Jonathan Payton v. Lamarque Ford

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana denied Jonathan Payton’s motion for appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). The court found that Payton had not shown exceptional circumstances or efforts to obtain private counsel and that his complaint appeared to lack a cognizable claim or subject-matter jurisdiction because the Federal Trade Commission Act does not provide a private right of action. The court ordered Payton to show cause by February 25, 2026, why the complaint should not be dismissed.

Holdings

1. A civil litigant has no constitutional right to court-appointed counsel, and indigence alone does not warrant appointment; the plaintiff must establish exceptional circumstances under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).
2. Appointment of counsel was not warranted because Payton failed to establish exceptional circumstances, failed to show that the case was particularly complex or that he could not adequately investigate and present it, and did not identify efforts to obtain private counsel.
3. The complaint appeared to fail to state a cognizable claim and to lack a basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction because 15 U.S.C. § 45 does not provide a private cause of action.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Payton established exceptional circumstances warranting appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).
2. Whether the complaint appeared to state a cognizable claim and establish federal subject matter jurisdiction sufficient to proceed past in forma pauperis screening.
3. Whether Payton's failure to respond to the prior show-cause order warranted immediate dismissal or instead justified allowing another opportunity to respond.

Disposition

other