Michael Lorusso v. State of Florida; Michael Lorusso v. Melton Harry Little; Michael Lorusso v. Margaret A. Beck & Michael Lorusso v. Jake Pillsbury
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Supreme Court of Florida ____________ Nos. SC21-1635 & SC21-1636 ____________ MICHAEL LORUSSO, Petitioner, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. MICHAEL LORUSSO, Petitioner, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. ____________ No. SC21-1736 ____________ MICHAEL LORUSSO, Petitioner, vs. MELTON HARRY LITTLE, Respondent. ____________ No. SC21-1737 ____________ MICHAEL LORUSSO, Petitioner, vs. MARGARET A. BECK, Respondent. ____________ No. SC21-1738 ____________ MICHAEL LORUSSO, Petitioner, vs. JAKE PILLSBURY, Respondent. March 17, 2022 PER CURIAM. Michael LoRusso, an inmate in state custody, filed five pro se letters with this Court seeking orders sanctioning various former or current assistant state attorneys and Sheriff Bob Gualtieri, apparently in connection with his criminal cases. 1 By order dated 1. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(8), Fla. Const. -2- January 13, 2022, we treated the letters as petitions for writ of mandamus and denied relief pursuant to Huffman v. State, 813 So. 2d 10, 11 (Fla. 2000), and citing Tyson v. Florida Bar, 826 So. 2d 265, 267-68 (Fla. 2002), while expressly retaining jurisdiction to pursue possible sanctions against LoRusso. LoRusso v. State, No. SC21-1635, 2022 WL 123641 (Fla. Jan. 13, 2022); LoRusso v. State, No. SC21-1636, 2022 WL 123903 (Fla. Jan. 13, 2022); LoRusso v. Little, No. SC21-1736, 2022 WL 123706 (Fla. Jan. 13, 2022); LoRusso v. Beck, No. SC21-1737, 2022 WL 123506 (Fla. Jan. 13, 2022); LoRusso v. Pillsbury, No. SC21-1738, 2022 WL 123642 (Fla. Jan. 13, 2022); see also Fla. R. App. P. 9.410(a) (Sanctions; Court’s Motion). We now find that LoRusso has failed to show cause why he should not be barred, and we sanction him as set forth below. LoRusso was convicted in the Sixth Judicial Circuit (Pinellas County), case number 522020CF004126000APC, of aggravated stalking and sentenced on April 14, 2021, to five years’ imprisonment. LoRusso began filing petitions in this Court on August 20, 2020. Since that time and before filing the instant cases, he had filed fourteen petitions relating to proceedings before -3- the Sixth Judicial Circuit. These five additional petitions are no different. We denied the petitions and directed LoRusso to show cause why he should not be barred from filing any further requests for relief and referred to the Department of Corrections for possible disciplinary action pursuant to section 944.279, Florida Statutes (2021). LoRusso filed a response to the order to show cause with respect to Case Nos. 21-1636, SC21-1736, SC21-1737, and SC21-1738. No response was filed pertaining to Case No. SC21-1635. Upon due consideration of LoRusso’s response, we conclude that it fails to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed. Based on his persistent history of filing pro se petitions that were meritless or otherwise inappropriate for this Court’s review, LoRusso has abused the judicial process and burdened this Court’s limited judicial resources. We further conclude that LoRusso’s mandamus petitions filed in these cases are frivolous proceedings brought before this Court by a state prisoner. See § 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2021). Accordingly, the Clerk of this Court is hereby instructed to reject any future pleadings, petitions, motions, documents, or other -4- filings submitted by Michael LoRusso that are related to case numbers 522020CF004126000APC and 522019CF005991000APC, unless such filings are signed by a member in good standing of The Florida Bar. Counsel may file on LoRusso’s behalf if counsel determines that the proceedings may have merit and can be brought in good faith. Furthermore, because we have found LoRusso’s petitions to be frivolous, we direct the Clerk of this Court, pursuant to section 944.279(1), Florida Statutes (2021), to forward a copy of this opinion to the Florida Department of Corrections’ institution or facility in which LoRusso is incarcerated. No motion for rehearing or clarification will be entertained by the Court. It is so ordered. CANADY, C.J., and POLSTON, LABARGA, LAWSON, MUÑIZ, COURIEL, and GROSSHANS, JJ., concur. Original Proceeding – Mandamus Michael LoRusso, pro se, Polk City, Florida, for Petitioner No appearance for Respondents -5-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
