Terry Larson v. Lashann Eppinger

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
File Name: 23a0481n.06
No. 22-4029
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
TERRY LARSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
LASHANN EPPINGER, et al.,
Defendants,
KEITH J. FOLEY; JANICE DOUGLAS;
ANDREW D. EDDY; ROGER WILSON;
KAREN STANFORTH; JENNIFER
BARRY, Mental Health Administrator 3;
M. O’CALLAHAN; KAI ADAMS,
Defendants-Appellees.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
OHIO
OPINION
Before: WHITE, STRANCH, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges.
JANE B. STRANCH, Circuit Judge. Terry Larson is a former Ohio inmate who filed
this lawsuit in September 2020 seeking declaratory and injunctive relief under the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The complaint sought a declaration that
Larson was a qualified individual with a disability under the Acts, an injunction ordering that he
be granted a single-man cell to accommodate his disability, and various other forms of equitable
relief. On October 20, 2022, the district court dismissed Larson’s complaint, and on November 8,
2022, it denied his motion to reconsider. Larson timely noted this appeal.
While this appeal was pending, it came to the court’s attention that Larson, who was
incarcerated at the time he filed the complaint, had been released on parole. See Terry Larson,

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 22-4029, Larson v. Eppinger, et al.
-2-
Ohio Dep’t of Rehab. & Corr., https://perma.cc/N5SP-NYTC. Because Larson’s suit seeks only
prospective relief, the Clerk issued an order directing Larson to show cause why the case should
not be dismissed as moot. On October 4, 2023, Larson’s counsel informed the court that, although
she had been unable to contact Larson, she had confirmed that he had been released on parole and
was no longer incarcerated. She also expressed her belief that the case was now moot.
Given this posture of the case, the Clerk entered an order on October 27, 2023, directing
the parties to provide their positions as to whether vacatur of the district court opinion was the
appropriate remedy. The parties responded on November 6, 2023. Larson, having now been in
contact with counsel, asked us to vacate the district court’s opinion, taking the position that vacatur
is indeed the proper remedy. Appellees did not object.
Accordingly, we VACATE the district court’s order and REMAND with instructions that
the case be dismissed as moot. United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36, 39 (1950). We
also DENY as moot Larson’s motion requesting oral argument, ECF No. 23.

-- 2 of 2 --