Opinion
8:23-cv-2834-WFJ-AEP
12-13-2023
MICHAEL ANTHONY LORUSSO, Petitioner, v. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent.
ORDER
WILLIAM F. JUNG, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on pro se Petitioner Michael Anthony LoRusso's petition for writ of habeas corpus. (Doc. 1). In October 2022, Mr. LoRusso filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his state-court conviction for aggravated stalking. LoRusso v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr., No. 8:22-cv-2258-MSS-TGW, Doc. 1 (M.D. Fla.). The court in that case appointed counsel for Mr. LoRusso. Id., Docs. 57, 58, 59. Shortly thereafter, Mr. LoRusso appealed the order appointing counsel, claiming that the court had erroneously “force[d] a[n] attorney” on him. Id., Doc. 84 at 2. The court stayed and administratively closed the action until the resolution of Mr. LoRusso's interlocutory appeal, id., Doc. 104, which remains pending, LoRusso v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr., No. 23-12711 (11th Cir.).
Mr. LoRusso subsequently filed the present petition with the Eleventh Circuit, requesting “emergency relief of habeas corpus.” (Doc. 1 at 1). The Eleventh Circuit transferred the matter to this Court under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(a), which provides that “[a]n application for a writ of habeas corpus must be made to the appropriate district court.” (Doc. 1-2).
In his petition, Mr. LoRusso appears to contend that his state-court conviction for aggravated stalking violates the First Amendment. (Doc. 1 at 5). He also alleges that the judge presiding over his § 2254 action “denied due process [and] access to the courts” by appointing him counsel. (Id. at 1). In addition, Mr. LoRusso makes a variety of apparently irrelevant allegations about former President Donald Trump, Governor Ron DeSantis, Attorney General Ashley Moody, Elon Musk, the Oath Keepers, and Moms for Liberty. (Id. at 2-6).
Mr. LoRusso's petition is due to be dismissed without prejudice. To the extent that Mr. LoRusso raises arguments challenging his state-court conviction for aggravated stalking, his petition must be dismissed as duplicative of the § 2254 petition in 8:22-cv-2258-MSS-TGW. See Daker v. Allen, No. 6:17-cv-23, 2020 WL 1486868, at *7 n.13 (S.D. Ga. Mar. 3, 2020) (“[C]ourts routinely reject attempts by prisoners to pursue multiple, essentially identical habeas petitions.” (collecting cases)), adopted by 2020 WL 1503121 (S.D. Ga. Mar. 24, 2020). To the extent that Mr. LoRusso seeks to challenge the court's rulings in 8:22-cv-2258-MSS-TGW, he must raise those issues on appeal with the Eleventh Circuit.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
1. The petition (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice.
2. Mr. LoRusso is DENIED a certificate of appealability because he cannot show “that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of denial of a constitutional right, and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 478 (2000). Because Mr. LoRusso is not entitled to a certificate of appealability, he is not entitled to appeal in forma pauperis.
3. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case.
DONE and ORDERED