Faye Gu v. Joyf Campanelli

Gu v. Campanelli, No. 4:25-CV-04175-ECS (D.S.D. Apr. 30, 2026) · United States District Court for the District of South Dakota, Southern Division · April 30, 2026 · No. 4:25-CV-04175-ECS

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of South Dakota grants Faye Gu’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The court dismisses her pro se RICO complaint without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim, declining to allow amendment because venue or personal jurisdiction was unclear and the same complaint had been filed in multiple jurisdictions.

Holdings

  1. Gu was sufficiently impoverished to proceed without prepaying the filing fee, so her motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis was granted.
  2. The complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and was dismissed without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
  3. The court declined to grant Gu an opportunity to amend the complaint.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Gu satisfied the financial eligibility requirements to proceed in forma pauperis.
  2. Whether the complaint stated a claim upon which relief could be granted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
  3. Whether the court should allow Gu to amend the complaint before dismissal.

Disposition

dismissed

Cases Cited (18)

  • Lee v. McDonald’s Corp., 231 F.3d 456, 459 (8th Cir. 2000)(followed)
  • Williams v. McKenzie, 834 F.2d 152, 154 (8th Cir. 1987)(followed)
  • Cross v. Gen. Motors Corp., 721 F.2d 1152, 1157 (8th Cir. 1983)(followed)
  • Martin-Trigona v. Stewart, 691 F.2d 856, 857 (8th Cir. 1982) (per curiam)(followed)
  • Key v. Does, 217 F. Supp. 3d 1006, 1007–08 (E.D. Ark. 2016)(followed)
  • Est. of Rosenberg v. Crandell, 56 F.3d 35, 36 (8th Cir. 1995)(followed)
  • Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)(followed)
  • Bediako v. Stein Mart, Inc., 354 F.3d 835, 839 (8th Cir. 2004)(followed)
  • Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1337 (8th Cir. 1985)(followed)
  • Ellis v. City of Minneapolis, 518 F. App’x 502, 504 (8th Cir. 2013) (per curiam)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 18.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…