REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Petitioner Michael LoRusso has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Doc. 1. The petition challenges LoRusso‘s pretrial detention and his commitment to a mental health facility during pretrial proceedings. Having reviewed the petition, the undersigned finds it should be dismissed because it is duplicative of a pending petition. See LoRusso v. State Attorney‘s Office, et al., Case No. 1:25cv108/MCR/MAF (N.D. Fla.) (asserting identical claims and currently pending).

A duplicative complaint is considered “an abuse of the judicial process” and warrants dismissal without prejudice. Daker v. Ward, 999 F.3d 1300, 1308 (11th Cir. 2021). Broad discretion is afforded to courts in dismissing duplicative complaints in order to “avoid duplicating a proceeding already pending in another federal court.” I.A. Durbin, Inc., v. Jefferson Nat‘l Bank, 793 F.2d 1541, 1551-52 (11th Cir. 1986). This administrative power to dismiss duplicative litigation has been extended to habeas petitions, as well. See Martin v. Sec‘y, Dep‘t of Corr., No. 24-10677, 2024 WL 2853188 (11th Cir. June 5, 2024) (holding that even if petitioner‘s habeas filing was timely, it is duplicative of her pending appeal and thus would still warrant dismissal). Indeed, this this is not Petitioner‘s first duplicative action. See LoRusso v. State Attorney‘s Office, No. 1:25cv111MW/ZCB, 2025 WL 1601032 (N.D. Fla. May 8, 2025), report and recommendation adopted, No. 1:25cv111MW/ZCB, 2025 WL 1592302 (N.D. Fla June 5, 2025) (“Because this habeas case is duplicative of the other pending habeas case, this case should be dismissed.“).

Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED:

That the petition for habeas relief (Doc. 1) be DISMISSED as duplicative.
That the clerk be directed to close this file.

At Pensacola, Florida, this 30th day of June, 2025.

HOPE THAI CANNON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed within fourteen (14) 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 its objections upon 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 the unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. Rule 3-1.

Case No. 1:25cv159-TKW-HTC