Earlier in the week Judge Andrew Gordon ruled that the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department could file another response to Jose “Chille” DeCastro’s updated filing in response to their motion for summary judgment with their attorney taking advantage of the ruling Friday afternoon.
Both sides were allowed to update their reasoning for and against the summary judgment based on the overturning of the verdict in DeCastro’s trial for the charges that DeCastro based the lawsuit on. With DeCastro filing that now that an appeals court found for him, all of his claims against the LVMPD should be found as valid and he should essentially be allowed to continue the lawsuit.
Craig R. Anderson, the lawyer for the LVMPD, essentially said “not so fast,” with his second reply to DeCastro’s reasoning.
Anderson reminded Judge Gordon that DeCastro has now retained a competent lawyer and is no longer Pro Se. That means that the leeway DeCastro had been using as a pro se litigant should no longer apply to rulings by Gordon.
They stated that DeCastro’s attorney, Michael Mee, should now be held to the same standards that they’ve had to work with from the beginning of the case and the judge should not invent reasons to rule in favor of DeCastro as if he were a Pro Se litigant.
That said, they pointed out that Judge Gordon’s previous rulings are still valid. He threw out everything but the wrongful instruction charges and the charges of excessive force; he gave DeCastro the ability to refile some of the charges, but DeCastro ignored the Judge’s ruling and simply refiled everything exactly the same way in his second amended complaint.
With the two remaining charges, Anderson claimed, DeCastro did nothing to prove his case. He provided no evidence of his claims that he suffered permanent damage (or any damage) to his testicles or Ulnar Nerve, and he specifically made no real arguments to back his improper training charge.
Going further, Anderson showed that despite the State Court’s decision, the LVMPD were not a party in that case. They were not allowed to state their defense in that trial and DeCastro failed to show any laws that would force a federal court to accept a state court’s decision based on the same conditions.
Anderson also contended that Gordon found probable cause for the arrest, he applied the same guidelines that Officer Borque did at the time of the arrest and found that there was cause for arrest. DeCastro did not argue for Gordon to change his mind, instead, he deferred to the ruling by the appeals court which incorrectly applied the Wilson ruling in the final verdict.
Judge Gordon’s ruling on the motion for summary judgment is expected later this fall.
DeCastro-vs.-LVMPD-98-RESPONSE-to-96-Supplement-by-Defendant-Las-Vegas-Metropolitan-Police-Department Supplement by Defendant Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department”]
