Frank Tufano case records naming Martin C. Carlson
4 originating actions · 4 indexed records
Cases in this index naming Martin C. Carlson
| Filed | Case | Court | Status / outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| April 13, 2026 | 3:26-cv-00939Tufano v. Better Life Foods Inc. et al | U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania | Removed from state court |
| April 1, 2026 | 3:26-cv-00835Tufano v. Based Bodyworks, LLC et al | U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania | Dismissal with prejudice recommended (non-final); no adopting order docketed |
| August 22, 2025 | 3:25-cv-01574Tufano v. Google LLC et al | U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania | Transferred to N.D. Cal.; renewed motion to dismiss granted with leave to amend; case terminated Aug. 19, 2026 |
| July 8, 2024 | 3:24-cv-01117Tufano v. Miller 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 Martin C. Carlson, 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 Martin C. Carlson; it is not an evaluation of the judge.
Frivolous / meritless claims and jurisdictional manipulation (R&R)
R&R described the pro se case as legally infirm, said the claims were without merit, referred to frivolous claims and transparent attempts at jurisdictional manipulation, and recommended dismissal with prejudice for failure to prosecute. The district court later adopted the R&R in full on Dec. 16, 2024; that final adoption is recorded separately.
August 28, 2024 ruling source — storage.courtlistener.com ↗Court observation of litigation history (R&R)
R&R described Tufano as a prodigious but prodigiously unsuccessful pro se litigant and cited multiple earlier federal cases that had been dismissed or otherwise adversely resolved.
November 4, 2025 ruling source — govinfo.gov ↗Discovery stayed pending dispositive motions
Order and accompanying memorandum denied the plaintiff’s motion to expedite discovery (Doc. 43) and granted the defence motion to stay discovery (Doc. 45), without prejudice to renewal following resolution of the pending and potentially dispositive motions. The memorandum records four such motions then pending (Docs. 10, 18, 21 and 30) and notes the case was assigned to the magistrate judge on July 29, 2026 with the referral clarified Aug. 19, 2026. Both documents read in full.
August 21, 2026 ruling source — govinfo.gov ↗Report and recommendation (non-final)
Recommends that the defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted and the complaint dismissed with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Rule 12(b)(6), describing the secret-society allegations as fantastic or delusional and rejecting the FTC Act, Title VII, Sherman Act, intentional-infliction, defamation and civil-conspiracy claims on their merits. Read in full. No adopting order was on the docket as of 2026-09-23.
August 24, 2026 ruling source — storage.courtlistener.com ↗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.