Jose “Chille” DeCastro’s brief shining moment of nearly assured victory in the John “Irish Demon” O’Dea lawsuit came crashing back to reality on Thursday as he received notice that if he didn’t serve defendants Ann Zimmerman and Michell Leavitt soon, they’d be dismissed from his on-going case against Clark County, Nevada.
DeCastro filed suit against both women last year as he said he was out to punish everyone involved in his 2024 conviction and acquittal of charges of interfering in a traffic stop and obstructing an officer. Zimmerman was the presiding justice of the peace who convicted him and Leavitt was the appeals Judge who set him free.
As DeCastro is suing both judges in their personal capacities, personal service of the lawsuit is required. DeCastro has received multiple extensions to provide service as to all of the defendants in the lawsuit, and had been given until February 2, 2026, to serve both judges after his most recent extension.
United States Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler ruled on Thursday that she will recommend that the district court dismiss both judges from the case unless a party objects to the report and recommendation by March 13, 2026.
DeCastro is currently fighting a motion to dismiss made on behalf of deputy district attorney Agnes Botelho and Clark Couty; both were never served but took it upon themselves to make an appearance.
This order comes just days after DeCastro received a similar notice in his lawsuit against John Doe police officers who were involved in a November 2023 traffic stop. DeCastro was ordered to file proof of service by March 21, 2026, or show good cause why service was not provided or have the lawsuit dismissed without prejudice.
In more DeCastro news, Judge Stephanie K. Bowman ordered DeCastro to either reply to the Ironton Defendants motion to dismiss or file a motion to show case his on-going Ironton, Ohio, based lawsuit.
She wrote:
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE – Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing on or before 3/18/2026, why Defendants Chance Blankenship, City of Ironton, Ohio, Robert Fouch, Evan McKnight, Brad Spoljaric and Pam Wagner’s Motion to Dismiss (doc. 50 ) should not be construed as unopposed and granted for the reasons stated. Plaintiff may also satisfy the requirements of this Order by filing a responsive memorandum to Defendants’ motion by the 3/18/2026 deadline.Failure to timely comply with this Order will result in the pending motion being granted as unopposed for the reasons stated therein. Show Cause Response due by 3/18/2026.
She also granted DeCastro’s request for leave to file a sur-reply in response to the Lawrence County Commissioners’ Supplemental Motion to dismiss.
In the sur-reply, DeCastro asked that the court disregard an argument made in the Lawrence County Commissioners’ final response to their motion to dismiss which brought up Stillwagon v. City of Delaware as he says it was the first time and he had no chance to address the argument.
The Lawrence County Commissioners now have until next week to reply to DeCastro’s latest filing.
As expected, DeCastro’s GoFundMe related to his trial continues to be ignored as the trial is now over and DeCastro has not promoted the fund to help with his appeal of his recent court loss against the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department.
The First Amendment Protection Agency won Friday with $125.00 in new donations to its ILLEGAL ARREST DEFENSE FUND!!! Campaign, while Jonathan “Frauditor Troll” Hudon-Huneault placed second with $88.00 USD in new donations to his Help us Fight this anti-free speech retaliation lawsuit campaign.
No other campaigns that we follow received donations for Friday.
DeCastro v LVMPD-158.0-Judgement in a Civil Case DeCastro v McKnight-054-Lawrence County Defendants' Reply in Support of Supplemental Motion to Dismiss DeCastro v McKnight-056-Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply in Opposition to 52 Defendants Supplemental Motion to Dismiss DeCastro v McKnight-057-Plaintiff's Sur-Reply in Opposition to 52 Lawrence County Defendants' Supplemental Motion to Dismiss DeCastro v. Clark County – 22 — Report and Recommendation DeCastro v. Doe – 4 – Notice Regarding Intention to Dismiss
Share this:
- Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
- Share on X (Opens in new window) X
- Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
- Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
- Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
- Share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
- Share on Telegram (Opens in new window) Telegram
- Share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
- Share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky





