Monday’s filing for an extension to serve the defendants in his lawsuit against Kate Peter, Josh Abrams and Dale “Lackluster” Hiller was followed by the posting of a similar filing by DeCastro in his case against nearly everyone who was involved with his incarceration in Nevada last year.
Again, like with the previous case, DeCastro had previously received an extension to serve the defendants. In his previous motion for an extension, he wrote:
Here, Plaintiff’s delay in completing service was directly caused by severe PTSD and persistent brain fog resulting from wrongful incarceration, as well as financial devastation that left Plaintiff without adequate resources to pursue complex service requirements. These hardships were not the result of willful neglect or dilatory tactics, but rather circumstances directly attributable to the defendants’ alleged misconduct. Plaintiff’s medical condition only recently improved, enabling him to function normally and take the necessary legal steps to move this case forward. Additionally, the complexity of serving eight defendants across multiple agencies and capacities—including Clark County, judicial officers, prosecutors, law enforcement officers, and John Doe defendants—further supports a finding of good cause. Courts routinely grant extensions to pro se litigants facing such challenges, especially when the case involves multiple parties and procedural hurdles.
In Tuesday’s filing, DeCastro did not mention his brain cloud, financial devastation or his inability to serve eight defendants across multiple agencies and capacities. He instead blamed his lack of service on a single FOIA request he made in early October seeking the identities of the John Doe defendants that had gone unanswered.
“The sole reason Plaintiff has not served the John Doe bailiff defendants is that the government entity possessing their identifying information has refused to disclose it, in direct violation of Nevada law.
This is precisely the type of circumstance beyond a plaintiff’s control that justifies extension. See Gesualdi, 995 F. Supp. 2d at 1083 (noting good cause exists when plaintiff encounters obstacles in effecting service that are beyond his control); see also Espinoza v. United States, 52 F.3d 838, 841 (10th Cir. 1995) {holding good cause existed where process server encountered difficulties locating defendant).
Here, Plaintiff has done everything within his power: filed timely and proper public records requests, followed up repeatedly, and actively sought the information. The government’s unlawful stonewalling is not attributable to Plaintiff in any way.
Additionally, Plaintiff’s inability to access the CM/ECF system-a technical issue with the Court’s own electronic filing platform-has created additional procedural obstacles beyond Plaintiff’s control. While Plaintiff is working diligently to resolve this access issue, it has prevented the efficient electronic filing and case management that would otherwise be available.
Moreover, the irony of this situation should not escape the Court’s attention: the very government entities that Plaintiff alleges violated his constitutional rights are now obstructing his ability to pursue those claims by refusing to identify their own employees. This conduct, if allowed to stand, would effectively immunize governmental wrongdoers by preventing plaintiffs from ever learning who violated their rights.”
DeCastro provided no reasoning as to why he did not serve the named defendants in the lawsuit and asked the judge to issue an order compelling the State of Nevada to compel the release of the information he is seeking.
Upon the granting of his extension, DeCastro promised to:
- Serve all identified defendants (Clark County and the five named individual defendants) using the information and procedures confirmed through ongoing research.
- Upon receipt of the bailiff identifications from Clark County, immediately prepare and serve summons and complaint on the two John Doe bailiff defendants.
- File amended complaint substituting true names for John Doe designations.
- File proofs of service for all defendants.
- Complete all service within the extended deadline established by the Court.
- Continue working with the Clerk’s office to restore ECF access to facilitate efficient electronic filing going forward.
Update: Much like the previous case, DeCastro received a next day order granting his extension. However, it was not the complete victory he was seeking.
Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler ordered:
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler on 11/5/2025. Before this Court is 13 Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Time. Under Fed. R. Civ. P 4(m), the Court must grant an extension of time for service upon a showing of good cause for the failure to timely serve a defendant. Lemoge v. United States, 587 F.3d 1188, 1198 (9th Cir. 2009). This Court finds that Plaintiff has shown good cause for failure to serve because he has been diligent in attempting to serve all defendants. Townsel v. Contra Costa Cnty., Cal., 820 F.2d 319, 320 (9th Cir. 1987). Since Plaintiff has shown good cause, he will have an additional 60 days to serve his Complaint and Summons on the named defendants. As for the unnamed defendants, Plaintiff will have the opportunity through the regular discovery process to identify them. See Wakefield v. Thompson, 177 F.3d 1160, 1163 (9th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, ECF No. 13 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.(no image attached) (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF – KNH) (Entered: 11/05/2025)
This is an on-going news story.
