Three orders read, two appeals resolved, and no new lawsuits (October 3, 2026)

Every case with a deadline that had run out since the last pass, and every case not checked since August, was re-researched against a live court source -- forty-seven in all -- alongside a full sweep for lawsuits the tracker does not hold. No new lawsuit was found, and the search was wide enough for that to mean something: a free federal docket index lists forty-nine Middle District of Pennsylvania cases for this litigant and the tracker holds forty-nine, with no case on either side that the other lacks.

Three orders were read in full. In the Social Security case removed to federal court in New York, the court ruled for the first time on the merits of any claim: it dismissed the civil-conspiracy claim against the medical-assessment company and denied the rest of that defendant’s motion, so the medical-malpractice claim proceeds and the defendant answered on October 2. A claim surviving dismissal is uncommon in this record. In the case against two federal judges and four other defendants, the grounds of dismissal are no longer unknown: the report and recommendation that the closing order adopted has since been published and was read, and it rests on judicial immunity, the absence of a private right of action under the criminal statute pled, and claim preclusion, with leave to amend denied as futile. The record previously said in terms that those grounds were not established, because the closing order itself is an unreadable scan. And in the Saladino action a mandate entered below records that one of the three appeals was dismissed for failure to file a required appellate form.

The appellate layer gained two numbers. A Ninth Circuit appeal that had been recorded with no docket number -- deliberately, rather than guessed -- is No. 26-5551, matched from the appellate court’s own statement of the district case it came from rather than from the similarity of the captions. A Second Circuit appeal previously recorded as having no established outcome is now known to have been dismissed on December 31, 2025, confirmed twice over. A second Second Circuit appeal, No. 25-1954, is newly recorded; an earlier pass had treated that number as an error repeated by web summaries, and the court’s own docket under it shows otherwise.

Four data defects were corrected. One case was recording a single defendant where the court’s docket names two, and was recording the first of them by surname alone. Another named a defendant by surname alone. A third carried the same defendant twice. And a defendant who is a sitting federal judge was on file under two different permutations of his name, neither of them the right order.

Two parts of the pass were blocked rather than empty, and are recorded as gaps rather than as reassurance. Pennsylvania’s appellate portal has been refusing connections since at least September 23, so the three Superior Court appeals whose briefing deadlines fell due in late September could not be checked at all. The New York state filing system presented a bot challenge, which was not attempted, so no New York state sweep was run. Seven further cases are reachable only through a subscription service that refused every request; their recorded statuses are unrefreshed rather than reconfirmed, and the freshness date on those records was deliberately left alone.

Related cases

• 2025-03175 — Tufano v. PPL
• 2025-03928 — Tufano v. Better Business Bureau
• 2026-01907 — Tufano v. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
• 3:24-cv-01115 — Tufano v. Fenix Internet, LLC
• 3:24-cv-01116 — Tufano v. TikTok Inc.
• 3:24-cv-01114 — Tufano v. Reddit, Inc.
• 3:24-cv-01252 — Tufano v. Filatova
• 3:25-cv-00011 — Tufano v. Taban et al
• 3:25-cv-00260 — Tufano v. USDA et al
• 3:25-cv-00976 — Tufano v. Fenix Internet LLC
• 3:25-cv-01165 — Tufano v. Fenix Internet LLC
• 3:25-cv-01175 — Tufano v. TikTok et al
• 3:25-cv-01227 — Tufano v. SHOPIFY (USA) Inc. Corporation Service Company et al
• 3:25-cv-01400 — Tufano v. Saladino, MD et al
• 3:25-cv-01495 — Tufano v. Reddit, Inc.
• 3:25-cv-01558 — Tufano v. All-Ways Forwarding et al
• 3:25-cv-01990 — Tufano v. USDA et al
• 3:26-cv-00396 — Tufano v. Saladino, MD et al
• 3:26-cv-00397 — Tufano v. Burgess
• 3:26-cv-00447 — Tufano v. The State of California et al
• 3:26-cv-00542 — Tufano v. Nelson et al
• 3:26-cv-00835 — Tufano v. Based Bodyworks, LLC et al
• 3:26-cv-00840 — Tufano v. The State of California et al
• 3:26-cv-00879 — Tufano v. Tyler Technologies, Inc. et al
• 3:26-cv-00939 — Tufano v. Better Life Foods Inc. et al
• 3:26-cv-01016 — Tufano v. Eriksson et al
• 3:26-cv-01019 — Tufano v. Shopify (USA) Inc. et al
• 3:26-cv-01018 — Tufano v. United States Department of Agriculture
• 3:26-cv-01266 — Tufano v. Saladino, MD et al
• 3:26-cv-01667 — Tufano v. National Fire & Marine Insurance et al
• 3:26-cv-02136 — Tufano v. United Healthcare
• 3:26-cv-02132 — Tufano v. BBB
• 3:26-cv-02134 — Tufano v. Miller et al
• 3:26-cv-02138 — Tufano v. Experian et al
• 3:26-cv-02137 — Tufano v. Carbondale Police Department et al
• 3:26-cv-02257 — Tufano v. Free and Accepted Masons of Union Lodge No. 291 et al
• 66298/2025 — Frank Tufano v. Social Security Administration et al
• 7:23-cv-00244 — Tufano v. American Arbitration Association et al
• 7:20-cv-09346 — Saladino, MD v. Frank Tufano
• 1:26-cv-05474 — Tufano v. All-Ways Forwarding et al
• 3:26-cv-02570 — Tufano v. City of Carbondale et al
• 3:26-cv-02715 — Tufano v. Harding et al

Note

Forty-seven cases were re-checked and no new lawsuit was found. Three court orders were read in full: one allowed a medical-malpractice claim to proceed, one established the grounds on which a case against two judges was dismissed, and one dismissed an appeal. Two appellate docket numbers were recovered and four errors in the recorded defendant names were corrected. Several Pennsylvania and New York records could not be checked because the courts’ own public systems were unavailable.