marca, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31162, at *9-10. "The term `new issues' has been interpreted to mean new issues of fact, not new theories of recovery." Mega Life, 585 F.3d at 1404.

Defendant argues that the Court should strike Plaintiff's jury demand from the TAC because it was omitted from the earlier versions of his complaint, and the TAC fails to raise any new issues that would revive Plaintiff's previously waived right to a jury. (Doc. 63). Plaintiff opposes the motion on the ground that the TAC "raises new issues of fact, not pled in any of Plaintiff's prior pro se complaints ..." (Doc. 65 at 2).

Plaintiff filed his original complaint and two amendments as a pro se litigant. See (Docs. 1, 3, and 20). None of these complaints includes a jury demand. On February 20, counsel appeared for Plaintiff and filed the TAC. See (Doc. 45, 47). Plaintiff argues that the TAC raises a new factual issue that was not plead in his previous complaints: "that Plaintiff's termination in December 2009 was the direct and proximate result of his having engaged in protected conduct in October 2009, while he was still in the employ of the Federal Air Marshal Service, as well as having engaged in protected conduct in 2006 as previously pled." (Doc. 65 at 2).

After reviewing the earlier iterations of Plaintiff's complaint, I find that the TAC does not introduce a new legal issue. While the TAC alleges additional incidents of retaliation, Plaintiff's central allegation that "[d]uring [the time period of July 2002 through December 2009], Plaintiff Steve P. Theodoropoulos was subject to hostile work environment, retaliation, and his prior EEO activity against his Proposing Official in 2006-2009" remains unaltered. (First Amended Complaint, Doc. 3 at 1; Second Amended Complaint, Doc. 20 at 1-2). Accordingly, Defendant's motion to strike (Doc. 66) is GRANTED. Plaintiff advises that he intends to move for a jury trial pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 39(b). See (Doc. 65, 3-4). Plaintiff shall have until October 9, 2014 to file any such motion with the court.

DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida.