LORUSSO v. GUALTIERI

Page 1 of 5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
GAINESVILLE DIVISION
MICHEAL LORUSSO,
Petitioner,
v. 	Case No. 1:26-cv-166-AW-MJF
BOB GUALTIERI,
Respondent.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Because Petitioner has failed to comply with a court order, failed to
submit the filing fee or a completed motion to proceed in forma pauperis,
and failed to prosecute this action, the District Court should dismiss this
civil action.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner has filed many frivolous cases in the Northern District of
Florida. Accordingly, on October 14, 2025, Judge T. Kent Wetherell, II,
directed the clerk of the court in Petitioner’s subsequent cases to return
to Petitioner without filing any documents seeking habeas relief that
were not accompanied by the filing fee or a complete motion for leave to
Case 1:26-cv-00166-AW-MJF Document 7 Filed 09/04/26 Page 1 of 5

Page 2 of 5
proceed in forma pauperis. LoRusso v. Sec’y of Families & Children
Services, No. 1:25-cv-281-TKW-HTC, ECF No. 6 at 2 n.1 (N.D. Fla. Oct.
14, 2025).
On July 1, 2026, in an obvious attempt to evade the effect of Judge
Wetherell’s order, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Doc. 1. Petitioner did not pay the filing fee or move for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis.
Because venue was improper in the Southern District of New York,
that court transferred the civil action to the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida. On July 20, 2026, the clerk of this
court sent Petitioner a “Notice,” which states:
If you have not already paid the filing fee or filed a motion for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis, you must immediately pay
the filing fee or file a motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. See N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 5.3 (“A party who files or
removes a civil case must simultaneously either pay any fee
required under 28 U.S.C. § 1914 or move for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.”); N.D. Fla. Loc. R.
41.1 (authorizing dismissal of a civil action when a party fails
to comply with a court rule).
Doc. 5 ¶ 1.
Case 1:26-cv-00166-AW-MJF Document 7 Filed 09/04/26 Page 2 of 5

Page 3 of 5
On August 12, 2026, the undersigned ordered Petitioner to show
cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to pay the filing
fee and failure to comply with the Local Rules. Doc. 6. The undersigned
also ordered Petitioner to submit the filing fee or a properly completed
motion 	to 	proceed 	in 	forma 	pauperis 	with 	his 	response. 	Id. 	The
undersigned imposed a compliance deadline of August 26, 2026, and
warned Petitioner that the failure to comply likely would result in
dismissal of this civil action. Petitioner has not complied with that order.
D ISCUSSION
“The clerk of each district court shall require the parties instituting
any civil action . . . to pay a filing fee” and may collect administrative
fees. 28 U.S.C. § 1914; see N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 5.3 (“A party who files or
removes a civil case must simultaneously either pay any fee required
under 28 U.S.C. § 1914 or move for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.”).
“Federal courts possess an inherent power to dismiss a complaint
for failure to comply with a court order.” Foudy v. Indian River Cnty.
Sheriff’s Off., 845 F.3d 1117, 1126 (11th Cir. 2017) (citations omitted);
Case 1:26-cv-00166-AW-MJF Document 7 Filed 09/04/26 Page 3 of 5

Page 4 of 5
N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 41.1. A district court also may dismiss a civil action sua
sponte for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash
R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 632 (1962). Furthermore, a district court may
dismiss a civil action where a party fails to pay the filing fee. Wilson v.
Sargent, 313 F.3d 1315, 1320–21 (11th Cir. 2002).
Here, Petitioner has failed to comply with a court order and has
failed to pay the filing fee. Petitioner has offered no excuse for his failures
and, consequently, has not shown good cause. Accordingly, dismissal of
this civil action is appropriate.
CONCLUSION
For 	the 	reasons 	set 	forth 	above, 	the 	undersigned 	respectfully
RECOMMENDS that the District Court:
1. 	DISMISS this civil action.
2. 	DIRECT the clerk of the court enter judgment accordingly
and close this case file.
At Pensacola, Florida, this 4th day of September 2026.
/s/ Michael J. Frank
Michael J. Frank
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 1:26-cv-00166-AW-MJF Document 7 Filed 09/04/26 Page 4 of 5

Page 5 of 5
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
The District Court referred this case to a magistrate
judge to make recommendations regarding dispositive
matters. See N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 72.2; see also 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B), (C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Objections to
these proposed findings and recommendations must be
filed within fourteen days of the date of the report and
recommendation. 	Any 	different 	deadline 	that 	may
appear 	on 	the 	electronic 	docket 	is 	for 	the 	court’s
internal use only and does not control. A party who
fails to object to the magistrate judge’s findings or
recommendations 	contained 	in 	a 	report 	and
recommendation 	waives 	the 	right 	to 	challenge 	on
appeal the District Court’s order based on unobjected-
to factual and legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. R. 3-1; 28
U.S.C. § 636.
Case 1:26-cv-00166-AW-MJF Document 7 Filed 09/04/26 Page 5 of 5