John Shapiro v. Joy Campanelli
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Andrew G. Schopler (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff John Shapiro moved to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) and filed a complaint alleging a Fourteenth Amendment conspiracy. The court granted the IFP motion and dismissed the complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim, allowing leave to amend.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (IFP) Granted“Shapiro’s IFP request is GRANTED” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard that a party need not be completely destitute to qualify for IFP status. The record recited (no assets, income barely covering expenses) supports the finding of inability to pay. |
Complaint Dismissed Without Prejudice“his complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice and with leave to amend” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the single-sentence allegation of a conspiracy violated the Fourteenth Amendment without specifying the acts, the co-conspirators, or the injury. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), such a complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Dismissing without prejudice is the standard remedy for a pro se plaintiff's initial failure to plead sufficient facts. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the statutory screening requirement for IFP cases. It accurately identifies that the complaint lacks the necessary factual allegations to state a claim under the Fourteenth Amendment. The citation to Blount v. Saul is appropriate for the IFP standard, and the reliance on Rodriguez v. Cook correctly frames the necessity of IFP status for fee waiver. The dismissal without prejudice is procedurally correct for a pro se plaintiff's initial filing.
Opinion
I UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 || John SHAPIRO, Case No.: 25-cv-3621-AGS-KSC Plant | ORDER GRANTING IFP MOTION 5 || V. (ECF 2) AND DISMISSING 6 || Joy CAMPANELLI, COMPLAINT 7 Defendant. 8 Plaintiff John Shapiro moves to proceed without paying the usual $405 in court fees. See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999) (“An action may proceed 10 despite failure to pay the filing fees only if the party is granted IFP [in forma pauperis] HM status.””); 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) (“filing fee of $350’); Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, District Court Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (eff. Dec. 1, 2023) (“Administrative fee” of “$55”). IS Shapiro has no assets and his $1,000 monthly income hardly covers his expenses (see ECF 2), so he need not pay the filing fees. See Blount v. Saul, No. 21-cv-0679-BLM, 2021 WL 1561453, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2021) (“[A] party need not be completely destitute 16 to proceed IFP.”). Next, the Court must screen the complaint and dismiss it if it is “frivolous” or “fails Is to state a claim.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The only allegation in Shapiro’s complaint is 19 that “Defendant conspired with others, which violated Fourteenth Amendment Rights.” 20 (ECF 1, at 1.) It’s unclear what the defendant conspired to do, why it’s unlawful, and how a1 it affected Shapiro. Simply put, his complaint does not state a claim. 22 Shapiro’s IFP request is GRANTED, and his complaint is DISMISSED without 23 prejudice and with leave to amend. Any amended complaint is due April 10, 2026. 24 Dated: March 10, 2026 25 Af — 26 Hon. Andrew G. Schopler 27 United States District Judge 28 ]