ST. CROIX — The U.S. Attorney’s Office has filed a motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by gubernatorial candidate Gustav James against the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, arguing the case should be thrown out for lack of jurisdiction, missing the statute of limitations, and duplicating a nearly identical lawsuit James filed two years earlier.
The motion, filed Monday in District Court on St. Croix, was submitted on behalf of the DEA, the Virgin Islands Police Department, and unnamed John and Jane Doe federal agents in Gustav A. James and Family v. Federal Drug Enforcement Administration (Civil Case No. 1:25-cv-23).
According to court filings, the case stems from an incident James alleges occurred at his property in Frederiksted on either July 13 or July 15, 2021 — the motion notes the date differs depending on which of James’ filings is consulted.
WTJX previously reported on James’ court appearances in the second lawsuit, but those proceedings provided few details about the underlying incident. After the U.S. Attorney’s Office’s motion to dismiss referenced James’ 2023 lawsuit over the same incident, WTJX reviewed that complaint and obtained additional details about the allegations.
James alleges that DEA agents and VIPD officers unlawfully entered his property using helicopters, trespassed, and engaged in a physical confrontation without lawful justification. According to the complaint, James had gone to investigate after noticing unfamiliar vehicles and individuals near his cousin’s property. He alleges he asked the individuals present to identify themselves, that they refused and were not wearing visible identification, and that he told them they were on private property without authorization. James, who had his phone out and was recording from time to time, primarily interacted with a large man, approximately 6 feet, 3 inches tall and 220 pounds. Since no identification was provided, James identified the individual in his lawsuit as “Big Man.”
James alleges that as he walked, asked questions, and recorded, “Big Man” aggressively approached him, pointed a finger in his face, and threatened to handcuff him if he continued following him. About 18 minutes later, James alleges that he walked toward a hovering helicopter that “military men” were rappelling from and approached “Big Man” and others, so “Big Man” asked him to leave. After James refused to leave his family land upon being addressed by an unidentified stranger, he claims that “Big Man” approached him along with another person described in the lawsuit as approximately 5 feet, 10 inches tall and 175 pounds, and identified as “Wing Man.” James alleges “Big Man” knocked his phone to the ground and grabbed his right wrist with both of his hands, while “Wing Man” grabbed his left arm.
James alleges he was then forcibly detained and handcuffed by the two agents, and that “Big Man” searched his pockets and removed his keys and a small pocketknife. He alleges he was forced to stand in the sun in handcuffs for approximately one hour before being permitted to sit in a shaded area, and that he suffered physical harm to his right wrist and left shoulder as well as psychological distress, including difficulty sleeping.
James’ complaint seeks compensatory damages for physical harm, emotional distress, and psychological abuse; punitive damages; restitution for losses; and an award to be determined by the trier of fact.
The government’s motion lays out a procedural history involving two separate lawsuits filed by James over the same underlying incident.
The first lawsuit, referred to in the filing as “James I” (Case No. 1:23-cv-41), began when James filed a Standard Form 95 administrative claim with the DEA on March 24, 2023 — nearly four months before filing suit — alleging damages from an incident on July 13, 2021, including destroyed plants and fruit trees, damage to a residential home and office building, and emotional distress, among other losses. He filed his complaint in Superior Court on July 7, 2023, and the United States removed the case to District Court on September 29, 2023. The government moved to dismiss that case on October 12, 2023, for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The court granted a motion to stay discovery in that case on August 29, 2024, and the case remains pending.
The second lawsuit, “James II” (Case No. 1:25-cv-23) — the subject of the current motion — was filed May 16, 2025, against the DEA, VIPD, and unnamed Doe defendants.
READ MORE: Former DPW Commissioner Gustav James sues DEA, VIPD for allegedly detaining him with excessive force
According to the motion, this complaint contains five paragraphs and does not mention exhaustion of administrative remedies. The court subsequently ordered James to properly serve the defendants and held a status conference on February 25, directing James to address how he had served each defendant, whether he had retained counsel, and why the case should not be dismissed for failure to comply with service rules and failure to prosecute. Summonses were issued March 3, and James filed proof of service via certified mail on March 12, the same day the court held another status conference.
READ MORE: Incomplete proof of service delays Gustav James’ suit against DEA, VIPD ahead of gubernatorial run
The government's motion raises three separate arguments for dismissal under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) — lack of subject matter jurisdiction, statute of limitations, and duplicative lawsuits.
The motion argues that a plaintiff bringing a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act must affirmatively plead that he exhausted administrative remedies before filing suit, and that James’ complaint fails to do so. The motion further notes that the SF-95 James filed in 2023 references an incident on July 13, 2021, while his complaint in James II references July 15, 2021 — meaning, according to the government, that no administrative claim was ever filed for the incident actually described in the current lawsuit.
The motion argues that FTCA claims must be presented to the relevant federal agency within two years of the incident, and that a lawsuit must follow within six months of a denial. Because James filed his complaint in this case on May 16, 2025 — well more than two years after the alleged July 2021 incident, and without a corresponding administrative claim for that date — the government argues the claim is time-barred.
The motion argues that James I and James II involve the same court, the same defendants, and substantially the same subject matter, which under Third Circuit precedent (Walton v. Eaton Corp. and McKenna v. City of Philadelphia) bars a plaintiff from maintaining two separate lawsuits simultaneously. The government acknowledges that James I is longer and includes James’ family as co-plaintiffs, while James II contains more limited allegations focused on excessive force and unlawful detention rather than property damage. However, the motion argues these differences are not significant enough to distinguish the two cases, noting that the incident’s location and the defendants named are essentially the same in both filings.
