Tufano v. Saladino, MD et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
FRANK TUFANO
Plaintiff,
v.
PAUL SALADINO, MD, ET AL.
Defendants.
CIVIL NO. 4:25-CV-1960
(Chief Judge Brann)
(Magistrate Judge Latella)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Frank Tufano, a frequent pro se litigator in this Court,1 is a self-
identified “YouTuber” who promotes the Carnivore Diet. In one prior,
and two current suits filed in this Court, Mr. Tufano alleges that Paul
Saladino, M.D. has conspired with “the Illuminati,” the Freemasons,
and others to maliciously copy and use Tufano’s life work and discredit
him. Apparently, Mr. Tufano has made these assertions in other
forums as well. Dr. Saladino took issue with this characterization and
brought suit against Mr. Tufano in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York on November 7, 2020, and he won a
default judgment enjoining Tufano from, inter alia, “making public
1 Plaintiff has filed at least twenty-two separate actions in this Court
within the past two years, half of which are closed.
Case 4:25-cv-01960-MWB Document 5 Filed 12/23/25 Page 1 of 19

2
statements referencing that [Saladino] copied, plagiarized, stole or
otherwise improperly used [Tufano’s] or any other third party’s work”
on January 30, 2025. 	Saladino v. Tufano, et al., Civ. No. 7:20-CV-9346
(Doc. 59 at 3). Notwithstanding the Southern District of New York’s
injunction, Mr. Tufano filed a Complaint in this Court on February 12,
2025, against Paul Saladino. M.D., alleging, inter alia, that he copied
Tufano’s work, and that he conspired with codefendants Jeffrey Davis,
Esq., the lawyer who represented Tufano in the SDNY case, the White
Plains Lodge #472, and the Illuminati. The case was docketed to 3:CV-
25-262 and assigned to the Honorable Karoline Mehalchick and referred
to Chief Magistrate Judge Daryl Bloom for preliminary proceedings.
Judge Bloom recommended that the Complaint be dismissed for failure
to state a claim and that Mr. Tufano be granted an opportunity to
correct the deficiencies in the Complaint by the filing of an Amended
Complaint. 3:25-CV-262 (Doc. 5). Judge Mehalchick adopted the
Report and Recommendation, dismissed the Complaint, and granted
Tufano leave to file an Amended Complaint. (Id. at Doc. 7). Tufano did
not file an amended complaint, and the case was dismissed without
prejudice by Judge Mehalchick on June 11, 2025. (Id. at Doc. 9).
Case 4:25-cv-01960-MWB Document 5 Filed 12/23/25 Page 2 of 19

3
On July 29, 2025, Mr. Tufano filed a Complaint again naming
Paul Saladino, M.D., Jeffrey Davis, Esq., White Plains Lodge 473, and
the Illuminati. The Complaint, docketed to 3:25-CV-1400, makes the
identical factual allegations made in the previously dismissed action,
but adds David D. Lin, Esq. (who represented Saladino in the SDNY
case) as a Defendant and adds additional claims. On October 17, 2025,
Mr. Tufano initiated a third similar action by filing a Complaint against
the same Defendants, which again makes identical factual allegations
and raises the same claims brought in Civil number 3:25-CV-1400. It
also adds Judge Karoline Mehalchick as a Defendant, because she
dismissed Tufano’s first case against Saladino, and Union Lodge #291.
The third action was docketed to the above caption.
Because the basis for jurisdiction for this action is diversity of
citizenship pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and from the face of the
Complaint is it apparent that the action names nondiverse defendants,
the requirements for diversity jurisdiction are not met. To the extent
that the Complaint seeks to state a claim based on federal law, even
though federal question jurisdiction is not invoked, the Complaint
states no cognizable federal claim. Accordingly, the Court is without
Case 4:25-cv-01960-MWB Document 5 Filed 12/23/25 Page 3 of 19

4
subject matter jurisdiction. For the reasons that follow, it will be
respectfully recommended that case be dismissed on screening pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
I. 	Procedural Background
Civil Action 3:25-CV-1400 was initiated by the filing of a pro se
Complaint on July 29, 2025, together with a Motion to proceed in forma
pauperis (IFP). (Docs. 1 and 2). The Motion to proceed IFP was
granted by Order dated November 20, 2025, and service of the
Complaint was held in abeyance pending initial screening. (Doc.4). By
Order of even date herewith, Mr. Tufano was advised of the deficiencies
with the Complaint filed in 3:25-CV-1400 and given twenty-one days to
file an amended complaint.
This action, Civil Number 4:25-CV-1960, was initiated by the
filing of a pro se Complaint on October 17, 2025. (Doc. 1). An
application to proceed in forma pauperis was filed along with the
Complaint. (Doc. 2). Service of the Complaint was also held in
abeyance pending the screening required under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B). (Doc. 4).
Case 4:25-cv-01960-MWB Document 5 Filed 12/23/25 Page 4 of 19

5
II. 	Factual Background
The factual allegations supporting Tufano’s various claims are
made in the first twenty-five paragraphs of each complaint and are
identical. (3:25-CV-1400, Doc. 1, ¶¶ 1-25; 4:25-CV-1960, ¶¶ 1-25).
Tufano avers that he is a “social media personality” who started a
YouTube channel in 2016, that he shares his “unique research on health
and nutrition,” and was the first YouTuber to promote the Carnivore
Diet. (Doc. 1, ¶¶ 1-2). Mr. Tufano maintains that in 2019 he became
aware that Defendant Saladino was “copying” Tufano’s research, word-
for-word, and using Tufano’s ideas as if they were his own. (Doc. 1, ¶ 3).
Plaintiff alleges that Saladino is an “industry plant” being used by the
“‘elite,’ secret societies” to funnel money into their own businesses.
(Doc. 1, ¶ 6). The Complaints then describe the functioning of secret
societies in the United States, of which all wealthy and powerful people
are members. (Doc. 1, ¶¶ 7–8). Mr. Tufano attributes Dr. Saladino’s
success to membership in these societies. (Doc. 1, ¶¶ 9–10). Tufano
alleges that he was denied several constitutional rights in the Southern
Case 4:25-cv-01960-MWB Document 5 Filed 12/23/25 Page 5 of 19

6
District of New York case referenced above and that his lawyer,
Defendant Davis, committed malpractice in representing him. (Doc. 1,
¶¶ 12–16). He asserts that Davis acted on behalf of the various secret
societies and that his loyalty was to them, and not to Mr. Tufano. (Id.).
Plaintiff maintains that the judicial system favors secret society
members and is biased against him because he is not a member of any
such society. (Doc. 1, ¶¶ 17–20). He attempts to bolster this allegation
by pointing to the fact that “almost a dozen” of his pro se filings have
been promptly dismissed in federal and states courts. (Doc. 1, ¶ 20).
The factual allegations in the Complaint conclude with several
assertions that Defendant Saladino is wealthy and famous because he
uses Tufano’s work, and that Saladino used his secret society
connections in the court system to silence Tufano. (Doc. 1, ¶¶ 21–25).
III. 	Legal Standards
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), a court “shall dismiss” an
in forma pauperis case “at any time if the court determines that . . . the
action . . . fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted[.]”
The legal standard for dismissing a complaint for failure to state a
Case 4:25-cv-01960-MWB Document 5 Filed 12/23/25 Page 6 of 19

7
claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 is identical to the legal standard
used when ruling on Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss. 	See
Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 109-10 & n.11 (3d Cir.
2002).
In order “[t]o survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must
contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.’” 	Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A
claim is plausible on its face “when the plaintiff pleads factual content
that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” 	Id. 	(quoting Twombly,
550 U.S. at 556).
Under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court must “take as true all the factual
allegations of the [complaint] and the reasonable inferences that can be
drawn from them, but we disregard legal conclusions and recitals of the
elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements.” 	Santiago v. Warminster Twp., 629 F.3d 121, 128 (3d Cir.
2010) (quotation marks omitted and citation omitted).
Case 4:25-cv-01960-MWB Document 5 Filed 12/23/25 Page 7 of 19

8
In addition to these pleading rules, a civil complaint must comply
with the requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, which sets forth the requirements for complaints and
provides that:
(a) 	A pleading that states a claim for relief
must contain:
(1) a short and plain statement of the
grounds for the court's jurisdiction, unless
the court already has jurisdiction and the
claim needs no new jurisdictional support;
(2) a short and plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief; and
(3) 	a 	demand 	for 	the 	relief 	sought,
which may include relief in the alternative or
different types of relief.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).
Thus, a pro se plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint must recite
factual allegations which are sufficient to raise the plaintiff's claimed
right to relief beyond the level of mere speculation, set forth in a “short
and plain” statement of a cause of action. Indeed, Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)
requires a “showing that ‘the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give
the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon
which it rests.’” 	Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93–94 (2007); Phillips
Case 4:25-cv-01960-MWB Document 5 Filed 12/23/25 Page 8 of 19

9
v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 233 (3d Cir. 2008) (citing
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 545).
The pleadings of self-represented plaintiffs are held to a less
stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by attorneys and are
to be liberally construed. 	See Erickson, 551 U.S. at 94; Higgs v. Att’y
Gen., 655 F.3d 333, 339 (3d. Cir. 2011). Nonetheless, the complaint still
“must contain allegations permitting ‘the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.’” 	Jackson v. Div. of
Developmental Disabilities, 394 F. App’x 950, 951 n.3 (3d Cir. 2010) (per
curiam) (nonprecedential) (quoted case omitted). 	Pro se litigants are to
be granted leave to file a curative amended complaint even when a
plaintiff does not seek leave to amend, unless such an amendment
would be inequitable or futile. 	See Estate of Lagano v. Bergen Cnty.
Prosecutor's Office, 769 F.3d 850, 861 (3d Cir. 2014).
IV. 	Discussion
Plaintiff’s Complaint in this action raises the identical five claims
brought in 25-CV-1400, viz., Fraud, Tortious Interference, Fraudulent
Concealment, Civil Conspiracy, and Conspiracy Against Rights under
18 U.S.C. § 241. Plaintiff states the basis for the Court’s jurisdiction to
Case 4:25-cv-01960-MWB Document 5 Filed 12/23/25 Page 9 of 19

10
hear this case is diversity of citizenship and the first four claims appear
to be brought under Pennsylvania law. The last claim is pursuant to a
federal criminal statute, although Plaintiff does not assert federal
question jurisdiction. The potential federal claim will be addressed
first.
a. Plaintiff’s Claim Under 18 U.S.C. § 241
Plaintiff asserts that Paul Saladino and the “secret society
associates” involved in the above referenced civil action against Tufano
in the Southern District of New York “conspired against Frank Tufano
oppressing him of his First and Seventh Amendment Rights.” (Doc. 1, ¶
62). Plaintiff raised the identical claim in Civil Action 3:25-CV-262. In
recommending that the claim be dismissed, Judge Bloom wrote:
As we explained in a prior case Tufano brought
before this court, “criminal statutes, such as [18
U.S.C.] § 241, do not provide for a private right of
action.” Tufano v. Frankie’s Free Range Meat
Conspirators, Civ. No. 3:24-CV-846, 2024 WL
5318269, at *3 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 6, 2024) (citing
Walthour v. Herron, 2010 WL 1877704, at *3
(E.D. Pa. May 6, 2010) (collecting cases and
concluding that § 241 does not provide a private
right of action)). Accordingly, Tufano’s claim for
criminal conspiracy fail as a matter of law.
Case 4:25-cv-01960-MWB Document 5 Filed 12/23/25 Page 10 of 19

11
(25-CV-262, Doc. 5, p. 7). Because, as Judge Bloom explained, a federal
criminal statute does not provide the basis from a private cause of
action, the Complaint fails to state a cognizable federal claim.
b. The State Law Claims
As noted, Plaintiff bases jurisdiction for this action on diversity of
citizenship pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.2 	He alleges himself to be
domiciled in Pennsylvania, Defendant Saladino in Costa Rico, Jeffrey
2 Even if Plaintiff asserted the basis of jurisdiction as federal question
and sought to bring the state law claims based on supplemental
jurisdiction, the result should be no different. There is no cognizable
federal claim. Whether the Court will exercise supplemental
jurisdiction is within its discretion. 	Kach v. Hose, 589 F.3d 626, 650 (3d
Cir. 2009). “That decision should be based on the values of judicial
economy, convenience, fairness, and comity. In the usual case in which
all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial, the balance of factors
will point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining
state-law claims.” 	KL by & through Locker v. Dunmore Sch. Dist., No.
3:24-CV-01461, 2025 WL 2723547, at *13 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 24, 2025)
(cleaned up). 	See also United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726
(1966) (holding that “if the federal claims are dismissed before trial,
even though not insubstantial in a jurisdictional sense, the state claims
should be dismissed as well.”); 	Brown v. Patel, No. 3:18-CV-01242, 2019
WL 2502337, at *6 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 13, 2019), report and
recommendation adopted, No. 3:18-CV-1242, 2019 WL 3562656 (M.D.
Pa. Aug. 5, 2019) (recommending that federal claims be dismissed
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) and that remaining state law claims be
dismissed without prejudice).
Case 4:25-cv-01960-MWB Document 5 Filed 12/23/25 Page 11 of 19

12
Davis in New York, David Lin in New York, and White Plains Lodge
#473 in New York. (Doc. 1, ¶¶ 36–40). He alleges that the Illuminati
has “an unknown location.” (Doc 1, ¶ 41). Further, he avers that Judge
Karoline Mehalchick and Union Lodge #291 are residents of
Pennsylvania. (Doc. 1, ¶¶ 42 and 43).
The “general principles of diversity jurisdiction” were clearly
elaborated by the Third Circuit in Lincoln Ben. Life Co. v. AEI Life,
LLC, 800 F.3d 99 (3d Cir. 2015), where our Court of Appeals explained:
The principal federal statute governing diversity
jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, gives federal district
courts 	original 	jurisdiction 	of 	all 	civil 	actions
between 	citizens 	of 	different 	States 	where 	the
amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. For over
two 	hundred 	years, 	the 	statute 	has 	been
understood 	as 	requiring 	complete 	diversity
between all plaintiffs and all defendants, even
though only minimal diversity is constitutionally
required. This means that, unless there is some
other basis for jurisdiction, no plaintiff may be a
citizen of the same state as any defendant.
Most rules of citizenship are well established. A
natural person is deemed to be a citizen of the
state where he is domiciled. A corporation is a
citizen both of the state where it is incorporated
and of the state where it has its principal place of
business. But unlike corporations, unincorporated
associations 	such 	as 	partnerships 	are 	not
considered citizens as that term is used in the
diversity 	statute. 	Instead, 	the 	citizenship 	of
Case 4:25-cv-01960-MWB Document 5 Filed 12/23/25 Page 12 of 19

13
partnerships 	and 	other 	unincorporated
associations is determined by the citizenship of
their 	partners 	or 	members. 	The 	state 	of
organization and the principal place of business of
an 	unincorporated 	association 	are 	legally
irrelevant. Accordingly, the citizenship of an LLC
is determined by the citizenship of its members.
For complete diversity to exist, all of the LLC's
members must be diverse from all parties on the
opposing side.
Id. at 105 (cleaned up).
The Plaintiff alleges that he, Judge Mehalchick, and Union Lodge
#291 are all citizens of Pennsylvania. Accordingly, there is not complete
diversity of citizenship, and these claims should be dismissed without
prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 	See Those Certain
Underwriters at Lloyd's London v. Sophisticated Invs. Inc., No. 2:20-CV-
3592-KSM, 2022 WL 507437 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 18, 2022) (dismissing case
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction where there was not complete
diversity of citizenship); see also Muchler v. Greenwald, 624 F. App’x
794, 795 (3d Cir. 2015) (affirming the district court’s dismissal of a pro
se complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) where neither
federal question nor diversity jurisdiction existed); Wallace v. All. Com.
Cleaning, Inc., No. CV 24-313, 2025 WL 929651, at *3 (D. Del. Mar. 27,
Case 4:25-cv-01960-MWB Document 5 Filed 12/23/25 Page 13 of 19

14
2025), report and recommendation adopted, No. CV 24-313, 2025 WL
2879603 (D. Del. Oct. 9, 2025) (dismissing pro se complaint on screening
based on diversity jurisdiction on screening for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.); Wagner v. Lowe’s Home Improvement, No. CV 22-564,
2022 WL 14760417 (D. Del. Oct. 21, 2022) (same); Kilgoe v. Westlake
Fin., No. CV 22-667-RGA, 2022 WL 17669173, at *2 (D. Del. Dec. 14,
2022) (dismissing pro se complaint on screening for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction).3
c. Leave to Amend
The Third Circuit has voiced a strong preference for allowing the
filing of an amended complaint in cases where the original complaint is
subject to dismissal. In Montanez v. Price, 154 F.4th 127, 153 (3d Cir.
2025), the Court instructed:
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) directs
courts to grant motions for leave to amend “when
justice so requires.” So leave to amend should be
3 “[W]hen a district court dismisses claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction,
the dismissal should be without prejudice.” Mohn v. United States, No. 23-1023,
2023 WL 4311609, at *2 (3d Cir. July 3, 2023) (citing N.J. Physicians, Inc. v.
President of U.S., 653 F.3d 234, 241 n.8 (3d Cir. 2011).
Case 4:25-cv-01960-MWB Document 5 Filed 12/23/25 Page 14 of 19

15
liberally 	given 	unless 	amendment 	would 	be
inequitable or futile. Long v. Wilson, 393 F.3d 390,
400 (3d Cir. 2004); Phillips, 515 F.3d at 245. And
because courts have 	a special obligation to 	be
“more 	forgiving of 	pro 	se 	litigants,” 	Garrett v.
Wexford Health, 938 F.3d 69, 92 (3d Cir. 2019), this
Circuit has a “longstanding policy of allowing pro
se plaintiffs to amend their complaints before the
court rules upon defendants' motions to dismiss,”
Roman v. Jeffes, 904 F.2d 192, 196 n.8 (3d Cir.
1990) (collecting cases).
Leave to amend in this case is, however, unnecessary. The identical
claims against the same Defendants, with the exception of Judge
Mehalchick and Union Lodge #291, are pending in 3:25-CV-1400. The
deficiencies in pleading that action (which were previously identified by
Judge Bloom in 3:25-CV-262) have again been explained to Plaintiff by
Order filed of even date and with this Report and Recommendation, and
Plaintiff has been given leave to amend the complaint in that action.
Amendment of the Complaint against Judge Mehalchick would be futile
because she is entitled to judicial immunity. As the Third Circuit has
explained, “a judicial officer in the performance of his or her duties has
absolute immunity from suit… A judge will not be deprived of immunity
because the action he took was in error, was done maliciously, or was in
excess of his authority; rather, he will be subject to liability only when
Case 4:25-cv-01960-MWB Document 5 Filed 12/23/25 Page 15 of 19

16
he has acted in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.” 	Kwasnik v.
LeBlon, 228 F. App’x 238, 243 (3d Cir. 2007) (cleaned up). Similarly,
the only allegation against Union Lodge #291 in Scranton is that it was
“the likely location” where discussions took place to unfairly dismiss the
prior federal action before Judge Mehalchick. (Doc. 1, ¶ 43). Because
there is no jurisdictional basis for this claim, and there is no set of facts
that would present a cognizable claim against Union Lodge #291, it
would be futile to allow amendment in this action.4
4 Lastly, Plaintiff requests this Court to interfere with Saladino’s case
against him in the Southern District of New York. However, “one
district court has no jurisdiction to review the decision of another
district court.” Cavienss v. Shea, No. CV 25-01156, 2025 WL 1852700,
at *1 (D.D.C. July 1, 2025) (quoting Prentice v. U.S. Dist. Court for
Eastern Dist. of Michigan, Southern Div., 307 F. App'x. 460 (D.C. Cir.
Oct. 29, 2008) (per curiam).
Case 4:25-cv-01960-MWB Document 5 Filed 12/23/25 Page 16 of 19

17
V. 	Recommendation
For the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully recommended that this
case be dismissed, without prejudice, for want of subject matter
jurisdiction.
Dated: December 23, 2025 	/s/ Leo A. Latella
Leo A. Latella
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:25-cv-01960-MWB Document 5 Filed 12/23/25 Page 17 of 19

18
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
FRANK TUFANO
Plaintiff,
v.
PAUL SALADINO, MD, ET AL.
Defendants.
CIVIL NO. 4:24-CV-1960
(Chief Judge Brann)
(Magistrate Judge Latella)
NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the undersigned has entered
the foregoing Report and Recommendation dated December 23,
2025.
Any party may obtain a review of the Report and
Recommendation pursuant to Rule 72.3, which provides:
Any party may object to a magistrate judge’s
proposed findings, recommendations or report
addressing a motion or matter described in 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) or making a
recommendation for the disposition of a prisoner
case or a habeas corpus petition within fourteen
(14) days after being served with a copy thereof.
Such party shall file with the clerk of court, and
serve on the magistrate judge and all parties,
written objections which shall specifically identify
the portions of the proposed findings,
recommendations or report to which objection is
Case 4:25-cv-01960-MWB Document 5 Filed 12/23/25 Page 18 of 19

19
made and the basis for such objections. The
briefing requirements set forth in Local Rule 72.2
shall apply. A judge shall make a de novo
determination of those portions of the report or
specified proposed findings or recommendations
to which objection is made and may accept, reject,
or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.
The judge, however, need conduct a new hearing
only in his or her discretion or where required by
law, and may consider the record developed
before the magistrate judge, making his or her
own determination on the basis of that record.
The judge may also receive further evidence,
recall witnesses or recommit the matter to the
magistrate judge with instructions.
Dated: December 23, 2025 	s/ Leo A. Latella
LEO A. LATELLA
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:25-cv-01960-MWB Document 5 Filed 12/23/25 Page 19 of 19