Payton v. New Orleans Marriott et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JONATHAN PAYTON 	CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS 	NO: 25-1553
NEW ORLEANS MARRIOTT ET AL. 	SECTION “H”
ORDER AND REASONS
Before 	the 	Court 	are 	Defendants 	Marriott 	International, 	Inc. 	and
Starbucks Corporation’s Motion 	to 	Dismiss (Doc. 	9) and 	Defendant 	New
Orleans Marriott’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 13). For the following reasons, the
Motions are GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Jonathan Payton filed this pro se action on July 29, 2025.
Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges the following, in its entirety:
Starbucks employee refused to give a cup of water after placing an
[sic] 	breakfast 	order 	inside 	the 	coffee 	shop. 	After 	requesting
management, the Director of Security came down and accosted me
while pushing me outside the restaurant. He proceeded to state
that I wasn’t a customer and was trespassing. He continued by
calling the authorities, first the port authority police, and second
the New Orleans Police while making false claims that I was on
private property and didn’t purchase anything. I told security and
Case 2:25-cv-01553-JTM-KWR Document 17 Filed 01/15/26 Page 1 of 4

2
other Marriott employees that I was a customer and had proof via
receipt.1
Plaintiff indicates that the incident occurred on June 20, 2022. Plaintiff names
the New Orleans Marriott Warehouse Arts District; Marriott International
Inc.; and Starbucks Corporation as defendants.2
Defendants have filed two identical Motions to Dismiss, alleging that
Plaintiff’s claims are time-barred. Plaintiff has not opposed. The Court may
not, however, grant the instant Motion as unopposed. 	The Fifth 	Circuit
approaches 	the 	automatic 	grant 	of 	dispositive 	motions 	with 	considerable
aversion.3 Accordingly, the Court considers Defendants’ motions on their
merits.
LEGAL STANDARD
To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must plead
enough facts “to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.”4 A claim is
“plausible on its face” when the pleaded facts allow the court to “draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”5
A court must accept the complaint’s factual allegations as true and must “draw
1 Doc. 1.
2 Although Plaintiff’s Complaint does not indicate the basis for jurisdiction, it is
labeled as a “Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights.” Viewing Plaintiff’s claims in a light
most favorable to Plaintiff, the Court finds that it has federal question jurisdiction pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
3 See, e.g., Servicios Azucareros de Venezuela, C.A. v. John Deere Thibodeaux, Inc.,
702 F.3d 794, 806 (5th Cir. 2012); Johnson v. Pettiford, 442 F.3d 917, 918 (5th Cir. 2006) (per
curiam); John v. State of Louisiana (Bd. of Trs. for State Colls. and Univs.), 757 F.2d 698,
709 (5th Cir. 1985).
4 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 547 (2007)).
5 Id.
Case 2:25-cv-01553-JTM-KWR Document 17 Filed 01/15/26 Page 2 of 4

3
all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor.”6 The court need not, however,
accept as true legal conclusions couched as factual allegations.7 To be legally
sufficient, a complaint must establish more than a “sheer possibility” that the
plaintiff’s claims are true.8 If it is apparent from the face of the complaint that
an insurmountable bar to relief exists and the plaintiff is not entitled to relief,
the 	court 	must 	dismiss 	the 	claim.9 The 	court’s 	review 	is 	limited 	to 	the
complaint and any documents attached to the motion to dismiss that are
central to the claim and referenced by the complaint.10
LAW AND ANALYSIS
Although Plaintiff does not indicate a legal basis for his claims, the Court
assumes based on the title of the filing as a “Complaint for Violation of Civil
Rights” that Plaintiff intends to bring a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s claims are time-barred because the incident
at issue occurred on June 20, 2022 and Plaintiff did not file suit until July 29,
2025. “Section 1983 does not prescribe a statute of limitations. Instead, ‘[t]he
statute of limitations for a suit brought under § 1983 is determined by the
general statute of limitations governing personal injuries in the forum state.’”11
At the time of the incident, the limitations period for personal injury claims in
6 Lormand v. U.S. Unwired, Inc., 565 F.3d 228, 232 (5th Cir. 2009).
7 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
8 Id.
9 Lormand, 565 F.3d at 255–57.
10 Collins v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, 224 F.3d 496, 498 (5th Cir. 2000).
11 Heilman v. City of Beaumont, 638 F. App’x 363, 366 (5th Cir. 2016) (quoting
Piotrowski v. City of Hous., 237 F.3d 567, 576 (5th Cir. 2001)).
Case 2:25-cv-01553-JTM-KWR Document 17 Filed 01/15/26 Page 3 of 4

4
Louisiana was one year.12 “The prescriptive period commences when the
aggrieved party either has knowledge of the violation or notice of the facts
which, in the exercise of due diligence, would have led to actual knowledge
thereof.”13 As a direct participant in the June 20, 2022 incident, Plaintiff had
knowledge of the alleged violation on that date. Accordingly, Plaintiff had until
June 20, 2023 to file his claim. Plaintiff’s claim is therefore time-barred on its
face. Plaintiff has not offered any evidence suggesting otherwise.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Motions are GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s
claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
New Orleans, Louisiana this 15th day of January, 2026.
____________________________________
JANE TRICHE MILAZZO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
12 LA. CIV. CODE art. 3492 (repealed by Acts 2024, No. 423, § 2, eff. July 1, 2024); see
Brown v. Pouncy, 93 F.4th 331 (5th Cir. 2024) (holding that Louisiana’s residual one-year
prescriptive period for personal injury claims applied in § 1983 excessive force action against
sheriff’s deputies).
13 Matherne v. Houma Police Dep’t, No. CV 24-1561, 2026 WL 60361, at *5 (E.D. La.
Jan. 8, 2026).
Case 2:25-cv-01553-JTM-KWR Document 17 Filed 01/15/26 Page 4 of 4