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

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