Shapiro v. Campanelli

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
• Decided: July 8, 2026
• Docket: 25-5183
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Appellate Case: 25-5183 Document: 8-1 Date Filed: 07/08/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT July 8, 2026 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court JOHN SHAPIRO,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. No. 25-5183 (D.C. No. 4:25-CV-00679-SEH-CDL) JOY CAMPANELLI, (N.D. Okla.)

Defendant - Appellee. _________________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________

Before BACHARACH, McHUGH, and CARSON, Circuit Judges. ** _________________________________

Plaintiff John Shapiro filed a three-paragraph complaint against Defendant Joy

Campanelli in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma

alleging only that “[u]pon information and belief, Defendant conspired with others,

which violated Fourteenth Amendment Rights.” Plaintiff demanded $1,000,000 and

made a Rule 11 certification. The district court liberally construed Plaintiff’s

complaint as asserting a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. But because Plaintiff’s

* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined **

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Appellate Case: 25-5183 Document: 8-1 Date Filed: 07/08/2026 Page: 2

complaint had no factual allegations to support a claim upon which relief may be

granted, the district court dismissed the case without prejudice under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e). Plaintiff filed a one-sentence appeal without argument or authority

stating, “District Court erred in dismissal before affording appellant an opportunity to

amend.”

“We review de novo the district court’s decision to dismiss an IFP complaint

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim.” Kay v. Bemis,

500 F.3d 1214, 1217 (10th Cir. 2007) (citing Perkins v. Kan. Dep’t of Corr., 165 F.3d

803, 806 (10th Cir. 1999)). Such a dismissal is proper “only where it is obvious that

the plaintiff cannot prevail on the facts he has alleged and it would be futile to give

him an opportunity to amend.” Id. (citing Curley v. Perry, 246 F.3d 1276, 1281 (10th

Cir. 2001)). We review the decision to grant leave to amend for abuse of discretion

but “outright refusal to grant the leave without any justifying reason appearing for the

denial is not an exercise of discretion.” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).

We construe pro se pleadings liberally. Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer,

425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005) (citing Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110

(10th Cir. 1991)).

The district court dismissed the complaint without giving Plaintiff leave to

amend. Although the district court cited the correct legal standard that dismissal is

proper only where it would be futile to give Plaintiff an opportunity to amend, it did

not explain why allowing Plaintiff leave to amend in this case would be futile.

2 Appellate Case: 25-5183 Document: 8-1 Date Filed: 07/08/2026 Page: 3

Undoubtedly Plaintiff’s complaint as written fails to state a claim to relief that

is plausible on its face. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).

Indeed, the one allegation in Plaintiff’s complaint fails to allege how, when, and

where Defendant violated his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. But the

district court failed to explain why amendment could not cure these deficiencies.

We repeatedly have emphasized that pro se litigants must follow our rules of

procedure, including Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28, which sets forth the

level of detail we expect parties to meet in their briefs. Garrett, 425 F.3d at 841

(quoting Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2001)). Indeed, we have

said that a pro se brief consisting of mere conclusory allegations with no citations to

the record or any legal authority for support does not preserve an issue for appeal.

Id. But here, Plaintiff’s one-sentence appeal clearly identified an appealable issue.

We admonish Plaintiff to carefully adhere to the Federal Rules of Appellate

Procedure and the Tenth Circuit Local Rules in all future filings.

On remand, the district court should either permit Plaintiff to amend his

complaint or explain why doing so would be futile.

REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Entered for the Court

Joel M. Carson III Circuit Judge