Carbondale RICO amended-pleading chronology
C083 was filed on July 29, 2026 against four defendants — the Carbondale Police Department, Shopify, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the United States — on a RICO theory. An amended complaint on August 24 added seven financial institutions, taking the action to eleven defendants. The case was reassigned to a different magistrate judge on August 31, the police department’s counsel appeared on September 2, and on September 8 Tufano filed a second action against the same municipality, C106, naming the city itself.
The August 24 docket entry names all eleven defendants in its own text, so the expansion from four to eleven is established from the court’s record rather than inferred.
Research assessment
This sequence records what the docket shows and nothing more. No court has ruled on anything in C083, no finding is recorded from any of its orders, and no filing-restriction indicator is coded from the amendment — adding defendants to a pending case is ordinary civil procedure. The chronology is included because the party count and the second Carbondale action are facts a reader of either case page would otherwise have to assemble by hand.
Important caveat
No complaint in either case has been read: no document on either docket is obtainable free, and what is alleged against C083’s seven added defendants, or against Douglas Calzola in C106, is unknown. C083’s post-July record comes from a single source, PacerMonitor’s public case page, because CourtListener/RECAP has not been refreshed for that docket since July 29; C106’s record comes from Justia. The two actions are coded to different causes of action — RICO in C083, 28 U.S.C. 1983 in C106 — so the second is not recorded as repeating the first. “American Express” as named in C083 has not been established to be the same entity as American Express National Bank, the plaintiff in C031 and C037.
Cases in this sequence
Timeline
Tufano filed C083 against the Carbondale Police Department, Shopify, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the United States, pleading a RICO claim under 18 U.S.C. 1962. The $405 filing fee was paid, so the action was not subject to in forma pauperis screening.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗Magistrate Judge Susan E. Schwab entered two orders: one directing Tufano to serve the summons and complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4, or obtain a waiver, within 90 days of filing and to file a return of service; the other a standing order on the use of generative artificial intelligence.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗An amended complaint added seven financial institutions as defendants — JPMorgan Chase Bank, American Express, Capital One, Citibank NA, Bank of America, Wells Fargo Bank NA and Discover — taking the action from four defendants to eleven.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗A verbal order reassigned the case from Magistrate Judge Susan E. Schwab to Magistrate Judge Phillip J. Caraballo for all further proceedings. The docket states no reason for the reassignment.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗Andrew W. Norfleet and Coryn D. Hubbert of Marshall Dennehey entered appearances for the Carbondale Police Department, the first defence counsel to appear on this docket. No responsive pleading accompanied them.
Source — courtlistener.com ↗Tufano filed C106, Tufano v. City of Carbondale et al, in the same district, six days after defence counsel appeared in C083 and 41 days after C083 was filed. It names the city itself and Douglas Calzola; C083 names the city’s police department. The fee was paid and summons issued as to both defendants.
Source — dockets.justia.com ↗Primary source
Open primary source — courtlistener.com ↗Cite this page
Frank Tufano Litigation Research. "Carbondale RICO amended-pleading chronology". Research last verified September 15, 2026. https://suedbyfranktufano.com/research/carbondale-rico-amended-pleading-chronology/