IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

JOHN SHAPIRO,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 25-CV-00679-SEH-CDL

JOY CAMPANELLI,

Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Complaint. [ECF No. 1]. Plaintiff also filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. [ECF No. 2]. In reliance upon the representations and information set forth in Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court finds that the motion should be granted. Plaintiff is permitted to file and maintain this action to conclusion without prepayment of fees and costs.

(a). Because Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted, the Complaint is subject to screening under

(e). Lister v. Dep’t of Treasury,

(10th Cir. 2005). Because Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, this case is dismissed without prejudice. I. Discussion

(e)(2) allows a district court to dismiss a case if: (A) the allegation of poverty is untrue; or (B) the action or appeal-- (i) is frivolous or malicious;

(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. A pro se plaintiff’s complaint must be liberally construed. Hall v. Bellmon,

, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). However, liberal construction of a pro se plaintiff's allegations “does not relieve the plaintiff of the burden of alleging sufficient facts on which a recognized legal claim could be based.” Id. Notwithstanding a pro se plaintiff’s various mistakes or misunderstandings

of legal doctrines or procedural requirements, “if the court can reasonably read the pleadings to state a valid claim on which the plaintiff could prevail, it should do so despite the plaintiff’s failure to cite proper legal authority, his confusion of various legal theories, his poor syntax and sentence construction,

or his unfamiliarity with pleading requirements.” Id. “Dismissal of a pro se complaint for failure to state a claim is proper only where it is obvious that the plaintiff cannot prevail on the facts he has alleged and it would be futile to give him an opportunity to amend.” Kay v.

Bemis,

(10th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). The standard for dismissals under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is the same as dismissals under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Id. A complaint must contain

“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007). “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,

(2009). The Court need not accept “mere conclusions characterizing pleaded facts.” Bryson v. City of Edmond,

, 1390 (10th Cir. 1990); see also Twombly,

(“While a complaint attacked by a Rule

12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do”) (citation modified). Nor will the

Court “supply additional factual allegations to round out a plaintiff’s complaint or construct a legal theory on a plaintiff’s behalf.” Whitney v. New Mexico,

(10th Cir. 1997). Plaintiff’s Complaint is one page and contains just one allegation: “Upon

information and belief, Defendant conspired with others, which violated Fourteenth Amendment Rights.” [ECF No. 1 at 1]. The rest of the Complaint consists of a demand for $1 million and a certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. [Id.]. The Court liberally construes Plaintiff’s complaint as asserting a claim under

. Although Plaintiff identifies the Defendant in

the caption of the Complaint, he fails to allege other critical information including, but not limited to, how, when, and where Defendant violated his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. But even assuming Plaintiff intended to bring his claim under something other than

, his

lone allegation is exactly the kind of conclusory statement that fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Although Plaintiff identifies the type of claim he wishes to assert, he does not set forth any specific facts to support it. Because Plaintiff’s Complaint is devoid of any factual allegations that

would support a claim upon which relief may be granted, the Court dismisses this case without prejudice under

(e). II. Conclusion For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, [ECF No. 2], is GRANTED. However, Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may

be granted. This case is, therefore, DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE under

(e). A separate judgment will be filed separately. DATED this 18th day of December, 2025.

Sara E. Hill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE