LORUSSO v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF FAMILIES AND CHILDREN SERVICES

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
GAINESVILLE DIVISION
MICHAEL LORUSSO,
Petitioner,
v. 	Case No. 1:25cv363-MCR/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 proceeding in the Middle District of
Florida. 	ECF No. 1. 	By order on December 1, 2025, that Court transferred
the case to this Court because Petitioner LoRusso is confined in this District.
ECF No. 2.
Petitioner LoRusso is in state custody facing state charges, and he has
filed many habeas cases in federal court. 	Indeed, as the undersigned has
noted in other cases brought by Petitioner LoRusso,1 he has filed multiple
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
& Families, No. 1:25cv148-MW/MAF; ECF No. 7 (Report and Recommendation) in LoRusso v.
Case 1:25-cv-00363-MCR-MAF Document 7 Filed 12/09/25 Page 1 of 3

Page 2 of 3
Case No. 1:25cv363-MCR/MAF
habeas cases in this Court that appear to arise out of the same pending state
court proceeding.2
In this case, Petitioner LoRusso has not paid the $5.00 filing fee or
submitted a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 	See 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1914, 1915. 	It is therefore, respectfully RECOMMENDED that this case
be DISMISSED without prejudice.
IN CHAMBERS at Tallahassee, Florida, on December 9, 2025.
S/ Martin A. Fitzpatrick
MARTIN A. FITZPATRICK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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
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; 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 (Amended Report and Recommendation) in
LoRusso v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Children & Families, 1:25cv309-AW/MAF.
2 The Court’s CM/ECF system reveals at least 60 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.
Case 1:25-cv-00363-MCR-MAF Document 7 Filed 12/09/25 Page 2 of 3

Page 3 of 3
Case No. 1:25cv363-MCR/MAF
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.
Case 1:25-cv-00363-MCR-MAF Document 7 Filed 12/09/25 Page 3 of 3