Frank Tufano case records naming Leo A. Latella
3 originating actions · 5 indexed records
Cases in this index naming Leo A. Latella
| Filed | Case | Court | Status / outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| April 20, 2026 | 3:26-cv-01018Tufano v. United States Department of Agriculture | U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania | Pending; docket and assigned judge confirmed, current status not independently verifiable this pass |
| October 21, 2025 | 3:25-cv-01990Tufano v. USDA et al | U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania | Dismissed without prejudice (voluntary dismissal under FRCP 41) |
| July 29, 2025 | 3:25-cv-01400Tufano v. Saladino, MD et al | U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania | Dismissed |
A case appears here because a tracked record names this judge. The listing is not an evaluation of the judge or of any ruling.
Parties named in these cases
Related dispute groups
Court & ruling records
Records naming Leo A. Latella, tied to an order, opinion or report and recommendation.
Record labels distinguish final orders/opinions, reports and recommendations, non-final orders, and tentative/indexed ruling records. This lists records naming Leo A. Latella; it is not an evaluation of the judge.
Repeated litigation / identical factual allegations (R&R)
R&R described C048, C055 and C059 as a trilogy raising essentially the same claims against the same defendants; it said C055 repeated the identical factual allegations from dismissed C048 and C059 again made identical factual allegations and the same claims.
February 3, 2026 ruling source — govinfo.gov ↗Repeated previously rejected legal theory / amendment futile (R&R)
R&R noted that the private-right-of-action defect in Tufano's 18 U.S.C. §241 theory had already been explained in an earlier case and repeated in C048/C055; it also found that he had been advised of pleading deficiencies and chose not to amend, so further amendment would be futile.
February 3, 2026 ruling source — govinfo.gov ↗Court-stated litigation-volume observation (R&R footnote)
Footnote to the report and recommendation recording that "Plaintiff has filed at least twenty-two separate actions in this Court within the past two years, half of which are closed." This is a judicial statement about filing volume in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. It is not a vexatious-litigant determination and no filing restriction was imposed. Substantially the same observation appears in the report and recommendation in C059.
February 3, 2026 ruling source — govinfo.gov ↗Construed motion for voluntary dismissal, granted (R&R)
R&R construed Tufano's May 4, 2026 response -- stating a new complaint with additional claims had been filed and “this complaint may be dismissed” -- as a motion for voluntary dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 and recommended it be granted, dismissing the action without prejudice. Footnote 1 confirms the companion action is 3:26-cv-01018 (C073), “raising the identical claims brought in this action.” The district court adopted the R&R on June 18, 2026, closing the case.
May 14, 2026 ruling source — govinfo.gov ↗Companion action identified; fee-paid status and amended complaint recorded (R&R)
Footnote 1 of the Report and Recommendation in the companion action C060 (3:25-cv-01990) records that on April 20, 2026 Tufano filed the complaint in this action, 3:26-cv-01018, "raising the identical claims brought in" C060; that he paid the full filing fee rather than proceeding in forma pauperis; and that he filed an Amended Complaint in this action at Doc. 4 on April 28, 2026. The district court adopted the R&R on June 18, 2026, and its adopting Order cites this action in its own footnote 1. Because the case is fee-paid, no 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2) screening track applies to it.
May 14, 2026 ruling source — govinfo.gov ↗Judge names are grouped conservatively using the workbook's judge-alias mapping. This page indexes public records naming this judge; it is not a judicial performance evaluation.