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