Monday saw the delivery of an early Christmas present to prolific Constitutional Law Scholar Jose “Chille” DeCastro as defendants Clark County, Nevada, and Clark County Deputy District Attorney Agnes Botelho answered DeCastro’s lawsuit with a motion to dismiss.
Botelho prosecuted DeCastro in 2024 on charges of interfering with a traffic stop and obstructing an officer in 2023. Clark County was where the incident happened and where DeCastro was held for four months in 2024 after the conviction.
Ultimately, the conviction was overturned on appeal and DeCastro vowed to punish everyone who had been involved in both his original trial and his appeal, including both judges in the cases.
DeCastro had filed on Friday for the ability to serve the defendants in the case via certified mail as he was unable to serve the defendants in their personal capacities through official channels.
The motion to dismiss by Botelho and Clark County came as a surprise as neither had been officially served by the diminutive YouTuber and this was their first acknowledgment of his lawsuit.
Botelho has been charged by DeCastro with:
- Initial Reasonable Recommendation: At the original sentencing hearing on March 17, 2024, Deputy District Attorney Agnes Botelho recommended a suspended sentence and a fine, consistent with standard practice for first-time misdemeanor obstruction cases.
- Vindictive Reversal Without Justification: Approximately one week later, at the appeal bond hearing, Prosecutor Botelho completely reversed her position and recommended that Plaintiff remain incarcerated, despite no new facts, evidence, or legal authority supporting the harsher position.
- Botelho failed to correct known false testimony, violating Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
In her portion of the motion to dismiss, Botelho’s attorney argued that these activities are covered by the absolute immunity given to prosecutors to prevent harassing litigation that would divert them from their official duties.
They further argue that Botelho could not have “failed” to correct “known false testimony” during the trial as there was no finding of either materiality or falsity in the statement in question.
Furthermore, according to her defense, DeCastro has shown no way around her complete prosecutorial immunity, nor why she would be able to be sued in her personal capacity.
As for Clark County itself, the motion to dismiss makes it clear that there’s a distinction between county employee Botelho and anyone else involved in the case as she provides the only connection to Clark County.
The members of the court staff who are named work for the court staff and are not directly employed by Clark County and work for the state’s court system.
Clark County and the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police are two distinctly different entities and other than Botelho’s involvement in the prosecution of DeCastro, there are no things that DeCastro can legally claim status to sue over.
DeCastro was originally seeking in upwards of $60,000,000.00 in total damages from the lawsuit; he later amended it to whatever amount the court deemed proper.
In more DeCastro legal news, his motion for Miscellaneous Relief was filed in his Ohio based lawsuit against those associated with his 2022 arrest in Ironton, Ohio.
The case had be moved from Nevada, where DeCastro had initially filed it, to Ohio over the summer.
He is seeking the court set a new deadline for the defendants to renew or refile their motions to dismiss within the next 21 days.
That the Court give him 21 days to respond to the renewed or re-filed motions.
To set a schedule for reply briefing and oral argument.
To direct that his updated address be used for all future filings and correspondence and grant whatever other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
