Shapiro v. Campanelli

MEMORANDUM D ECISION AND ORDER - 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
JOHN SHAPIRO,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOY CAMPANELLI,
Defendant.
Case No. 1:25-cv-00701-DCN
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER
I. INTRODUCTION
Before the Court is Plaintiff John Shapiro’s Complaint (Dkt. 2) and Application for
Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Dkt. 1). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the Court must
review Shapiro’s request to determine whether he is entitled to proceed in forma pauperis—
which permits civil litigants to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee or to pay the
filing fee over time. Rice v. City of Boise City, 2013 WL 6385657, at *1 (D. Idaho Dec. 6,
2013). The Court must also undertake an initial review of Shapiro’s Complaint to ensure it
meets the minimum required standards. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
For the reasons below, the Court DENIES Shapiro’s application to proceed in forma
pauperis. Additionally, after a review of the Complaint, the Court must DISMISS the case
WITH PREJUDICE.
II. BACKGROUND
Shapiro is suing Joy Campanelli for alleged violations of his constitutional rights.
See generally Dkt. 2. Shapiro alleges Campanelli conspired with others and violated his
Case 1:25-cv-00701-DCN Document 5 Filed 01/30/26 Page 1 of 6

MEMORANDUM D ECISION AND ORDER - 2
Fourteenth Amendment rights. He demands one (1) million dollars from Campanelli as
damages for the alleged constitutional violations. Shapiro does not provide any factual
information in his complaint, however, he seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, citing his
income and monthly expenses are the same amount. Dkt. 1.
III. LEGAL STANDARD
A. Application for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis
“[A]ny court of the United States may authorize the commencement, prosecution or
defense of any suit, action or proceeding, civil or criminal, . . . without prepayment of fees
or security therefor.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). In order to qualify for in forma pauperis
status, a plaintiff must submit an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets he
possesses and indicates that he is unable to pay the fee required. The affidavit is sufficient
if it states that the plaintiff, because of his poverty, cannot “pay or give security for the
costs” and still be able to provide for himself and dependents “with necessities of life.”
Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Numours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948). The affidavit must
“state the facts as to affiant’s poverty with some particularity, definiteness and certainty.”
United States v. McQuade, 647 F.2d 938, 940 (9th Cir. 1981) (internal quotation marks
omitted) (quoting Jefferson v. United States, 277 F.2d 723, 725 (9th Cir. 1960)).
B. Sufficiency of Complaint
The Court is required to screen complaints that are brought by litigants who seek in
forma pauperis status. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122,
1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[S]ection 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis complaints, not
just those filed by prisoners”). The Court must dismiss a plaintiff’s complaint, or any
Case 1:25-cv-00701-DCN Document 5 Filed 01/30/26 Page 2 of 6

MEMORANDUM D ECISION AND ORDER - 3
portion thereof, if it: (1) is frivolous or malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i-iii). To state a claim upon which relief can be
granted, a plaintiff’s complaint must include facts sufficient to show a plausible claim for
relief. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-78 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly. 550 U.S. 544 (2007)). The plaintiff cannot simply recite the elements of a cause
of action and try to support that recitation with mere conclusory statements. Id. at 678.
During this initial review, courts generally construe pro se pleadings liberally,
giving pro se plaintiffs the benefit of any doubt. See Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443,447
(9th Cir. 2000). Even so, plaintiffs—whether represented or not—have the burden of
articulating their claims clearly and alleging facts sufficient to support review of each
claim. Pena v. Gardner, 976 F.2d 469, 471 (9th Cir. 1992). Additionally, if amending the
complaint would remedy the deficiencies, plaintiffs should be notified and provided an
opportunity to amend. See Jackson v. Carey, 353 F.3d 750, 758 (9th Cir. 2003).
IV. ANALYSIS
A. Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis
The 	Court 	has 	reviewed 	Shapiro’s 	Application 	and 	finds 	that 	it 	lacks 	the
“particularity, definiteness, and certainty” required to establish his poverty. Shapiro
utilized the Administrative Office of the Court’s generic in forma pauperis form, but he
provided such sparse information that there is almost no insight into his actual financial
situation. Dkt. 1. The only income Shapiro claims is $1,000 per month in wages but
indicated he “CANNOT STATE” the name and address of his employer. Id. He claims he
Case 1:25-cv-00701-DCN Document 5 Filed 01/30/26 Page 3 of 6

MEMORANDUM D ECISION AND ORDER - 4
has $20 in cash or a checking account, no assets, and no outstanding debts. Id. Shapiro
claims expenses totaling $1,000 a month ($800 in food, $200 in transportation). Id.
The Court has serious concerns about the veracity of Shapiro’s application due to
its sheer impracticability, which has left the Court with more questions than answers.
Shapiro does not state whether he pays housing expenses such as rent and utilities. He lists
“NA” in debts or financial obligations and claims he does not receive any income from any
other sources. Put bluntly, it is unclear how Shapiro is surviving when he earns $1,000 each
month from an employer that he cannot state, and spends $1,000 each month on food and
transportation, not including basic necessities of life such as housing, without any kind of
additional income or assistance.
The Court does not mean to be insensitive to Shapiro’s circumstances. But without
more information clarifying what support Shapiro has received, it is unable to grant his
request to proceed in forma pauperis at this time. Accordingly, his Motion is DENIED.
What’s more, as explained below, the Court must dismiss Shapiro’s case with prejudice
because it is frivolous. Because of that, the Court will not grant Shapiro leave to amend his
in forma pauperis request.
B. Sufficiency of Complaint
Shapiro’s Complaint alleges that, based on information and belief, Campanelli
conspired with others and those actions violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights. Dkt. 2.
Shapiro demands one (1) million dollars from Campanelli. Id. Shapiro’s Complaint does
not provide any information to support his claim.
Shapiro’s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because
Case 1:25-cv-00701-DCN Document 5 Filed 01/30/26 Page 4 of 6

MEMORANDUM D ECISION AND ORDER - 5
it does not contain any detailed facts illustrating a plausible cause of action. Shapiro failed
to provide any information regarding how Campanelli allegedly conspired with others, and
while Shapiro claims Campanelli violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights, he fails to
provide any details about events that would constitute a violation. It is not the Court’s
responsibility to investigate generalized and unsubstantiated grievances; it is Shapiro’s
responsibility to provide facts and specific legal claims the Court can review for
plausibility. Without more details about what allegedly transpired between Shapiro and
Campanelli, the Court cannot analyze whether there has been a plausible violation of his
Fourteenth Amendment rights.1
Moreover, this is not Shapiro’s first rodeo. He has filed multiple lawsuits across the
county.2 Each is virtually identical to the instant action, and most have been dismissed as
frivolous.
Under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), a district court may dismiss an action if it finds the filing
is frivolous or malicious. Duplicative lawsuits filed by a plaintiff proceeding in forma
1 Shapiro’s Complaint is, quite literally, two sentences long. Dkt. 2, at 1.
2 See, e.g., Shapiro v. Campanelli, Case No. 6:25-cv-02340-AA (D. Oregon Jan 14, 2026); Case No. 1:24-
cv-02535, at 3 & n.1 (S.D. Ind. Dec. 16, 2025); Case No. 5:25-cv-143 (W.D. Va. Dec. 11, 2025); Case No.
1:25-cv-530 (D.N.H. Dec. 12, 2025); Case No. 3:25-cv-354 (N.D. Miss. Dec. 12, 2025); Case No. 3:25-cv-
1025 (W.D. Wis. Dec. 12, 2025); Case No. 2:25-cv-1220 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 15, 2025); Case No. 1:25-cv-373
(E.D. Tenn. Dec. 15, 2025); Case No. 2:25-cv-13861 (D.S.C. Dec. 15, 2025); Case No. 5:25-cv-1517 (W.D.
Okla. Dec. 15, 2025); Case No. 3:25-cv-3395 (C.D. Ill. Dec. 15, 2025); Case No. 1:25-cv-671 (D.R.I. Dec.
15, 2025); Case No. 3:25-cv-735 (D. Nev. Dec. 15, 2025); Case No. 1:25-cv-737 (S.D.W.V. Dec. 15, 2025);
Case No. 2:25-cv-159 (N.D. Ga. Dec. 16, 2025)); Case No. 3:25-cv-30209 (D. Mass. Dec. 12, 2025); 1:25-
cv-00294 (D. Wy. Dec. 15, 2025); 4:25-cv-679 (N.D. Okla. Dec. 15, 2025); 4:25-cv-01416 (N.D. Tex. Dec.
15, 2025); 3:25-cv-00199 (M.D. Ga. Dec. 15, 2025); 8:25-cv-00722 (D. Neb. Dec. 16, 2025); 1:25-cv-1252
(D.N.M. Dec. 16, 2025); 2:25-cv-02139 (N.D. Ala. Dec. 16, 2025); 2:25-cv-00159 (S.D. Ga. Dec. 16,
2025); 5:25-cv-04122 (D. Kan. Dec. 16, 2025); 3:25-cv-00414 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 16, 2025); 3:25-cv-06134
(W.D. Wash. Dec. 16, 2025); 3:25-cv-01452 (M.D. Tenn. Dec. 16, 2025); 1:25-cv-00045 (D. Guam Dec.
17, 2025).
Case 1:25-cv-00701-DCN Document 5 Filed 01/30/26 Page 5 of 6

MEMORANDUM D ECISION AND ORDER - 6
pauperis may qualify as frivolous or malicious. See Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103,
1105 n. 2 (9th Cir.1995).
Because 	Shapiro 	has 	filed 	multiple 	duplicative 	lawsuits, 	each 	lacking 	any
substantive claims or facts, the Court finds the instant action must likewise be dismissed
with prejudice as frivolous.3
V. CONCLUSION
Shapiro has not sufficiently proved his indigency and the Court will not waive the
filing fee in this case. Additionally, the Court finds that Shapiro’s Complaint is frivolous
and, therefore, DISMISSES the Complaint WITH PREJUDICE. Shapiro may not amend
his Complaint or his in forma pauperis application.
VI. ORDER
1. 	Shapiro’s Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Dkt. 1) is DENIED.
2. 	Shapiro’s Complaint (Dkt. 2) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
3. 	This case is CLOSED.
DATED: January 30, 2026
_________________________
David C. Nye
Chief U.S. District Court Judge
3 To the extent it becomes necessary, the Court would also note any appeal of this Order would not be taken
in good faith. 28 U.S.C § 1915(a)(3). See Wooten v. D.C. Metro. Police Dep’t, 129 F.3d 206 (D.C. Cir. 1997)
(“The purpose of § 1915(a)(3) is not simply to deter, but to preclude prisoners (and nonprisoners) from
taking appeals in forma pauperis when they attempt to do so in bad faith.”).
Case 1:25-cv-00701-DCN Document 5 Filed 01/30/26 Page 6 of 6