John Shapiro v. Joy Campanelli

• Court: District Court, N.D. Indiana
• Decided: December 19, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00564
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA HAMMOND DIVISION

JOHN SHAPIRO,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 2:25-CV-564-GSL-APR

JOY CAMPANELLI,

Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff John Shapiro, proceeding without the benefit of a lawyer, initiated this case and filed a motion asking to proceed in forma pauperis on December 16, 2025. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, [DE 2] is DENIED. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Complaint, [DE 1], is DISMISSED. DISCUSSION When presented with an IFP application filed by a non-prisoner, the district court makes two determinations: (1) whether the suit has sufficient merit; and (2) whether the plaintiff’s poverty level justifies IFP status. See 28 U.S.C. section 1915(e)(2). If a court finds that the suit lacks sufficient merit or that an inadequate showing of poverty exists, the court must deny the IFP petition. Smith v. Galipeau, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113411, at *1 (N.D. Ind. Jun. 27, 2024); see Smith-Bey v. Hospital Adm’r, 841 F.2d 751, 757 (7th Cir. 1988). A court must dismiss a case any time it determines that the suit is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). To determine whether the suit states a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), a court applies the same standard as it would to a motion to dismiss filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Smith, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113411, at *2 (citing Tate v. SCR Med. Transp., 809 F.3d 343, 345 (7th Cir. 2015)). To survive dismissal, 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) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Relevant to the

case at bar, “[a] document filed pro se is to be liberally construed, and a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In this case, Plaintiff claims that Defendant “conspired with others, which violated Fourteenth Amendment Rights …. [and therefore,] demands $1 [m]illion …” [DE 1]. The Complaint contains only the legal conclusion just mentioned, and Plaintiff’s signature. See [DE 1]. This is insufficient, even when construed liberally, to plausibly state a claim for relief. Therefore, since this suit lacks merit, the Court need not analyze Plaintiff’s financial position at this time.

CONCLUSION Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, [DE 2] is DENIED. Plaintiff’s Complaint, [DE 1], is DISMISSED. SO ORDERED. ENTERED: December 19, 2025

/s/ GRETCHEN S. LUND Judge United States District Court