Opinion
24-1698
12-09-2024
WILLIAM STRASBURG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TROOPER GREGORY WILSON, Maryland State Police Trooper; SGT. FORRESTER, Maryland State Police Sergeant; UNKNOWN RESPONSIBLE PARTY, Prosecutor for Baltimore County District Attorney, Defendants-Appellees.
William Strasburg, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: December 5, 2024
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Brendan A. Hurson, District Judge. (1:24-cv-01604-BAH)
William Strasburg, Appellant Pro Se.
Before Gregory and Richardson, Circuit Judges, and Floyd, Senior Circuit Judge.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM.
William Strasburg appeals the district court's order dismissing without prejudice his complaint raising various claims related to pending state charges against him for traffic violations. When his informal brief is liberally construed, Strasburg argues that the district court erred by abstaining from exercising jurisdiction pursuant to Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971).
We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by abstaining from ruling on Strasburg's claims. See Air Evac EMS, Inc. v. McVey, 37 F.4th 89, 95 (4th Cir. 2022) (stating standard of review). However, "when a party seeks not only injunctive and declaratory relief" on claims for which Younger abstention is appropriate, "but money damages as well, we have held that the appropriate course is to abstain by staying proceedings on monetary as well as injunctive and declaratory claims." Adams Outdoor Advert. Ltd. P'ship v. Beaufort County, 105 F.4th 554, 560 (4th Cir. 2024) (internal quotation marks omitted). Because Strasburg sought both damages and injunctive relief on his claims, the district should not have dismissed the complaint. Rather, it should have stayed the action pending the completion of the state court proceedings.
We therefore vacate the dismissal order and remand for further proceedings. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED