Shapiro v. Campanelli

1
25-cv-3621-AGS-KSC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
John SHAPIRO,
Plaintiff,
v.
Joy CAMPANELLI,
Defendant.
Case No.: 25-cv-3621-AGS-KSC
ORDER GRANTING IFP MOTION
(ECF 2) AND DISMISSING
COMPLAINT
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
despite failure to pay the filing fees only if the party is granted IFP [in forma pauperis]
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”).
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
to proceed IFP.”).
Next, the Court must screen the complaint and dismiss it if it is “frivolous” or “fails
to state a claim.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The only allegation in Shapiro’s complaint is
that “Defendant conspired with others, which violated Fourteenth Amendment Rights.”
(ECF 1, at 1.) It’s unclear what the defendant conspired to do, why it’s unlawful, and how
it affected Shapiro. Simply put, his complaint does not state a claim.
Shapiro’s IFP request is GRANTED, and his complaint is DISMISSED without
prejudice and with leave to amend. Any amended complaint is due April 10, 2026.
Dated: March 10, 2026
___________________________
Hon. Andrew G. Schopler
United States District Judge
Case 3:25-cv-03621-AGS-KSC Document 3 Filed 03/10/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 1