VI Update

USVI Public Records

A VI Update Project · Brian LoudenThe territory’s public record — kept public.

Elliott Jr. v. Ortiz et al

Collection
Courts
Sub-shelf
District Court of the Virgin Islands (federal)
Kind
Court Record
Island
St. Croix
Date
2024-06-12
Pages
2
Text
Native Text

DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX JOSEPH ELLIOT JR., ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) Civil Action No. 21-0291 ) FRANKIE ORTIZ, MOSES FRANCIS, ) NAEMAH DANIEL, AND LESTER ) MITCHELL,1 ) ) Defendants. ) __________________________________________) Appearances: Joseph Elliot Jr. Pro Se Venetia H. Velazquez, Esq. St. Croix, U.S.V.I. For Defendants ORDER THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Ruth Miller’s “Order and Report and Recommendation” (Dkt. No. 37); Defendants’ First “Motion to Dismiss For Lack of Jurisdiction Or, Alternatively, For Failure to State A Claim” (Dkt. No. 19); and Defendants’ Second “Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Or, Alternatively, for Failure to State a Claim” (Dkt. No. 54). For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, filed contemporaneously herewith, it is hereby ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Ruth Miller’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. …

Download the original document · Plain text (TXT) · Browse the archive · How this archive works

Original source: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-vid-1_21-cv-00291/pdf/USCOURTS-vid-1_21-cv-00291-1.pdf

SHA-256 cf4babfc2a94277641472594258c519fba21f51f9d6f67d77ba4f702e715a5ca

Re-using this document

two independent grounds: a work of the United States Government under 17 USC 105, AND a judicial opinion, which is an edict of government and uncopyrightable by anyone including the court that wrote it

Our description, tagging, arrangement, extracted text and machine transcripts are released under CC0 1.0. We assert nothing about the document itself.

Archive identifier LF-cf4babfc2a94

Document text

DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX JOSEPH ELLIOT JR., ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) Civil Action No. 21-0291 ) FRANKIE ORTIZ, MOSES FRANCIS, ) NAEMAH DANIEL, AND LESTER ) MITCHELL,1 ) ) Defendants. ) __________________________________________) Appearances: Joseph Elliot Jr. Pro Se Venetia H. Velazquez, Esq. St. Croix, U.S.V.I. For Defendants ORDER THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Magistrate Judge Ruth Miller’s “Order and Report and Recommendation” (Dkt. No. 37); Defendants’ First “Motion to Dismiss For Lack of Jurisdiction Or, Alternatively, For Failure to State A Claim” (Dkt. No. 19); and Defendants’ Second “Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Or, Alternatively, for Failure to State a Claim” (Dkt. No. 54). For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, filed contemporaneously herewith, it is hereby ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Ruth Miller’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 37) is ADOPTED IN PART AS MODIFIED AND REJECTED IN PART; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants in their official capacities are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and it is further 1 All Defendants are sued individually and in their official capacities within the Virgin Islands Police Department. (Dkt. No. 5 at 1-2). Case: 1:21-cv-00291-WAL-RM Document #: 97 Filed: 06/12/24 Page 1 of 2 2 ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Naemah Daniel and Lester Mitchell in their individual capacities are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Frankie Ortiz and Moses Francis in their individual capacities are allowed to PROCEED; and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have up to and including July 11, 2024 within which to file an amended complaint that addresses the deficiencies that the Court identified in its accompanying Memorandum Opinion; and it is further ORDERED that in addressing the deficiencies identified by the Court, Plaintiff is not granted leave to add claims beyond those already asserted in his First Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 5); and it is further ORDERED that Defendants’ First “Motion to Dismiss For Lack of Jurisdiction Or, Alternatively, For Failure to State A Claim” (Dkt. No. 19) is DENIED; and it is further ORDERED that Defendants’ Second “Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Or, Alternatively, for Failure to State a Claim” (Dkt. No. 54) is DENIED. SO ORDERED. Date: June 12, 2024 ________/s/________ WILMA A. LEWIS District Judge Case: 1:21-cv-00291-WAL-RM Document #: 97 Filed: 06/12/24 Page 2 of 2