Davidson v. Holiday Inn Express Tacoma

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: September 8, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-05562
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 HARVEST CYLE DAVIDSON, CASE NO. C25-5562 BHS 8 Plaintiff, ORDER 9 v. 10 HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS TACOMA, et al., 11 Defendant. 12

13 THIS MATTER is before the Court on its review of pro se plaintiff Harvest 14 Davidson’s response, Dkt. 14, to the Court’s Order to Show Cause, Dkt. 13. The Court 15 ordered Davidson to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject 16 matter jurisdiction. 17 Davidson’s response proposes that he will pursue his state law personal 18 injury/negligence claim in state court, while pursuing his claim for injunctive relief under 19 the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and his § 1983 claim against the City of 20 Tacoma for “failure to enforce building codes” in this federal court. The Court agrees that 21 the negligence claim belongs in state court, but Davidson has not properly invoked this 22 1 Court’s jurisdiction and this case is DISMISSED without prejudice and without leave to 2 amend.

3 Davidson has not alleged any facts supporting his conclusory claim that the City 4 of Tacoma violated his constitutional rights by failing to enforce some building code 5 provision. As the Court’s prior order explained, the City is not a “person” for purposes of 6 § 1983. Davidson has not alleged even in conclusory fashion that the City had a policy, 7 custom, or practice that was the moving force behind some constitutional violation; he 8 has identified no constitutional violation and he has not identified any person that

9 violated his rights. His § 1983 claim against the City is not plausible and it is 10 DISMISSED. 11 Nor has Davidson articulated a plausible ADA claim. He now seeks an injunction 12 requiring Holiday Inn to update its facility to be ADA compliant. 13 A plaintiff has standing to sue only if they present a legitimate “case or

14 controversy,” meaning the issues are “definite and concrete, not hypothetical or abstract.” 15 Thomas v. Anchorage Equal Rts. Comm’n, 220 F.3d 1134, 1139 (9th Cir. 2000). To 16 establish Article III standing, he must show that he (1) suffered an injury in fact that is (2) 17 fairly traceable to the alleged conduct of the defendants, and that is (3) likely to be 18 redressed by a favorable decision. See Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–61

19 (1992). A plaintiff who faces a threat of future injury “has standing to sue if the 20 threatened injury is certainly impending, or there is a substantial risk” that the injury will 21 occur. In re Zappos.com, Inc., 888 F.3d 1020, 1024 (9th Cir. 2018) (citing Susan B. 22 Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. 149, 158 (2014)). 1 Davidson has no standing to assert such a claim. He asserts he lives in California 2 and he has not plausibly plead that he is even remotely likely to encounter ADA

3 deficiencies at the Tacoma Holiday Inn in the future. He certainly has not alleged facts 4 supporting the inference that he faces an imminent risk that can only be voided by this 5 lawsuit. An ADA compliance injunction would not remedy the injury of which he 6 complains. 7 Davidson’s federal § 1983 and ADA claims, and this case, are DISMISSED 8 without prejudice and without leave to amend. He may file his state law claims in state

9 court. The clerk shall close the case. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated this 8th day of September, 2025. A 12 13 BENJAMIN H. SETTLE 14 United States District Judge

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22