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.
Case 1:26-cv-00014-AW-MAF Document 9 Filed 02/02/26 Page 1 of 5

Page 2 of 5
Case No. 1:26cv014-AW/MAF
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.
Case 1:26-cv-00014-AW-MAF Document 9 Filed 02/02/26 Page 2 of 5

Page 3 of 5
Case No. 1:26cv014-AW/MAF
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
Case 1:26-cv-00014-AW-MAF Document 9 Filed 02/02/26 Page 3 of 5

Page 4 of 5
Case No. 1:26cv014-AW/MAF
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.
2
This 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.
Case 1:26-cv-00014-AW-MAF Document 9 Filed 02/02/26 Page 4 of 5

Page 5 of 5
Case No. 1:26cv014-AW/MAF
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.
Case 1:26-cv-00014-AW-MAF Document 9 Filed 02/02/26 Page 5 of 5