Saladino repeated-litigation chain

Paul Saladino filed the earlier S.D.N.Y. action against Tufano.

Later M.D. Pa. R&R recounts the filing date and later default judgment. · Court-recounted chronology

S.D.N.Y. entered a default judgment enjoining Tufano from, among other things, making public statements that Saladino copied, plagiarized, stole, or improperly used Tufano's work.

M.D. Pa. R&R quotes/summarizes the injunction and date. · Court-recounted order

Tufano filed C048 against Saladino and others alleging, among other things, that Saladino copied his work.

R&R says this filing occurred 'notwithstanding' the S.D.N.Y. injunction. · Judicially documented sequence

After an R&R recommended dismissal and leave to correct deficiencies was granted, Tufano did not file an amended complaint; C048 was dismissed without prejudice.

Later R&R recounts the opportunity to amend, non-amendment, and dismissal. · Court-documented compliance chronology

Tufano filed C055 naming substantially the same defendants.

R&R expressly says C055 makes the identical factual allegations made in C048 and adds a defendant/additional claims. · Judicially confirmed repetition

A Lackawanna County Saladino complaint (C019, 2025-05793) was filed the same day as the original federal Saladino complaint C055 (3:25-cv-01400). Direct review of C019's Verified Complaint confirms all five named defendants (Paul Saladino MD, Jeffrey Davis Esq, David D. Lin Esq, White Plains Lodge #473, The Illuminati) match C055's federal caption exactly, and C019 brings Fraud, Tortious Interference, and Civil Conspiracy counts overlapping C055's five causes of action.

Direct LPA Prothonotary portal docket and case detail; VI021 already documents the same overlap as a vexatious-indicator entry. · Docket-confirmed concurrent filing

Tufano filed a third similar action against the same defendants; it also added Judge Karoline Mehalchick.

R&R says C059 makes identical factual allegations, raises the same claims, and added Judge Mehalchick because she dismissed the first case. · Judicially confirmed repetition

A screening order advised Tufano of pleading deficiencies and gave him an opportunity to file an amended complaint; he did not amend.

R&R recounts the screening order and failure to file an amended pleading. · Court-documented compliance chronology

The C055 R&R recommended dismissal with no further leave to amend; on the same date C059 was dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

R&R calls the matters a trilogy raising essentially the same claims against the same defendants; footnote says at least 22 actions had been filed in that court within two years, half closed. · Judicially confirmed repetition

District court adopted the R&R and dismissed C055 with prejudice.

Final order adopted R&R; plaintiff's near-identical responses did not identify specific objections that altered the result. · Final court order