Ross v. Campanelli et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
KELLY ROSS
v. 	Case No. 26-cv-240-SM-TSM
JOY CAMPANELLI, GENINE D. EDWARDS,
AND BRIAN GOTTLIEB
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Self-represented Plaintiff, Kelly Ross, proceeding in forma pauperis, filed a Complaint
(Doc. No. 1) in this court. The Complaint is before the court for preliminary review pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and LR 4.3(d)(2).
PRELIMINARY REVIEW STANDARD
In conducting preliminary review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and LR 4.3(d)(2), the court
construes pro se pleadings liberally. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam).
The court may dismiss claims if the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, a defendant is immune
from the relief sought, the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief might be granted, or
the action is frivolous or malicious. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); LR 4.3(d)(2). To determine if a
pleading states a claim upon which relief can be granted, the court takes as true the facts asserted
in the Complaint, and inferences reasonably drawn from those facts, strips away the legal
conclusions, and considers whether the complaint states a claim that is plausible on its face.
Hernandez-Cuevas v. Taylor, 723 F.3d 91, 102-03 (1st Cir. 2013) (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678 (2009)).
DISCUSSION
The same named Plaintiff filed the same Complaint against the same Defendants asserting
the same (scant) facts and legal conclusions in more than twenty federal district courts as of the
Case 1:26-cv-00240-SM-TSM Document 3 Filed 04/02/26 Page 1 of 3

2
date of this Report and Recommendation.
Plaintiff put a Houston, Texas, return address on pleadings in an envelope that bears a New
York postmark. Plaintiff alleges that the three named Defendants, who are not identified in any
way beyond their names, “had ex parte communication.” No federal question is identified, and no
other facts are alleged. Plaintiff does not disclose the states of residence of Defendants.
Confronting a similarly vacuous Complaint, the court in the District of Rhode Island
dismissed the matter for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, without leave to amend:
The plaintiff bears the burden of showing jurisdiction, and here there has been no
real effort to do so. 	While the Court would ordinarily extend an opportunity to
amend, in this case it does not: there are too many defects and it is evident to the
Court that this is a “ghost” complaint, not brought by a real person who suffered a
real injury as a result of a real violation of federal or any other law.
Mar. 13, 2026 Text Order, Collins v. Fang, No. 1:26-cv-00152-MRD-PAS (D.R.I. Mar. 13, 2026)
(citations omitted).
And as to the same Complaint filed here and in more than twenty other courts, the court in
the Central District of Illinois stated the following, in dismissing that case with prejudice as
malicious:
Because Plaintiff has filed over twenty complaints with no factual allegations in courts
around the country with no connection to the parties, the Court concludes that her suit is
intended to harass rather than to legitimately seek relief. Further, as this Court has
discussed in other cases, this appears to be part of a larger trend of malicious litigation
instituted in the federal courts.
Ross v. Campanelli, No. 1:26-cv-01117-MMM-RLH (C.D. Ill. Mar. 30, 2026) (ECF No. 3) (citing
Sullivan v. Pacheco, No. 4:26-cv-04020-SLD-RLH, fn. 1 (C.D. Ill. Feb. 5, 2026); Williams v.
Jimenez, No. 4:26-cv-04003-SLD-RLH (C.D. Ill. Jan. 6, 2026)).
The Complaint here warrants the same disposition. 	The facts alleged fail to establish
Case 1:26-cv-00240-SM-TSM Document 3 Filed 04/02/26 Page 2 of 3

3
subject matter jurisdiction and would not be deemed sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Fed.
R. Civ. P. 8, or to state any claim upon which relief can be granted, even if jurisdiction could be
deemed to exist. 	The suit appears to be malicious and an abuse of process. 	Accordingly, the
district judge should dismiss the Complaint in its entirety, and then the Clerk’s Office should close
the case.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the District Judge should dismiss the Complaint in its entirety,
and then the Clerk’s Office should enter judgment and close the case. 	Any objections to this
Report and Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days of receipt of this notice. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). The objection period may be extended upon motion. Only those issues raised
in the written objections “‘are subject to review in the district court,’” and any issues “‘not
preserved by such objection are precluded on appeal.’” 	Santos-Santos v. Torres-Centeno, 842
F.3d 163, 168 (1st Cir. 2016) (citations omitted).
_________________________
Talesha L. Saint-Marc
United States Magistrate Judge
April 2, 2026
cc: 	Kelly Ross, pro se
Case 1:26-cv-00240-SM-TSM Document 3 Filed 04/02/26 Page 3 of 3