## Facts

- Jerry Doran was a paraplegic who used a wheelchair for mobility.
- Doran was a regular customer of Holiday Quality Foods grocery stores and stated that Holiday stores were his preferred grocery chain.
- Doran had no access problems at the Holiday store in his hometown of Cottonwood, California.
- The dispute concerned Holiday’s store in Paradise, California, about 70 miles from Cottonwood.
- Doran’s grandmother lived in Paradise, and Doran visited Paradise frequently to see her.
- On an initial visit to the Paradise Holiday store (more than a year before suit), Doran personally encountered architectural barriers that interfered with wheelchair access.
- About a year later, Doran returned to the Paradise store with his grandmother but did not enter because he believed the barriers remained.
- A few months after that second trip, Doran filed suit under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), seeking injunctive relief to require removal of the alleged barriers.
- The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California granted Holiday’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed Doran’s claims on two related grounds: (1) the action was untimely because Doran had not attempted to enter the Paradise store within the limitations period, and (2) Doran lacked standing because he had not encountered barriers within that period.
- Doran appealed. Although the case caption included other plaintiffs, Doran was the only appellant before the Ninth Circuit.

## Issues

1. Whether a disabled plaintiff seeking injunctive relief under ADA Title III must physically attempt to enter (or reenter) a facility during the limitations period to establish Article III injury-in-fact, or whether actual knowledge of barriers plus a desire to patronize the facility is enough when the plaintiff is deterred from entry.
2. Whether an ADA Title III claim for injunctive relief against alleged ongoing architectural barriers is time-barred solely because the plaintiff did not physically encounter the barriers during the limitations period.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held that when a disabled plaintiff has actual knowledge of illegal barriers at a public accommodation he desires to access, he need not make a “futile gesture” by attempting access again to show injury during the limitations period.
- The court held that, because the alleged ADA violation was ongoing and Doran sought injunctive relief, the action was not barred by the statute of limitations or defeated for lack of standing simply because Doran did not enter the store during the limitations period.

## Legal Principles

- ADA Title III does not require a disabled plaintiff with actual knowledge of access barriers to reattempt entry merely to create a fresh encounter with those barriers.
- Deterrence from visiting a public accommodation due to known, allegedly unlawful architectural barriers can be a present, concrete injury supporting Article III standing when the plaintiff alleges a real desire to patronize the facility.
- In a suit seeking injunctive relief to remedy an ongoing ADA violation, the continued existence of barriers and continued deterrence can defeat a limitations defense based only on the plaintiff’s failure to reenter the facility within the limitations period.
- A plaintiff’s frequent presence in the area of the public accommodation and stated intent to shop there can support the plausibility of future harm and the need for prospective relief.

## Conclusion

Pickern v. Holiday Quality Foods held that a wheelchair user who previously encountered and has actual knowledge of alleged architectural barriers at a grocery store he wants to use has standing to seek injunctive relief under ADA Title III even if he does not physically reenter the store during the limitations period, because the ADA does not require a “futile gesture” and ongoing deterrence from an alleged continuing violation can support both standing and timeliness.


Pickern v. Holiday Quality Foods, 293 F.3d 1133 (2002)