NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 23a0481n.06

No. 22-4029

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

) TERRY LARSON, ) FILED Plaintiff-Appellant, ) Nov 21, 2023 ) KELLY L. STEPHENS, Clerk v. ) ) LASHANN EPPINGER, et al., ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED Defendants, ) STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR ) THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF KEITH J. FOLEY; JANICE DOUGLAS; ) OHIO ANDREW D. EDDY; ROGER WILSON; ) KAREN STANFORTH; JENNIFER ) OPINION BARRY, Mental Health Administrator 3; ) M. O’CALLAHAN; KAI ADAMS, ) ) Defendants-Appellees. ) )

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, No. 22-4029, Larson v. Eppinger, et al.

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-