Shapiro v. Campanelli

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
JOHN SHAPIRO, 	Case No. 1:25-cv-01827
Plaintiff, 	Hon. Robert J. Jonker
U.S. District Judge
v.
JOY CAMPANELLI,
Defendant.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
I. Introduction
Pro 	se 	Plaintiff 	John 	Shapiro 	filed 	this 	lawsuit 	against 	Defendant 	Joy
Campanelli. 	(ECF No. 1.) 	Plaintiff’s complaint, including signature, is one page in
length. 	Plaintiff 	alleges 	that 	Defendant 	conspired 	to 	violate 	his 	Fourteenth
Amendment rights. The complaint states as follows:
Case 1:25-cv-01827-RJJ-MV ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/26/25 Page 1
of 4

2
(Id.)
On December 22, 2025, Plaintiff was granted in forma pauperis status. (ECF
No. 	4.)
II. Standard of Law
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the court must dismiss any action brought in
forma pauperis if the action is (1) frivolous or malicious; (2) fails to state a claim on
which relief may be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such relief.
A complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it fails “to give the
defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.”
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355
U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). While a complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations,
Case 1:25-cv-01827-RJJ-MV ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/26/25 Page 2
of 4

3
a plaintiff’s allegations must include more than labels and conclusions. Id. The court
must determine whether the complaint contains “enough facts to state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when
the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). 	Although the plausibility standard is not equivalent to a
“probability requirement, . . . it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a
defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
In addition, the Court must read Plaintiff’s pro se complaint indulgently, see
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), and accept Plaintiff’s allegations as true,
unless they are clearly irrational or wholly incredible. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S.
25, 33 (1992).
III. 	Analysis
Federal Courts only have jurisdiction when the lawsuit raises a federal
question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or when the underlying action is within the Court’s
diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Although Plaintiff raises a Fourteenth
Amendment 	claim, 	he 	asserts 	no 	allegations 	that 	could 	support 	any 	claim.
Additionally, Plaintiff has failed to assert diversity jurisdiction. Moreover, a plaintiff
must plead a conspiracy with particularity, as vague and conclusory allegations
unsupported by material facts are insufficient. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 565 (recognizing
that allegations of conspiracy must be supported by allegations of fact that support a
“plausible suggestion of conspiracy,” not merely a “possible” one); Fieger v. Cox, 524
Case 1:25-cv-01827-RJJ-MV ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/26/25 Page 3
of 4

4
F.3d 770, 776 (6th Cir. 2008). Plaintiff’s complaint fails to properly assert jurisdiction
and fails to make allegations which could plausibly state a claim for relief.
IV. 	Recommendation
Accordingly, the undersigned respectfully recommends that the Court dismiss
the complaint because it is frivolous and fails to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted.
NOTICE TO PARTIES: Objections to this Report and Recommendation must
be served on opposing parties and filed with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen
(14) days of receipt of this Report and Recommendation. 	28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C);
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); W.D. Mich. LCivR 72.3(b). 	Failure to file timely objections
constitutes a waiver of any further right to appeal. United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d
947 (6th Cir. 1981). See also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).
Dated: 	December 26, 2025 	/s/ `ttÜàxÇ ixÜÅttà
MAARTEN VERMAAT
U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:25-cv-01827-RJJ-MV ECF No. 6, PageID.<pageID> Filed 12/26/25 Page 4
of 4