John Shapiro v. Joy Campanelli

D. Idaho

John Shapiro v. Joy Campanelli

DecidedJanuary 30, 2026

Docket1:25-cv-00701

StatusUnknown

This text of John Shapiro v. Joy Campanelli (John Shapiro v. Joy Campanelli) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Idaho primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

John Shapiro v. Joy Campanelli, (D. Idaho 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

JOHN SHAPIRO, Case No. 1:25-cv-00701-DCN Plaintiff, INITIAL REVIEW ORDER v.

JOY CAMPANELLI, Defendant.

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 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 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 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI