UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA GAINESVILLE DIVISION
MICHAEL LORUSSO, Petitioner,
vs. Case No.: 1:25cv282/AW/ZCB
SECRETARY OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF FAMILIES AND CHILDREN SERVICES, Respondent. _____________________________________/ REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Petitioner has filed an amended pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 4). The habeas petition challenges Petitioner’s ongoing state criminal proceedings in the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Pinellas County, Florida. (Id.). Petitioner is currently confined in the North Florida Evaluation and Treatment Center in Gainesville, Florida, for competency restoration. (Id.). For the reasons below, this case should be dismissed because it is duplicative and abstention is warranted under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). I. Background Petitioner claims that he is being held in the NFETC in violation of his due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. (Doc. 4 at 3). Petitioner apparently wants this Court to intervene and review actions
taken in the pending state court prosecution. II. Discussion A. Petitioner’s habeas petition is duplicative.
The Court has reviewed Petitioner’s litigation history and determined that he is pursuing another habeas action in this Court that presents the same or substantially similar claims, Lorusso v. Sec’y, Fla.
Dep’t of Child. And Fams., Case No. 1:25cv108/MCR/MAF (N.D. Fla.). Petitioner’s claims are still pending review and disposition in that case. Because this habeas case is duplicative of the other pending habeas case,
this case should be dismissed. See I.A. Durbin, Inc. v. Jefferson Nat’l Bank, 793 F.2d 1541, 1551–52 (11th Cir. 1986) (noting that federal courts have inherent administrative power to dismiss duplicative litigation to
avoid wasting judicial resources); see also Martin v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., No. 24-10677, 2024 WL 2853188, at *1 (11th Cir. June 5, 2024) (applying the same rule to a duplicative habeas appeal).1
1 See also, e.g., Lorusso v. State of Fla., No. 1:25cv160, 2025 WL 1909484, at *1 (N.D. Fla. July 10, 2025) (dismissing § 2241 petition seeking federal intervention in pending state criminal proceedings as duplicative and based on Younger abstention); Lorusso v. State Att’y Office, No. 1:25cv111, 2025 WL 1592302, at *1 (N.D. Fla. June 5, 2025) (same); B. Abstention is required under the Younger doctrine.
Dismissal is also warranted because of the abstention doctrine announced in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). Under the Younger abstention doctrine, “a federal court should not interfere with ongoing
state criminal proceedings where the state court conviction and/or sentence is not yet final.” Johnson v. Fla., 32 F.4th 1092, 1099 (11th Cir. 2022). Younger abstention is warranted when “(1) state proceedings,
judicial in nature, are pending; (2) the state proceedings involve important state interests; and (3) the state proceedings afford adequate opportunity to raise the constitutional issue.” Id. at 1099. There are
three “narrow exceptions” to Younger abstention: “(1) there is evidence of state proceedings motivated by bad faith, (2) irreparable injury would occur; or (3) there is no adequate alternative state forum where the
constitutional issues can be raised.” Id. Here, the requirements of Younger abstention are met. First, there is an active criminal case against Petitioner pending in the Pinellas
County Circuit Court. See State of Florida v. Lorusso, Case No. 2024-CF-
Lorusso v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., No. 2:25cv27, 2025 WL 436358, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 17, 2025) (dismissing § 2241 petition seeking federal intervention in pending state criminal proceedings as duplicative). 06524 (Pinellas Cnty. Cir. Ct.). Second, a state criminal prosecution
involves important state interests. See Boyd v. Georgia, 512 F. App’x 915, 918 (11th Cir. 2013) (explaining that the state has an important interest in prosecuting criminal offenses). Finally, there is no reason to believe
that the Florida state court where the criminal action is pending will not afford Petitioner an adequate opportunity to raise the issues presented in his § 2241 petition.
Because the three requirements for Younger abstention are met, abstention is appropriate unless Petitioner has shown that an exception applies. See Leonard v. Ala. State Bd. of Pharm., 61 F.4th 902, 908, 912
(11th Cir. 2023) (recognizing that “the burden is on the plaintiff to show” that a Younger exception applies).2 None do.
2 Petitioner is aware of Younger abstention and its exceptions because he has filed numerous habeas cases that were dismissed on this basis. See, e.g., Lorusso v. Pinellas County Sheriff, No. 8:25-cv-00189 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 28, 2025) (dismissed on grounds of exhaustion and Younger); Lorusso v. Pinellas County Sheriff, et al., No. 8: 25-cv-00188 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 28, 2025) (same); Lorusso v. State Attorney Bruce Bartlett, No. 8:25-cv-00343 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 11, 2025) (same); Lorusso v. State Attorney Bruce Bartlett, et al., No. 8:25-cv-00345 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 11, 2025) (same); Lorusso v. Pinellas County Sheriff, et al., No. 8:25-cv-00355 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 20, 2025) (same); Lorusso v. Pinellas County Sheriff, et al., No. 8:25-cv-00356 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 14, 2025) (same); Lorusso v. Pinellas County Sheriff, et al., No. 8:25-cv-00357 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 14, 2025) (same); Lorusso v. Warden, Pinellas County Jail, No. 8:24-cv-02870 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 17, Looking first to the bad faith exception, the Supreme Court has held
that “bad faith in this context generally means that a prosecution has been brought without a reasonable expectation of obtaining a valid conviction.” Leonard, 61 F.4th at 911 (cleaned up). Here, Petitioner has
failed to show that the state prosecution was brought with no “reasonable expectation” of securing a conviction. He thus has not satisfied Younger’s bad faith exception.
The Court will now turn to the second exception. To show irreparable injury in the context of an ongoing state criminal prosecution, Petitioner must demonstrate that “the danger of irreparable loss is both
great and immediate.” Younger, 401 U.S. at 45. Petitioner has not made such a showing here. There is no reason for the Court to believe that abstaining will result in Petitioner suffering irreparable injury.
Moving finally to the third exception, Petitioner has failed to show that the Florida state courts are an inadequate forum for his constitutional challenges. “Adequacy in this context is not about the
quality of the state proceedings, but rather about whether the challenge
2024) (same); Lorusso v. Warden, Pinellas County Jail, No. 8:25-cv-00081 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 17, 2025) (dismissed on several grounds, including Younger). can be raised in the pending state proceedings at all.” Leonard, 61 F.4th
at 908 (cleaned up). Put another way, “what matters is whether the plaintiff is procedurally prevented from raising his constitutional claims in the state courts.” Id. (cleaned up). Petitioner has pointed to nothing
in Florida state law or procedure that would prohibit him from raising in state court the same issues he has raised in his § 2241 petition. For these reasons, abstention under Younger serves as an
additional basis for dismissal of this case. See Jackson v. Georgia, 273 F.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA GAINESVILLE DIVISION
MICHAEL LORUSSO, Petitioner,
vs. Case No.: 1:25cv282/AW/ZCB
SECRETARY OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF FAMILIES AND CHILDREN SERVICES, Respondent. _____________________________________/ REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Petitioner has filed an amended pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 4). The habeas petition challenges Petitioner’s ongoing state criminal proceedings in the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Pinellas County, Florida. (Id.). Petitioner is currently confined in the North Florida Evaluation and Treatment Center in Gainesville, Florida, for competency restoration. (Id.). For the reasons below, this case should be dismissed because it is duplicative and abstention is warranted under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). I. Background Petitioner claims that he is being held in the NFETC in violation of his due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. (Doc. 4 at 3). Petitioner apparently wants this Court to intervene and review actions
taken in the pending state court prosecution. II. Discussion A. Petitioner’s habeas petition is duplicative.
The Court has reviewed Petitioner’s litigation history and determined that he is pursuing another habeas action in this Court that presents the same or substantially similar claims, Lorusso v. Sec’y, Fla.
Dep’t of Child. And Fams., Case No. 1:25cv108/MCR/MAF (N.D. Fla.). Petitioner’s claims are still pending review and disposition in that case. Because this habeas case is duplicative of the other pending habeas case,
this case should be dismissed. See I.A. Durbin, Inc. v. Jefferson Nat’l Bank, 793 F.2d 1541, 1551–52 (11th Cir. 1986) (noting that federal courts have inherent administrative power to dismiss duplicative litigation to
avoid wasting judicial resources); see also Martin v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., No. 24-10677, 2024 WL 2853188, at *1 (11th Cir. June 5, 2024) (applying the same rule to a duplicative habeas appeal).1
1 See also, e.g., Lorusso v. State of Fla., No. 1:25cv160, 2025 WL 1909484, at *1 (N.D. Fla. July 10, 2025) (dismissing § 2241 petition seeking federal intervention in pending state criminal proceedings as duplicative and based on Younger abstention); Lorusso v. State Att’y Office, No. 1:25cv111, 2025 WL 1592302, at *1 (N.D. Fla. June 5, 2025) (same); B. Abstention is required under the Younger doctrine.
Dismissal is also warranted because of the abstention doctrine announced in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). Under the Younger abstention doctrine, “a federal court should not interfere with ongoing
state criminal proceedings where the state court conviction and/or sentence is not yet final.” Johnson v. Fla., 32 F.4th 1092, 1099 (11th Cir. 2022). Younger abstention is warranted when “(1) state proceedings,
judicial in nature, are pending; (2) the state proceedings involve important state interests; and (3) the state proceedings afford adequate opportunity to raise the constitutional issue.” Id. at 1099. There are
three “narrow exceptions” to Younger abstention: “(1) there is evidence of state proceedings motivated by bad faith, (2) irreparable injury would occur; or (3) there is no adequate alternative state forum where the
constitutional issues can be raised.” Id. Here, the requirements of Younger abstention are met. First, there is an active criminal case against Petitioner pending in the Pinellas
County Circuit Court. See State of Florida v. Lorusso, Case No. 2024-CF-
Lorusso v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corr., No. 2:25cv27, 2025 WL 436358, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 17, 2025) (dismissing § 2241 petition seeking federal intervention in pending state criminal proceedings as duplicative). 06524 (Pinellas Cnty. Cir. Ct.). Second, a state criminal prosecution
involves important state interests. See Boyd v. Georgia, 512 F. App’x 915, 918 (11th Cir. 2013) (explaining that the state has an important interest in prosecuting criminal offenses). Finally, there is no reason to believe
that the Florida state court where the criminal action is pending will not afford Petitioner an adequate opportunity to raise the issues presented in his § 2241 petition.
Because the three requirements for Younger abstention are met, abstention is appropriate unless Petitioner has shown that an exception applies. See Leonard v. Ala. State Bd. of Pharm., 61 F.4th 902, 908, 912
(11th Cir. 2023) (recognizing that “the burden is on the plaintiff to show” that a Younger exception applies).2 None do.
2 Petitioner is aware of Younger abstention and its exceptions because he has filed numerous habeas cases that were dismissed on this basis. See, e.g., Lorusso v. Pinellas County Sheriff, No. 8:25-cv-00189 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 28, 2025) (dismissed on grounds of exhaustion and Younger); Lorusso v. Pinellas County Sheriff, et al., No. 8: 25-cv-00188 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 28, 2025) (same); Lorusso v. State Attorney Bruce Bartlett, No. 8:25-cv-00343 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 11, 2025) (same); Lorusso v. State Attorney Bruce Bartlett, et al., No. 8:25-cv-00345 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 11, 2025) (same); Lorusso v. Pinellas County Sheriff, et al., No. 8:25-cv-00355 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 20, 2025) (same); Lorusso v. Pinellas County Sheriff, et al., No. 8:25-cv-00356 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 14, 2025) (same); Lorusso v. Pinellas County Sheriff, et al., No. 8:25-cv-00357 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 14, 2025) (same); Lorusso v. Warden, Pinellas County Jail, No. 8:24-cv-02870 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 17, Looking first to the bad faith exception, the Supreme Court has held
that “bad faith in this context generally means that a prosecution has been brought without a reasonable expectation of obtaining a valid conviction.” Leonard, 61 F.4th at 911 (cleaned up). Here, Petitioner has
failed to show that the state prosecution was brought with no “reasonable expectation” of securing a conviction. He thus has not satisfied Younger’s bad faith exception.
The Court will now turn to the second exception. To show irreparable injury in the context of an ongoing state criminal prosecution, Petitioner must demonstrate that “the danger of irreparable loss is both
great and immediate.” Younger, 401 U.S. at 45. Petitioner has not made such a showing here. There is no reason for the Court to believe that abstaining will result in Petitioner suffering irreparable injury.
Moving finally to the third exception, Petitioner has failed to show that the Florida state courts are an inadequate forum for his constitutional challenges. “Adequacy in this context is not about the
quality of the state proceedings, but rather about whether the challenge
2024) (same); Lorusso v. Warden, Pinellas County Jail, No. 8:25-cv-00081 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 17, 2025) (dismissed on several grounds, including Younger). can be raised in the pending state proceedings at all.” Leonard, 61 F.4th
at 908 (cleaned up). Put another way, “what matters is whether the plaintiff is procedurally prevented from raising his constitutional claims in the state courts.” Id. (cleaned up). Petitioner has pointed to nothing
in Florida state law or procedure that would prohibit him from raising in state court the same issues he has raised in his § 2241 petition. For these reasons, abstention under Younger serves as an
additional basis for dismissal of this case. See Jackson v. Georgia, 273 F. App’x 812, 813-14 (11th Cir. 2008) (affirming sua sponte dismissal on Younger abstention grounds in a case that attempted to challenge an
ongoing state criminal prosecution). III. Conclusion Because the 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition is duplicative and subject to
Younger abstention, it should be dismissed without prejudice.3
3 See Daker v Ward, 999 F.3d 1300, 1308 (11th Cir. 2021) (explaining that a duplicative complaint is properly dismissed without prejudice); see also Hale v. Pate, 694 F. App’x 682, 684 (11th Cir. 2017) (explaining that a petition subject to Younger abstention is properly dismissed without prejudice). IV. Certificate of Appealability
A certificate of appealability is required for a pretrial detainee to appeal the dismissal of a federal habeas corpus petition. Hiteshaw v. Butterfield, 262 F. App’x 162, 163 (11th Cir. 2008). “Section 2253(c)
permits the issuance of a COA only where a petitioner has made a ‘substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.’” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003) (quoting § 2253(c)(2)). “At the COA
stage, the only question is whether the applicant has shown that jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented
are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115 (cleaned up). Here, Petitioner cannot make the requisite showing. Therefore, the
undersigned recommends that the final order in this case deny Petitioner a certificate of appealability. If Petitioner objects to this recommendation, then he may present argument on the issue by bringing
it to the district judge’s attention in his objections. Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that: 1. The 28 U.S.C. § 2241 amended habeas petition (Doc. 4) be
DISMISSED without prejudice as duplicative and based on Younger abstention. 2. A certificate of appealability be DENIED.
At Pensacola, Florida this 2nd day of October 2025. /s/ Zachary C. Bolitho Zachary C. Bolitho United States Magistrate Judge Notice to the Parties 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. An objecting party must serve a copy of the objections on all other parties. 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. Rule 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.