UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6625

TARUN KUMAR VYAS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CHAD MORRIS, Special Agent, V.S.P.; ALYCIA ELDRIDGE, Assistant 

Commonwealth’s Attorney; HEAD OF THE INTERNAL CRIMES AGAINST 

CHILDREN (I.C.A.C) DIVISION OF VSP; HEAD OF THE VIRGINIA STATE 

POLICE; MARSHA L. GARST, Commonwealth’s Attorney; CITY OF 

HARRISONBURG; COUNTY OF ROCKINGHAM; RANDALL LIFE, Detective, 

Harrisonburg Police Department; KELLY WARNER, a/k/a Kelley Warner, Chief of 

HPD; VICTORIA JENSEN, Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney; WELTHEREU, 

Detective, Harrisonburg Police Department; SEAN D. RANKIN, Magistrate; 

BRYAN HUTCHESON, Sheriff; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at 

Roanoke. Elizabeth Kay Dillon, District Judge. (7:23-cv-00216-EKD-JCH)

Submitted: May 20, 2024 Decided: June 7, 2024

Before GREGORY, HARRIS, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6625 Doc: 43 Filed: 06/07/2024 Pg: 1 of 4
2

Tarun Kumar Vyas, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6625 Doc: 43 Filed: 06/07/2024 Pg: 2 of 4
3

PER CURIAM:

Tarun Kumar Vyas appeals the district court’s orders dismissing without prejudice 

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and denying Vyas’ motion 

to reconsider. On appeal, Vyas argues the district court erred by dismissing his complaint 

after abstaining from exercising jurisdiction over the complaint pursuant to Younger v. 

Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971).1

We review for abuse of discretion both a district court’s decision to abstain under 

Younger and its denial of a motion to reconsider. Air Evac EMS, Inc. v. McVey, 37 F.4th 

89, 95 (4th Cir. 2022); Wicomico Nursing Home v. Padilla, 910 F.3d 739, 750 (4th Cir. 

2018). “[W]hen a suit” in which Younger abstention is appropriate “involves equitable or 

discretionary relief, a district court may either stay the suit in favor of state court action or 

‘decline to exercise jurisdiction altogether by dismissing the suit or remanding it to state 

court.’” Myles Lumber Co. v. CNA Fin. Corp., 233 F.3d 821, 823 (4th Cir. 2000) (quoting 

Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706, 721 (1996)) (alteration omitted). In an 

action for damages, however, “a district court may stay [the] action . . . but generally may 

not subject it to outright dismissal or remand.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). 

1 We note that the district court’s dismissal order says Vyas named only one 

magistrate as a defendant in this action, but the complaint appears to name two different 

magistrates as defendants. This omission does not affect our jurisdiction over this appeal 

because “the district court obviously was not trying to adjudicate fewer than all the pleaded 

claims.” Martin v. Duffy, 858 F.3d 239, 246 (4th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks 

omitted).

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6625 Doc: 43 Filed: 06/07/2024 Pg: 3 of 4
4

Vyas sought both damages and injunctive relief on his claims. Thus, assuming it 

was appropriate for the district court to abstain from ruling on Vyas’ claims, the court 

should have stayed, rather than dismissed, the complaint. See id. However, our review of 

the record also leads us to conclude that the district court did not err by dismissing Vyas’ 

claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-

1968 (RICO), as Vyas did not state a plausible claim for relief under § 1964(c). See 

Lawson v. Union Cnty. Clerk of Ct., 828 F.3d 239, 247 (4th Cir. 2016) (stating this court 

can affirm on any basis apparent from the record). 

We therefore affirm the district court’s dismissal of Vyas’ RICO claim, vacate the 

remainder of the dismissal order, and remand for further proceedings.2

 We deny Vyas’ 

pending motions. 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.

AFFIRMED IN PART,

VACATED IN PART, 

AND REMANDED

2 By this disposition, we express no opinion as to the merits of Vyas’ remaining 

claims. 

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6625 Doc: 43 Filed: 06/07/2024 Pg: 4 of 4