Ross v. Campanelli et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:26-CV-00254-KDB-WCM
KELLY ROSS,
Plaintiff,
v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
GENINE D. EDWARDS,
JOY CAMPANELLI, AND
BRIAN GOTTLIEB,
Defendants.
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
(“IFP”) (Doc. No. 2). The Court has carefully considered this motion and Plaintiff’s sworn
Application, which details his financial circumstances. Based on that examination, the Court finds
that Plaintiff’s reasonable expected expenses equal his expected income, and he does not otherwise
have sufficient assets with which to pay the filing fee. Accordingly, the Court will GRANT the
Motion for the limited purpose of conducting an initial review but DISMISS Plaintiff’s Complaint
after conducting that review.
I. Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP
“The federal in forma pauperis statute, enacted in 1892 and presently codified as 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915, is designed to ensure that indigent litigants have meaningful access to the federal courts.”
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) (quoting Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co.,
335 U.S. 331, 342–43 (1948)). To achieve its goal, the IFP statute “allows a litigant to commence
a civil or criminal action in federal court in forma pauperis by filing in good faith an affidavit
stating … that he is unable to pay the costs of a lawsuit.” Id. In his IFP motion, Plaintiff states that
Case 3:26-cv-00254-KDB-WCM Document 3 Filed 03/31/26 Page 1 of 3

2
his income equals his expenses and that he does not otherwise have assets that would allow him to
pay for these proceedings. See Doc. No. 2. Based on these representations, the Court will
conditionally grant the motion and permit Plaintiff to proceed IFP solely for the limited purposes
of this initial review.
II. Initial Review
Because Plaintiff is proceeding IFP, the Court must review the Complaint to determine
whether it is subject to dismissal on the grounds that it is “frivolous or malicious [or] fails to state
a claim on which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). In its frivolity review, this Court
must determine whether the Complaint raises an indisputably meritless legal theory or is founded
upon clearly baseless factual contentions, such as fantastic or delusional scenarios. Neitzke, 490
U.S. at 327–28. Furthermore, a pro se complaint must be construed liberally. Haines v. Kerner,
404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). However, the liberal construction requirement will not permit a district
court to ignore a clear failure to allege facts in the Complaint which set forth a claim that is
cognizable under federal law. Weller v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387 (4th Cir. 1990).
In the Complaint, Pro se Plaintiff Kelly Ross alleges only that Defendants “had an ex parte
communication,” the case is within federal jurisdiction and Plaintiff is entitled to damages. See
Doc. No. 1. No further context, facts or allegations are included in the Complaint. In the absence
of further facts or explanation, this case cannot proceed. Most simply put, none of the allegations
in Ross’ bare bones Complaint state a cognizable federal claim or any claim over which this Court
has jurisdiction. Therefore, the matter must be dismissed.
Case 3:26-cv-00254-KDB-WCM Document 3 Filed 03/31/26 Page 2 of 3

3
III. ORDER
NOW THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. Plaintiff’s IFP Motion (Doc. No. 2) is GRANTED;
2. Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice; and
3. The Clerk is directed to close this matter in accordance with this Order.
SO ORDERED ADJUDGED AND DECREED.
Signed: March 30, 2026
Case 3:26-cv-00254-KDB-WCM Document 3 Filed 03/31/26 Page 3 of 3