John Shapiro v. Joy Campanelli

[7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [10] 11 JOHN SHAPIRO, Case No. 1:25-cv-01859-JLT-SKO 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION THAT PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT BE 13 v. DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND 14 JOY CAMPANELLI, (Doc. 1) 15 Defendant. TWENTY-ONE DAY DEADLINE [16] 17 Plaintiff John Shapiro is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action. Plaintiff 18 filed a complaint on December 15, 2025. (Doc. 1). Upon review, the undersigned concludes that 19 the allegations are frivolous and fail to state a claim and recommends dismissing Plaintiff’s 20 complaint without leave to amend. 21 I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT 22 In cases where the plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court is required to screen 23 each case and shall dismiss the case at any time if the Court determines that the allegation of poverty 24 is untrue, or that the action or appeal is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which 25 relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. [26] 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2). See Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (dismissal required of 27 in forma pauperis proceedings which seek monetary relief from immune defendants); Cato v. 28 United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995) (district court has discretion to dismiss in forma 1 pauperis complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 2 1998) (affirming sua sponte dismissal for failure to state a claim). If the Court determines that a 3 complaint fails to state a claim, leave to amend may be granted to the extent that the deficiencies 4 of the complaint can be cured by amendment. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) 5 (en banc). 6 In determining whether a complaint fails to state a claim, the Court uses the same pleading 7 standard used under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). A complaint must contain “a short and 8 plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). 9 Detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause 10 of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 11 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). A complaint 12 may be dismissed as a matter of law for failure to state a claim for two reasons: (1) lack of a 13 cognizable legal theory; or (2) insufficient facts under a cognizable legal theory. See Balistreri v. 14 Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). Plaintiff must allege a minimum factual 15 and legal basis for each claim that is sufficient to give each defendant fair notice of what the 16 plaintiff’s claims are and the grounds upon which they rest. See, e.g., Brazil v. U.S. Dep’t of the 17 Navy, 66 F.3d 193 , 199 (9th Cir. 1995); McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991). 18 In reviewing the pro se complaint, the Court is to liberally construe the pleadings and accept 19 as true all factual allegations contained in the complaint. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 , 94 20 (2007). Although a court must accept as true all factual allegations contained in a complaint, a 21 court need not accept a plaintiff’s legal conclusions as true. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 . “[A] complaint 22 [that] pleads facts that are ‘merely consistent with’ a defendant’s liability . . . ‘stops short of the 23 line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. 24 at 557 ). 25 II. SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 26 Plaintiff’s complaint is one page and, in full, states, “1. Upon information and belief, 27 Defendant conspired with others, which violated Fourteenth Amendment Rights. 2. Plaintiff 28 demands $1 Million against Defendant.” (Doc. 1). 1 III. DISCUSSION 2 For the reasons discussed below, the Court finds that the complaint does not state any 3 cognizable claims and is frivolous. 4 A. Rule 8 5 Rule 8 requires that a complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim 6 showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Plaintiff’s complaint violates 7 Rule 8 because it does not contain a short and plain statement of the claim demonstrating that he is 8 entitled to relief. 9 Although the Federal Rules use a flexible pleading policy, Plaintiff is required to give fair 10 notice to a defendant of the basis of the claim and must allege facts that support the elements of the 11 claim plainly and succinctly. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 . Here, Plaintiff’s complaint includes 12 no factual allegations. (Doc. 1). But a complaint is required to contain sufficient factual content 13 for the court to draw the reasonable conclusion that the defendant is liable for the misconduct 14 alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 . Without any coherent factual allegations, it is impossible to 15 determine whether what Plaintiff is alleging has occurred or how the defendant is alleged to be 16 responsible, and therefore Plaintiff falls short of the pleading requirements as set forth in Rule 8. 17 Additionally, Rule 8 requires that the complaint must state a demand for the relief sought. Fed. R. 18 Civ. P. 8(a)(3). But here, the nature of the relief requested in the complaint is wholly unclear to the 19 Court. (See Doc. 1 at 6.) 20 In sum, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to conform to the requirements of Rule 8. 21 B. Frivolousness 22 Apart from Plaintiff’s failure to comply with Rule 8, his complaint is frivolous. A complaint 23 will be considered frivolous, and therefore subject to dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B), “where it 24 lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Nietzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); see 25 also Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 , 32–33 (1992) (“At the same time that it sought to lower 26 judicial access barriers to the indigent, however, Congress recognized that ‘a litigant whose filing 27 fees and court costs are assumed by the public, unlike a paying litigant, lacks an economic incentive 28 to refrain from filing frivolous, malicious, or repetitive lawsuits.’”). While a federal court cannot 1 properly sua sponte dismiss an action commenced in forma pauperis if the facts alleged in the 2 complaint are merely “unlikely,” Denton, 504 U.S. at 33 , a court must dismiss a complaint as 3 frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions 4 are clearly baseless, see Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327 ; 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e). Plaintiff’s complaint is 5 frivolous under this legal standard. 6 Plaintiff does not set forth any facts supporting his claim, and public court records show 7 that Plaintiff has filed his one-page complaint devoid of any factual allegations against the same 8 defendant in several dozen other federal lawsuits this week.1 See Shapiro v. Campanelli, No. 1:249 cv-02535, at 3 & n.1 (S.D. Ind. Dec. 16, 2025) (citing Case No. 8:25-cv-4090 (D. Md. Dec. 11, 10 2025); Case No. 5:25-cv-143 (W.D. Va. Dec. 11, 2025); Case No. 1:25-cv-530 (D.N.H. Dec. 12, 11 2025); Case No. 3:25-cv-354 (N.D. Miss. Dec. 12, 2025); Case No. 3:25-cv-1025 (W.D. Wis. Dec. 12 12, 2025); Case No. 1:25-cv-701 (D. Idaho Dec. 15, 2025); Case No. 2:25-cv-1220 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 13 15, 2025); Case No. 1:25-cv-373 (E.D. Tenn. Dec. 15, 2025); Case No. 2:25-cv-13861 (D.S.C. 14 Dec. 15, 2025); Case No. 5:25-cv-1517 (W.D. Okla. Dec. 15, 2025); Case No. 3:25-cv-3395 (C.D. 15 Ill. Dec. 15, 2025 ); Case No. 1:25-cv-671 (D.R.I. Dec. 15, 2025); Case No. 3:25-cv-735 (D. Nev. 16 Dec. 15, 2025); Case No. 1:25-cv-737 (S.D.W.V. Dec. 15, 2025); Case No. 2:25-cv-159 (N.D. Ga. 17 Dec. 16, 2025)); see also 3:25-cv-30209 (D. Mass. Dec. 12, 2025); 1:25-cv-00294 (D. Wy. Dec. 18 15, 2025); 4:25-cv-679 (N.D. Okla. Dec. 15, 2025); 4:25-cv-01416 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 15, 2025); 19 3:25-cv-00199 (M.D. Ga. Dec. 15, 2025); 8:25-cv-00722 (D. Neb. Dec. 16, 2025); 1:25-cv-1252 20 (D.N.M. Dec. 16, 2025); 2:25-cv-02139 (N.D. Ala. Dec. 16, 2025); 2:25-cv-00159 (S.D. Ga. Dec. 21 16, 2025); 5:25-cv-04122 (D. Kan. Dec. 16, 2025); 3:25-cv-00414 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 16, 2025); 6:2522 cv-02340 (D. Or. Dec. 16, 2025); 3:25-cv-06134 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 16, 2025); 3:25-cv-01452 23 (M.D. Tenn. Dec. 16, 2025); 1:25-cv-00045 (D. Guam Dec. 17, 2025). Because the undersigned 24 finds that Plaintiff’s complaint is “indisputably meritless,” lacking in any factual contentions 25 supporting his claim, and mirrors numerous cases filed in federal courts across the country over the 26 course of the last week, the undersigned recommends that this case be dismissed as frivolous and 27 1 A court may take judicial notice of court filings from other state or federal court proceedings. See Duckett v. Godinez, 67 F.3d 734, 741 (9th Cir. 1995); see also Reyn's Pasta Bella, LLC v. Visa USA, Inc., 442 F.3d 741 , 746 n. 6 (9th Cir. 28 2006). 1 that Plaintiff not be given leave to amend.2 See Levy v. Subway, No. 2:13-CV-1269 GEB DAD, [2] 2013 WL 5493390 , at *3 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2013) 3 IV. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 4 For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff’s complaint be 5 dismissed, without leave to amend. Although this is Plaintiff’s first complaint, it is clear from the 6 face of the complaint that it is frivolous.3 7 Accordingly, based on the foregoing, IT IS RECOMMENDED that: 8 1. Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed, without leave to amend; and 9 2. The Clerk of the Court be instructed to close the case. 10 These findings and recommendation will be submitted to the United States district judge 11 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1). Within twenty-one 12 (21) days after being served with these findings and recommendation, Plaintiff may file written 13 objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 14 Findings and Recommendation.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the 15 specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834 , 16 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). [17] IT IS SO ORDERED. [18] 19 Dated: December 18, 2025 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE [26] 2 If a case is classified as frivolous, “there is, by definition, no merit to the underlying action and so no reason to grant 27 leave to amend.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 , 1127 n. 8 (9th Cir. 2000). 3 If Plaintiff believes that he can cure this deficiency in an amended complaint, he may file objections to these Findings 28 and Recommendation explaining how he would amend his complaint to state a cognizable claim.