Tufano v. Saladino, MD et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
FRANK TUFANO
Plaintiff,
v.
PAUL SALADINO, MD, ET AL.
Defendants.
CIVIL NO. 3:25-CV-1400
(Magistrate Judge Latella)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This civil matter is one in a trilogy of cases brought in this Court
by pro se Plaintiff Frank Tufano, a frequent pro se litigator,1 raising
essentially the same claims against the same defendants. The core
allegation in all these cases is that the lead Defendant, Paul Saladino,
M.D., conspired with “the Illuminati”, the Freemasons and others to
maliciously copy and use Tufano’s life work and discredit him. The first
matter, Tufano v. Saladino, et al., 3:25-CV-262, was dismissed without
prejudice by Judge Mehalchick on June 11, 2025. In the most recent
case, Tufano v. Saladino, MD et al, 4:25-CV-1960, the undersigned
issued a Report and Recommendation on December 23, 2025,
recommending that the action be dismissed for want of subject matter
1 Plaintiff has filed at least twenty-two separate actions in this Court
within the past two years, half of which are closed.
Case 3:25-cv-01400-RDM Document 6 Filed 02/03/26 Page 1 of 28

2
jurisdiction.2 	Chief Judge Brann adopted the Report and
Recommendation by Order dated February 3, 2026.
This matter, filed on July 29, 2025, suffers from similar pleading
deficiencies present in Tufano’s other two matters. On December 23,
2025, a screening Order was issued advising Plaintiff of the various
pleading deficiencies and giving him the opportunity to correct them by
filing an amended complaint. (Doc. 5). Plaintiff failed to file an
amended pleading. For the reasons that follow, it will be recommended
that the Complaint be dismissed and that no further leave to amend be
granted.
I. 	Background
Plaintiff Frank Tufano is a self-identified “YouTuber” who
promotes the Carnivore Diet. In his three cases filed in this Court, Mr.
Tufano alleges that Paul Saladino, M.D. has conspired with “the
2 Case 4:25-CV-1960 is similar to the others but added Judge
Mehalchick for dismissing Tufano v. Saladino, et al., 3:25-CV-262.
Because that case was based on diversity jurisdiction and both Judge
Mehalchick and the Plaintiff are citizens of Pennsylvania, complete
diversity did not exist.
Case 3:25-cv-01400-RDM Document 6 Filed 02/03/26 Page 2 of 28

3
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 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
Case 3:25-cv-01400-RDM Document 6 Filed 02/03/26 Page 3 of 28

4
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, 2925. (Id. at Doc. 9).
On July 29, 2025, Mr. Tufano initiated this case by filing a
Complaint again naming Paul Saladino, M.D., Jeffrey Davis, Esq.,
White Plains Lodge 473, and the Illuminati. (Doc. 1). This Complaint,
docketed to 3:CV-25-1400, makes the identical factual allegations made
in the previously dismissed action and 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 makes the
identical factual allegations and raises the same claims brought in this
Case 3:25-cv-01400-RDM Document 6 Filed 02/03/26 Page 4 of 28

5
action, Civil number 3:CV-25-1400, and added Judge Karoline
Mehalchick as a Defendant because she dismissed Tufano’s first case
against Saladino. The third action was docketed 4:25-CV-1960 and was
dismissed by Chief Judge Brann on February 3, 2026 for want of subject
matter jurisdiction.
II. 	Procedural Background
This matter 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). On December 23, 2025,
a screening Order was issued advising Plaintiff of the various pleading
deficiencies and giving him the opportunity to correct them by filing an
amended complaint. (Doc. 5). Plaintiff failed to file an amended
pleading.
Case 3:25-cv-01400-RDM Document 6 Filed 02/03/26 Page 5 of 28

6
I. 	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-262, Doc. 1, ¶¶ 1-25; 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 District of New York case
Case 3:25-cv-01400-RDM Document 6 Filed 02/03/26 Page 6 of 28

7
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).
II. 	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 3:25-cv-01400-RDM Document 6 Filed 02/03/26 Page 7 of 28

8
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 3:25-cv-01400-RDM Document 6 Filed 02/03/26 Page 8 of 28

9
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 3:25-cv-01400-RDM Document 6 Filed 02/03/26 Page 9 of 28

10
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).
III. 	Discussion
Plaintiff’s Complaint raises five claims, viz., Fraud, Tortious
Interference, Fraudulent Concealment, Civil Conspiracy and,
Conspiracy Against Rights under 18 U.S.C. § 241. Although Plaintiff
Case 3:25-cv-01400-RDM Document 6 Filed 02/03/26 Page 10 of 28

11
bases jurisdiction on diversity of citizenship pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1332,3 and brings his claims under Pennsylvania law, he also brought a
claim under a federal criminal statute (even though there is no private
cause of action based on that statute), thereby invoking federal question
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331. Each claim will be addressed
seriatim.
a. Fraud
Plaintiff’s first claim is labeled “Fraud.” (Doc. 1, p. 7). In support
of that claim, Plaintiff alleges:
3 With the exception of “the Illuminati,” the remaining parties are
alleged to be citizens of either New York or Costa Rica and Plaintiff is a
citizen of Pennsylvania. Accordingly, Plaintiff appears to have alleged
complete diversity of citizenship as required by the statute. See Lincoln
Ben. Life Co. v. AEI Life, LLC, 800 F.3d 99 (3d Cir. 2015). As to the
Illuminati, Plaintiff fails define this “entity” and fails to identify any
specific group of individuals or their domicile. “[N]on-corporate legal
entities take the citizenship of all of their members. It is therefore the
members' citizenships that are relevant for jurisdictional purposes.”
BRT Mgmt. LLC v. Malden Storage LLC, 68 F.4th 691, 696 (1st Cir.
2023). For purposes of this matter, addition of the ill-defined
“Illuminati” as a defendant will be overlooked; a nonexistent defendant
is ignored for purposes of determining diversity. Constance v. Austral
Oil Expl. Co., No. 12-CV-01252, 2013 WL 495779, at *4 (W.D. La. Feb.
6, 2013).
Case 3:25-cv-01400-RDM Document 6 Filed 02/03/26 Page 11 of 28

12
Paul Saladino knowingly stole Frank Tufano's "Life's
Work," to portray it as his own on various social media
platforms accumulating dozens of millions of views and
probably millions of dollars in revenue.
Paul Saladino deceived followers that Frank Tufano's
work was as his own, and as a result of it, became famous
on social media with financial gains.
Paul 	Saladino 	MD 	met 	in 	secrecy 	with 	Freemasons,
Illuminati Members, and other relevant secret society
parties 	in the 	case, 	and 	conspired together 	to 	make
himself wealthy and famous as a primary portrayer of
Frank Tufano's research.
Agents of these secret societies conspired against Frank
Tufano by shadowbanning and censoring his videos on
social media exposing what was being done to him and
promoting 	Paul 	Saladino's 	videos 	plagiarizing 	Frank
Tufano's work.
Id. 	In Pennsylvania, “[f]raud is actionable in tort.” V-Tech Servs., Inc.
v. St., 72 A.3d 270, 275 (Pa. Super. 2013). “The elements of fraud, or
intentional misrepresentation, are (1) a representation; (2) which is
material to the transaction at hand; (3) made falsely, with knowledge of
its falsity or recklessness as to whether it is true or false; (4) with intent
of misleading another into relying on it; (5) justifiable reliance on the
misrepresentation; and (6) the resulting injury was proximately caused
by the reliance.” 	Miller v. Daly, No. 14 EDA 2025, 2025 WL 3765442, at
Case 3:25-cv-01400-RDM Document 6 Filed 02/03/26 Page 12 of 28

13
*4 (Pa. Super. Ct. Dec. 30, 2025) (quoting Presbyterian Med. Ctr. v.
Budd, 832 A.2d 1066, 1072 (Pa. Super. 2003)). “The essence of fraud is a
misrepresentation fraudulently uttered with the intent to induce the
action undertaken in reliance upon it, to the damage of its victim.” 	Id.
“Additionally, under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure there is a
heightened pleading standard for fraud, as required by Rule 9(b), which
provides that ‘a party must state with particularity the circumstances
constituting fraud.’” DCD Nucar Alni LLC v. Rothrock Motor Sales, Inc.,
No. 5:25-CV-4327, 2025 WL 3516667, at *6 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 8,
2025)(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b)) (emphasis in the original).
“Consequently, it is necessary to plead or allege the date, time and place
of the alleged fraud or otherwise inject precision or some measure of
substantiation into a fraud allegation and must allege who made a
misrepresentation to whom and the general content of the
misrepresentation. The purpose of the heightened standard is to
provide a defendant with notice of the precise misconduct with which he
or she is charged and to prevent false or unsubstantiated charges.” 	Id.
(cleaned up).
Case 3:25-cv-01400-RDM Document 6 Filed 02/03/26 Page 13 of 28

14
Plaintiff has failed to allege a viable cause of action under
Pennsylvania law for the tort of fraud. His allegations of fraud are
conclusory. Beyond broad and sweeping allegations, Plaintiff has not
made any particular allegations to support his claim. He has not
alleged that any of the Defendants knowingly made a false statement to
him, intending that he rely on it, that he relied on it and was therefore
damaged. The heightened pleading requirement of Rule 9(b) is in place
precisely to prevent charges of fraud based on conclusory allegations.
As noted above, in analyzing a complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), the Court employs the identical standard used when
ruling on Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss. As the Supreme
Court has instructed: “To 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. A claim has facial plausibility when
the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged.” 	Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (cleaned up).
Plaintiff’s allegations regarding the “illuminati” and secret societies
Case 3:25-cv-01400-RDM Document 6 Filed 02/03/26 Page 14 of 28

15
lack any plausibility and cannot sustain a claim of fraud. Moreover,
Plaintiff alleges that Saladino’s YouTube followers were deceived, not
that Saladino deceived Plaintiff into entering into a transaction with
him.
b. Tortious Interference
Plaintiff’s second claim is for Tortious Interference. In support of
this claim, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Saladino added Plaintiff’s
business “Frankie’s Free Range Meat” as a defendant in the previously
referenced lawsuit in the Southern District of New York, Saladino v.
Tufano, et al., Civ. No. 7:20-CV-9346. Plaintiff alleges that his
business, “Frankie’s Free Range Meat”, was added as defendant in that
lawsuit “to harm Frank Tufano's business, which was irrelevant to the
case matter due to subject matter jurisdiction.” (Doc. 1, p. 8). He
alleges that “Associates of the case ‘Saladino, MD v. Frank Tufano No.
7:2020cv09346,’ agreed in secrecy to plan all decisions against Frank
Tufano in favor of Paul Saladino, MD. Attorneys for Plaintiff Paul
Saladino and Frank Tufano's own attorney, likely met in secret
meetings, held to their Freemason, Illuminati, or Secret Society Oaths,
Case 3:25-cv-01400-RDM Document 6 Filed 02/03/26 Page 15 of 28

16
loyalty to a greater cause than the court to collude against Frank
Tufano and strip him of his right to fair judicial process.” (Id.).
Although Plaintiff styles this claim as one for the tort of tortious
interference, in reality, Plaintiff is seeking a judgment that would
overturn the Southern District of New York’s decision to allow suit
against Plaintiff’s Business. As plaintiff was advised in this Court’s
screening Order dated December 23, 2025, (Doc. 5), this is not the
appropriate forum to challenge the decisions in or results of Saladino v.
Tufano, et al., Civ. No. 7:20-CV-9346. To challenge that action, Plaintiff
must turn to the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York or the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. “[O]ne
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).
To the extent that a claim for Tortious Interference is brought, it
must fail because the essential elements of the tort are not alleged. “A
Case 3:25-cv-01400-RDM Document 6 Filed 02/03/26 Page 16 of 28

17
claim for tortious interference with a business relationship requires the
plaintiff to plead the following elements: ‘(1) a prospective contractual
relationship; (2) the purpose or intent to harm the plaintiff by
preventing the relation from occurring; (3) the absence of privilege or
justification on the part of the defendant; and (4) the occasioning of
actual damage resulting from the defendant's conduct.’” 	Smart
Commc'ns Holding, Inc. v. Glob. Tel-Link Corp., No. 1:21-CV-01708,
2024 WL 2158676, at *4 (M.D. Pa. May 13, 2024)(quoting Brokerage
Concepts v. United States Healthcare, 140 F.3d 494, 529–30 (3d Cir.
1998)). Plaintiff has not alleged that any of the Defendants intended,
without justification, to interfere with a contractual or potential
contractual relationship. Rather, the gravamen of Plaintiff’s complaint
is that the Southern District of New York improperly allowed his
company to be sued as a defendant in a lawsuit that Plaintiff lost. As
noted, Plaintiff’s remedies remain with that Court.
c. Fraudulent Concealment
Plaintiff next asserts a claim of fraudulent concealment. He
alleges:
Case 3:25-cv-01400-RDM Document 6 Filed 02/03/26 Page 17 of 28

18
Paul Saladino knew that he was plagiarizing ideas and
research from Frank Tufano's YouTube channel. 	Paul
Saladino 	refused to 	disclose 	this information on 	any
social media platforms when stating said information,
and 	as 	a 	result, 	Frank 	Tufano's 	unique 	ideas 	and
research were used to funnel money to liars and thieves
as opposed to the original creator. All other participating
social 	media 	personalities 	and 	customers 	of 	Paul
Saladino were unaware of the source of the original
information.
(Doc. 1, pp. 8-9). “The tort of intentional non-disclosure has the same
elements as intentional misrepresentation except in the case of
intentional non-disclosure, the party intentionally conceals a material
fact rather than making an affirmative misrepresentation.” Bortz v.
Noon, 556 Pa. 489, 499, 729 A.2d 555, 560 (1999) (cleaned up). This
claim fails for the reasons similar to those outlined above in connection
with Plaintiff’s claim of intentional misrepresentation (fraud). Plaintiff
does not allege that Saladino withheld material information that was
“material to the transaction at hand; (3) made falsely, with knowledge
of its falsity or recklessness as to whether it is true or false; (4) with
intent of misleading another into relying on it; (5) justifiable reliance on
the misrepresentation; and (6) the resulting injury was proximately
caused by the reliance.” 	Miller v. Daly, supra at *4. At most, Plaintiff
Case 3:25-cv-01400-RDM Document 6 Filed 02/03/26 Page 18 of 28

19
claims that YouTube viewers were not informed that the content they
were viewing was produced by the individual providing it.4
d. Civil Conspiracy
Plaintiff’s fourth cause of action is for civil conspiracy. Again,
Plaintiff alleges misconduct in connection with Saladino v. Tufano, et
al., Civ. No. 7:20-CV-9346, Plaintiff alleges:
Frank Tufano believes that Defendant parties conspired
with court officials to have agreement to conduct a lawful
act accomplished through unlawful means.
Defendants met in secrecy to conspire against Frank
Tufano, whether it be Jeffrey Davis filing incorrectly (or
not 	at 	all) 	to 	the 	court 	proceedings 	to 	harm 	Frank
Tufano's 	chances 	in 	winning 	the 	case, 	or 	a 	judge
dismissing Frank Tufano's motions in favor of opposing
counsel.
The conspirators goal is to obtain a legal judgement
against 	Frank 	Tufano 	by 	means 	of 	fraud 	and 	legal
malpractice, a lawful objective through unlawful means.
Jeffrey Davis intentionally harmed Frank Tufano by not
notifying him of a default filing and permanently ruining
his status in the case.
4 Again, it bears noting that these allegations are precisely the types of
statements that the Southern District of New York enjoined from being
made in Saladino v. Tufano, et al., Civ. No. 7:20-CV-9346.
Case 3:25-cv-01400-RDM Document 6 Filed 02/03/26 Page 19 of 28

20
Judge Roman Stephen Nelson ignored the blatant legal
malpractice being committed against Frank Tufano by
both his own lawyer and Paul Saladino's counsel.
The conspirators have acted with malice and intent to
permanently injure Frank Tufano's personal life and
financial 	status 	without 	legitimate 	reason 	outside 	of
defending 	their 	fellow 	Secret 	Society 	brethren 	Paul
Saladino.
(Doc. 1, pp. 8-9). As already discussed, Plaintiff’s complaints regarding
Saladino v. Tufano, et al., Civ. No. 7:20-CV-9346, need to be raised in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
or the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In 3:CV-
25-262, Plaintiff brought a claim for civil conspiracy alleging that
“[a]ssociates of the case ‘Saladino, MD v. Frank Tufano No.
7:2020cv09346,’ agreed in secrecy to plan all decisions against Frank
Tufano in favor of Paul Saladino, MD.” (3:CV-25-262). In
recommending dismissal, Judge Bloom wrote:
To the extent Tufano is asserting a state law claim of civil
conspiracy, under Pennsylvania law, he must allege “(1)
a combination of two or more persons acting with a
common purpose to do an unlawful act or to do a lawful
act by unlawful means or for an unlawful purpose; (2) an
overt act done in pursuance of the common purpose; and
(3) actual legal damage.” Tegg Corp. v. Beckstrom Elec.
Case 3:25-cv-01400-RDM Document 6 Filed 02/03/26 Page 20 of 28

21
Co., 650 F. Supp. 2d 413,426 (W.D. Pa. 2008) (citing
Strickland v. Univ. of Scranton, 700 A.2d 979, 987–88
(Pa. 	Super. 	Ct. 	1997)). 	Here, 	other 	than 	vague 	and
conclusory allegations that Dr. Saladino and Attorney
Davis are members of the Illuminati, Tufano’s complaint
does not contain any allegations that these defendants
engaged 	in 	any 	overt 	act 	for 	an 	unlawful 	purpose.
Accordingly, any state law claim for civil conspiracy fails
and should be dismissed.
(3:25-CV-262, Doc. 5, pp. 8-9). Although Plaintiff bolstered his civil
conspiracy claim in this action, his allegations are still broad and
conclusory. “Applying Pennsylvania law, initially a plaintiff alleging a
civil conspiracy must plead particularized facts which address the
length of the conspiracy, its purpose, and any actions taken by the
alleged conspirators to achieve the goals of the conspiracy.” 	Kretulskie
v. Madison Nat'l Life Ins. Co., Inc., No. 3:18-CV-1357, 2019 WL
5866694, at *4 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 9, 2019), report and recommendation
adopted, No. 3:18-CV-1357, 2021 WL 2478441 (M.D. Pa. June 17, 2021)
Plaintiff’s speculations do not meet this pleading requirement.
Plaintiff alleges that “he believes” that the Defendants conspired
against him with court officials to win a judgment against him. The
only concrete allegation that Plaintiff makes is that his lawyer
Case 3:25-cv-01400-RDM Document 6 Filed 02/03/26 Page 21 of 28

22
committed legal malpractice by not informing him of “a default filing.”
It is not clear whether Plaintiff is alleging that he was not advised of a
motion for a default judgment or whether he was not advised on the
default judgment itself. In either event, he has not raised a claim for
legal malpractice.
e. 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 3:25-cv-01400-RDM Document 6 Filed 02/03/26 Page 22 of 28

23
(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. 	Graf v.
United States Army, No. 1:23-CV-02133, 2024 WL 579086, at *3 (M.D.
Pa. Jan. 9, 2024), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Graf v.
U.S. Army, No. 1:23-CV-2133, 2024 WL 4711980 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 29,
2024)(“[T]here is no private right of action for alleged violations of
criminal statutes. Courts have time and time again found that criminal
statutes do not create private causes of action.); Davis v. Warden
Lewisburg USP, 594 F. App’x 60, 61 n.3 (3d Cir. 2015) (“§ 242 is a
criminal statute, through which no private cause of action is created.”).
f. 	Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8
In this Court’s screening Order dated December 23, 2025, the
Plaintiff was advised:
Additionally, we observe the general rules of pleading
provided by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. 	As the
Third 	Circuit 	has 	explained, 	at 	its 	core, 	Rule 	8
fundamentally “requires that a complaint provide fair
notice of ‘what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon
which it rests.’” 	Garrett v. Wexford Health, 938 F.3d 69,
92 (3d Cir. 2019) (citing Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89,
Case 3:25-cv-01400-RDM Document 6 Filed 02/03/26 Page 23 of 28

24
at 83 (2007)). “Under Rule 8(a)(2), a complaint need only
contain ‘a short and plain statement of the claim showing
that the pleader is entitled to relief.’” 	Garrett, 938 F.3d
at 92 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)). 	While a complaint
filed by a pro se litigant is to be liberally construed, pro
se 	litigants must 	still allege 	sufficient 	facts in their
complaints 	to 	support 	a 	claim 	and 	must 	satisfy 	the
requirements of Rule 8. Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc.,
704 F.3d 239, 245 (3d Cir. 2013); Purisma v. City of
Philadelphia, 738 Fed. A’ppx 106, 107 (3d Cir. 2018).
Dismissal pursuant to Rule 8 is appropriate where a
defendant is left “to guess what of the many things
discussed 	constituted 	[a 	cause 	of 	action,” 	Binsack 	v.
Lackawanna County Prison, 438 F. App’x 158 (3d Cir.
2011) and where a complaint is “so confused, ambiguous,
vague, or otherwise unintelligible that its true substance,
if any, is well disguised” Simmons v. Abruzzo, 49 F.3d 83,
86 (3d Cir. 1995).
(Doc. 5, p. 4-5). Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint consistent
with the mandates of Rule 8. Plaintiff was advised that failure to file
an amended complaint may result in a recommendation that the action
be dismissed. (Id. at p. 7). The Complaint makes broad allegations
regarding conspiracies with “the Illuminati” and the Free Masons and
secret society members. Such allegations, founded on speculation would
leave a defendant “to guess what of the many things discussed
constituted a cause of action.” Binsack 438 F. App’x 158. “A district
Case 3:25-cv-01400-RDM Document 6 Filed 02/03/26 Page 24 of 28

25
court may sue sponte dismiss a complaint for failure to comply with
Rule 8, but dismissal ‘is usually reserved for those cases in which the
complaint is so confused, ambiguous, vague, or otherwise unintelligible
that its true substance, if any, is well disguised.’” Tillio v. Spiess, 441 F.
App'x 109, 110 (3d Cir. 2011) (quoting Simmons v. Abruzzo, 49 F.3d 83,
86 (2d Cir.1995)). While it appears that the “true substance” of
Plaintiff’s Complaint is an attack on the judgment entered in Saladino
v. Tufano, et al., Civ. No. 7:20-CV-9346, something that cannot be done
here, it is difficult to discern any cognizable cause of action in the
Complaint.
g. 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 liberally given
unless amendment would be inequitable or futile. Long v.
Wilson, 393 F.3d 390, 400 (3d Cir. 2004); Phillips, 515
Case 3:25-cv-01400-RDM Document 6 Filed 02/03/26 Page 25 of 28

26
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).
Here, however, Plaintiff was already advised of the deficiencies
with his Complaint and afforded with an opportunity to file an amended
pleading but chose not to do so. (See Doc. 5). Moreover, for the reasons
outlined above, amendment would be futile. Accordingly, it is
recommended that no further leave to amend be granted.
IV. 	Recommendation
For the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully recommended that this
case be dismissed, with prejudice.
Dated: February 3, 2026 	/s/ Leo A. Latella
Leo A. Latella
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:25-cv-01400-RDM Document 6 Filed 02/03/26 Page 26 of 28

27
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
FRANK TUFANO
Plaintiff,
v.
PAUL SALADINO, MD, ET AL.
Defendants.
CIVIL NO. 3:25-CV-1400
(Magistrate Judge Latella)
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the undersigned has entered
the foregoing Report and Recommendation dated February 3,
2026.
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
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,
Case 3:25-cv-01400-RDM Document 6 Filed 02/03/26 Page 27 of 28

28
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: February 3, 2026 	s/ Leo A. Latella
LEO A. LATELLA
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:25-cv-01400-RDM Document 6 Filed 02/03/26 Page 28 of 28