Michael LoRusso v. Secretary, Florida Department of Children and Families

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA GAINESVILLE DIVISION MICHAEL LORUSSO, Petitioner, v. Case No. 1:26cv014-AW/MAF SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Respondent. / REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Michael LoRusso initiated this case by filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the Middle District of Florida, ECF No. 1, that Court transferred the case to this Court because Petitioner LoRusso is confined in this District, ECF No. 2. Petitioner has now submitted an amended § 2241 petition. ECF No. 6.

The matter was referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 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. This petition should be dismissed as duplicative. See Rule 4, R. Gov. § 2254 Cases.

Page 2 of 5 Background Petitioner LoRusso indicates he challenges his state pretrial detention in Pinellas County Circuit Court case number 24-06524. ECF No. 6 at 1-2.

He essentially asserts he is being held without probable cause and has been denied due process. Id. at 6-8. He references a pending § 2241 petition in this Court, No. 1:25cv108-MCR/MAF, and a pending § 2254 petition in the Middle District, No. 8:22cv2258-MSS/TGW, and requests an evidentiary hearing. Id. at 8.

Analysis Petitioner’s challenge in this case is the same or substantially similar to those he has raised in other habeas cases he has pending in this Court.

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. Because this case is duplicative, it should be dismissed. See I.A. Durbin, Inc. v. Jefferson Nat’l Bank, 793 F.2d 1541, 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. Page 3 of 5 Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., No. 24-10677, 2024 WL 2853188, 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, 2024 WL 3305536, 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: “[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, 2024 WL 2853766, 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 other cases brought by Petitioner LoRusso,1 he has filed multiple habeas cases in this Court that

1See, e.g., ECF No. 16 (Report and Recommendation) in LoRusso v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Children & Families, No. 1:25cv105-TKW/MAF; ECF No. 7 (Report and Recommendation) in LoRusso v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Children & Families, No. 4:25cv221-TKW/MAF; ECF No. 9 (Report and Recommendation) in LoRusso v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Children & Families, No. 1:25cv147- MCR/MAF; ECF No. 9 (Report and Recommendation) in LoRusso v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Children Page 4 of 5 appear to arise out of the same pending state court proceeding.2 Conclusion Because this habeas case is duplicative, it should be dismissed.

RECOMMENDATION It is respectfully RECOMMENDED that the amended § 2241 petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 6) be DISMISSED 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 February 2, 2026.

S/ Martin A. Fitzpatrick MARTIN A. FITZPATRICK UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

& Families, No. 1:25cv148-MW/MAF; ECF No. 7 (Report and Recommendation) in LoRusso v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Children & Families, No. 1:25cv163-AW/MAF; ECF No. 7 (Report and Recommendation) in LoRusso v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Children & Families, 1:25cv170-TKW/MAF; ECF No. 9 (Report and Recommendation) in LoRusso v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Children & Families, 1:25cv197-TKW/MAF; and ECF No. 10 (Report and Recommendation) in LoRusso v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Children & Families, 1:25cv198-AW/MAF; ECF No. 3 (Report and Recommendation) in LoRusso v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Children & Families, 1:25cv266-MCR/MAF; ECF No. 3 (Report and Recommendation) in LoRusso v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Children & Families, 1:25cv292- MW/MAF; ECF No. 3 (Report and Recommendation) in LoRusso v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Children & Families, 1:25cv295-TKW/MAF; ECF No. 8 (Report and Recommendation) in LoRusso v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Children & Families, No. 1:25cv309-AW/MAF.

2This Court’s CM/ECF system reveals at least 70 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.

Page 5 of 5 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; 28 U.S.C. § 636.