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. 1:25cv108-MCR/MAF
SECRETARY, Florida Department
of Children and Families,
Respondent.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On or about April 14, 2025, Petitioner Michael LoRusso, a state pre-
trial detainee confined at the North Florida Evaluation and Treatment Center
in Gainesville, Florida, filed a pro se handwritten petition for writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 	ECF No. 1. 	He subsequently filed
an amended § 2241 petition, challenging his pretrial detention and order
adjudicating him incompetent and committing him to the Department of
Children and Families (DCF) in criminal case number 24-06524-CF from the
Sixth Judicial Circuit, Pinellas County. 	ECF No. 4; see ECF No. 21.
On September 12, 	2025, Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss,
asserting the DCF holds Petitioner in lawful custody and dismissal is required
under the doctrine set forth in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). 	ECF
Case 1:25-cv-00108-MCR-MAF Document 43 Filed 02/19/26 Page 1 of 5

Page 2 of 5
Case No. 1:25cv108-MCR/MAF
No. 21 at 5-8, 10-11, 13. 	Respondent asserts Petitioner LoRusso did not
avail himself of established state court remedies. 	Id. at 9, 10-11, 13, 16-18.
Respondent also asserts Grounds 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 fail to state claims upon
which relief can be granted. 	Id. at 8, 12-13, 15.
On or about September 30, 2025, Petitioner LoRusso filed a reply to
Respondent’s motion to dismiss. 	ECF No. 22; see ECF No. 23. 	At this
point, the case filings were complete and the case was placed in line for
review. 	See ECF No. 23. 	Petitioner LoRusso has continued to file various
motions and notices. 	See ECF Nos. 26, 28, 31, 33-40, 42. 	The same
occurred in LoRusso’s other case pending before the undersigned. 	See
LoRusso v. Fla. Dep’t of Children & Families, 1:25cv105-TKW/MAF.
On or about February 3, 2026, Petitioner LoRusso submitted for filing
a handwritten “Fourth Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.” 	ECF
No. 	41. 	To 	date, 	Respondent 	has 	not 	filed 	anything 	in 	response to
Petitioner’s filings, including the “Fourth Amended Petition.” 	This is also
similar to what occurred in LoRusso’s other pending case. 	See LoRusso v.
Fla. Dep’t of Children & Families, 1:25cv105-TKW/MAF. 	In that other case,
by order on February 19, 2026, the undersigned considered the filing of the
handwritten amended petition as a request to file a second amended § 2241
in that case, granted the request, and denied all pending motions as moot.
Case 1:25-cv-00108-MCR-MAF Document 43 Filed 02/19/26 Page 2 of 5

Page 3 of 5
Case No. 1:25cv108-MCR/MAF
See ECF No. 48, LoRusso v. Fla. Dep’t of Children & Families, 1:25cv105-
TKW/MAF.
Further, in that other case, the undersigned explained that because it
has now been clarified that Petitioner LoRusso is challenging, in both of
these § 2241 habeas cases, his pretrial detention and order of commitment
in Pinellas County Circuit Court case number 24-06524-CF, this case is
duplicative of the first case, LoRusso v. Fla. Dep’t of Children & Families,
1:25cv105-TKW/MAF. 	Because this habeas case is duplicative, it should
be 	dismissed 	without 	prejudice 	and 	all 	pending 	motions, 	including
Respondent’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 21, should be denied as moot.
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. 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
Case 1:25-cv-00108-MCR-MAF Document 43 Filed 02/19/26 Page 3 of 5

Page 4 of 5
Case No. 1:25cv108-MCR/MAF
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, 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.”).
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully RECOMMENDED that the amended § 2241 petition
for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 4) be DISMISSED as duplicative and
all pending motions be DENIED as moot. 	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 19, 2026.
S/ Martin A. Fitzpatrick
MARTIN A. FITZPATRICK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:25-cv-00108-MCR-MAF Document 43 Filed 02/19/26 Page 4 of 5

Page 5 of 5
Case No. 1:25cv108-MCR/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 1:25-cv-00108-MCR-MAF Document 43 Filed 02/19/26 Page 5 of 5