John Shapiro v. Joy Campanelli

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA HAMMOND DIVISION JOHN SHAPIRO, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 2:25-CV-564-GSL-APR JOY CAMPANELLI, Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on the Motion for Permission to Appeal in Forma Pauperis [DE 5-6] filed by Plaintiff, John Shapiro, on January 5, 2026. For the reasons set for the below, the Motion [DE 5-6] is DENIED.

Background On December 16, 2025, Plaintiff filed his Complaint [DE 1] against Defendant, Joy Campaelli. The allegations of the Complaint, in its entirety, are as follows: 1. Upon information and belief, Defendant conspired with others, which violated Fourteenth Amendment Rights.

2. Plaintiff demands $1 Million against Defendant. [DE 1]. On the same date, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis [DE 2]. The Court denied that motion because, even when construed liberally and in Plaintiff’s favor, the Complaint fails to plausibly state a claim for relief. See [DE 3]. Since Plaintiff’s Complaint lacked merit, the Court did not address his financial position. See [Id.]. Plaintiff is now seeking to appeal this Court’s decision and in doing so, is requesting to proceed in forma pauperis. [DE 5-6].

Discussion Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)(3), a party who “was determined to be financially unable to obtain an adequate defense in a criminal case, may proceed on appeal in forma pauperis without further authorization” unless the district court certifies the appeal is not taken in good faith, or finds the party is not otherwise entitled to proceed in forma pauperis. See also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) (instructing that “[a]n appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith”). A motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis should be denied if no “reasonable person could suppose that the appeal has some merit.” Walker v. O’Brien, 216 F.3d 626, 632 (7th Cir. 2000).

Plaintiff’s Complaint, as described above, is a single legal conclusion devoid of any facts.

Accordingly, the claim that he is seeking to appeal is frivolous and without merit. Therefore, the Court finds that he is not entitled to an appeal in forma pauperis.

Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Permission to Appeal in Forma Pauperis [DE 5-6] is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: February 2, 2026 /s/ GRETCHEN S. LUND Judge United States District Court