IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA GAINESVILLE DIVISION

MICHAEL LORUSSO,

Petitioner, v. Case No. 1:25cv163-AW/MAF

SECRETARY, Florida Department of Children and Families,1 Respondent. ____________________________/ ORDER and REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

On or about May 29, 2025, Petitioner Michael LoRusso, a state pre- trial detainee at the North Florida Evaluation and Treatment Center in Gainesville, Florida, filed a pro se hand-written petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

. ECF No. 1. By order on June 17, 2025, this Court directed him to submit his petition on the proper form and also either pay the $5.00 filing fee or file a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). ECF No. 3. On or about July 8, 2025, Petitioner LoRusso submitted a § 2241 petition on the proper form. ECF No. 4. He also submitted an IFP motion, ECF No. 5, which is granted.

1A writ of habeas corpus should be directed to “the person having custody of the person detained.”

. As in at least two other pending habeas cases involving Petitioner LoRusso in this Court, the Clerk shall substitute the Secretary of the Florida Department of Children and Families as the sole Respondent in this case. See LoRusso v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Children & Families, No. 1:25cv105-TKW/MAF; LoRusso v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Children & Families, No. 1:25cv108-MCR/MAF; Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(d); Fed. R. Civ. P. 25; Rule 2(a), R. Gov. § 2254 Cases. The matter was referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for report and recommendation pursuant to

and Northern District of Florida Local Rule 72.2(B). After careful consideration,

the undersigned has determined no evidentiary hearing is required for the disposition of this matter. See Rule 8(a), R. Gov. § 2254 Cases. The pleadings and attachments before the Court show the petition should be

dismissed as duplicative. See Rule 4, R. Gov. § 2254 Cases. Background In this § 2241 petition, LoRusso presents six grounds: (1) Violation of Alien and Enemies Act: He asserts “Respondent [(the original Respondent that Petitioner named, Kristi Noem)] has rounded up thousands of innocent people on orders of a convicted felon in violation of entitled due process and “Petitioner is being denied entitled due process too.” ECF No. 4 at 3.

(2) Lack of Evidence: He asserts that “Respondent has produced no evidence in that deportation of Klimian Conveia and to produce no evidence of Petitioner’s probable cause of Petitioner’s probable cause or the arrest warrant.” Id.

(3) Denial of Entitled Due Process: He references his pending § 2254 case in the Middle District of Florida, Case No. 8:22cv2258- MSS/TGW. Id. at 4.

(4) Defending the Rule of Law: He asserts, “Constitutional Rights and Supreme Court’s ruling in the law of the land that Respondent has a long list of patterns to violate the Constitution for her support of a 34 time convicted felon.” Id.

(5) Violation of Vitek v. Jones: He asserts “[t]hat without due process is not how we do things in the United States” and “Petitioner is under a mental health commitment without entitled due process as outlined in Vitek v. Jones (1980) after being granted in a Faretta hearing violation of the Sixth Amendment.” Id. at 5.

(6) Violation of Franks Hearing: He asserts that “the police all under Respondent lied to Circuit Court Judge Phillippe Matthey to sign a arrest warrant while Petitioner was in prison.” Id.

He has left blank the section of the petition form in which he was to indicate the relief requested. Id. at 6. Analysis Petitioner’s assertions in this case are the same or substantially similar to those has raised in other habeas cases he has pending in this Court. See, e.g., LoRusso v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Children & Families, No. 1:25cv105- TKW/MAF; LoRusso v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Children & Families, No. 1:25cv108-MCR/MAF. Moreover, he also raised the same or similar allegations in habeas cases already dismissed by this Court as frivolous, see LoRusso v. Gualtieri, No. 1:25cv110-AW/HTC, and LoRusso v. Matthey, 4:25cv220-MCR/HTC; and duplicative, see LoRusso v. State of Florida, No. 1:25cv160-AW/ZCB; LoRusso v. State Att’y Office, 1:25cv111-MW/ZCB.

Because this habeas case is duplicative, it should be dismissed without prejudice. See I.A. Durbin, Inc. v. Jefferson Nat’l Bank,

, 1551 (11th Cir. 1986) (explaining “the general rule is that a suit is duplicative of another suit if the parties, issues and available relief do not significantly differ

between the two actions” and federal trial courts have broad discretion to dismiss duplicative litigation to avoid wasting judicial resources); Martin v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., No. 24-10677,

, at *1 (11th Cir. June 5, 2024) (citing I.A. Durbin, Inc., and applying same principle to duplicative

habeas appeal); Cordovano v. Warden, Pinellas County Jail, No. 2:24cv595- SPC/NPM,

, at *1 (M.D. Fla. June 27, 2024) (Opinion and Order of district judge dismissing without prejudice § 2241 petition filed by

pretrial detainee, citing I.A. Durbin, Inc., and explaining, in pertinent part, “[T]he petition is duplicative of Cordovano’s prior habeas actions. If a detainee disagrees with dismissal of his habeas petition, he should seek a certificate of appealability from the court of appeals. He cannot keep re-filing

the petition in the hopes of different judge will give him a different result.”); Hall v. Harris, No. 2:23cv301-SPC/NPM,

, at *1 (M.D. Fla. May 1, 2024) (Opinion and Order of district judge dismissing without

prejudice duplicative § 2241 petition, citing I.A. Durbin, Inc., and explaining, “The dismissal is without prejudice, but depending on the outcome of Hall’s prior habeas case, a future habeas petition might be barred as successive.”). Indeed, as the undersigned has noted in another case brought by

Petitioner LoRusso,2 he has filed several habeas cases in this Court3 that

2 ECF No. 16 (Report and Recommendation) in LoRusso v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Children & Families, No. 1:25cv105-TKW/MAF.

3 The undersigned is assigned to other habeas cases initiated by Petitioner LoRusso: LoRusso v. Bartlett, 4:25cv221-TKW/MAF; LoRusso v. Bautlett, 1:25cv147-MCR/MAF; LoRusso v. State appear to arise out of the same pending state court proceeding; if so, upon review by the Court, these other cases should all have the same Respondent and are subject to dismissal as duplicative.4

Conclusion This case is duplicative and should be dismissed without prejudice. ORDER

1. The Clerk of Court shall substitute the Secretary, Florida Department of Children and Families, as the sole Respondent in this case.

2. Petitioner’s IFP motion (ECF No. 5) is GRANTED.

RECOMMENDATION It is respectfully RECOMMENDED that the § 2241 petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 4) be DISMISSED without prejudice as duplicative. It is further RECOMMENDED that a certificate of appealability be DENIED and that leave to appeal in forma pauperis be DENIED. IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on August 22, 2025. S/ Martin A. Fitzpatrick MARTIN A. FITZPATRICK UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

of Fla., 1:25cv148-MW/MAF; LoRusso v. Noem, 1:25cv163-AW/MAF; LoRusso v. Harris, 1:25cv170-TKW/MAF; LoRusso v. State of Fla., 1:25cv197-TKW/MAF; and LoRusso v. Matthey, 1:25cv198-AW/MAF.

4 The Court’s CM/ECF system reveals at least 25 habeas cases brought by Petitioner LoRusso, many of which have already been dismissed as duplicative and/or frivolous. See, e.g., LoRusso v. Gualtieai, 1:25cv109-TKW/HTC; LoRusso v. Gualtieri, 1:25cv110-AW/HTC; LoRusso v. State Atty’s Office, 1:25cv111-MW/ZCB; LoRusso v. State of Fla., 1:25cv159-TKW/HTC; LoRusso v. State of Fla., 1:25cv160-AW/ZCB; LoRusso v. Matthey, 4:25cv220-MCR/HTC. NOTICE TO THE PARTIES Within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation, a party may serve and file specific written objections to these proposed findings and recommendations. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). A copy of the objections shall be served upon all other parties. A party may respond to another party’s objections within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Any different deadline that may appear on the electronic docket is for the Court’s internal use only and does not control. If a party fails to object to the magistrate judge’s findings or recommendations as to any particular claim or issue contained in a Report and Recommendation, that party waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court’s order based on the unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. R. 3-1;

.