Jose “Chille” DeCastro started the week with a dismissal of one of his lawsuits, which added to his claim that he has never lost a case “at trial” but again showed his incompetence in managing his own legal efforts since the case was dismissed for missing a deadline to serve the defendants.
United States District Judge Christina D. Silva ruled:
Plaintiff Jose DeCastro initiated this action on November 21, 2025. ECF No. 1. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4, DeCastro was required to serve the defendant within ninety days of filing the complaint, making the service deadline February 19, 2026. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).
On February 19, 2026, the court notified DeCastro of its intent to dismiss under Rule 4(m) for failure to serve the defendants. ECF No. 4. That notice advised, “this action may be dismissed without prejudice as to [the defendants] unless proof of service is filed with the clerk by 03/21/2026.” Id. In response, DeCastro moved for an extension of time to effect service (ECF No. 6) and to conduct discovery to identify the doe defendants (ECF No. 7). The court granted the motions and extended the service deadline to June 23, 2026. ECF Nos. 8, 9. That deadline passed without proof of service.
On June 26, 2026, the court again notified DeCastro of its intent to dismiss under Rule 4(m) for failure to serve the defendants. ECF No. 10. That notice also advised that “this action may be dismissed without prejudice as to [the defendants] unless proof of service is filed with the clerk by 07/26/2026.” Id. “Failure to comply with this notice may result in dismissal of the action without prejudice . . . .” Id. That deadline passed without notice of service.
Because the plaintiff has not demonstrated that the doe defendants were identified and served by June 23, 2026 (the time prescribed by U.S. Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler), it is ordered that DeCastro’s claims are dismissed without prejudice. The clerk of court is kindly instructed to close this case.
For those not familiar with the case, DeCastro filed the lawsuit last year shortly before the two year statute of limitations ran out for a traffic stop in Nevada a few days before Thanksgiving in 2023.
DeCastro began the interaction with police by stopping and insulting officers, who were on motorcycles parked on the highway near an emergency only U Turn. After insulting the officers, DeCastro immediately made a illegal U turn in front of the officers.
The motorcycle police responded to DeCastro’s act of defiance and before they could flag down DeCastro, he had stopped and was out of his vehicle. He pulled up his shirt, exposing his chest and nipples to the officers to show that he was unarmed.
DeCastro would be put in handcuffs during the incident due to his name being flagged in a national database indicating that he had “violent tendencies.” After a brief detainment, DeCastro would receive a ticket and was released by the officers.
It took DeCastro two years to file a lawsuit against Nevada police for the incident. His filing was problematic at best as the bodycam footage of the arrest was obtained and distributed by the Public Documents of Jose DeCastro website, who showed the complete stop.
The video showed that DeCastro greatly overstated the number of police officers who were involved in the stop, it, more importantly, overstated the amount of time as visible in an on-screen timestamp, that DeCastro was detained.
DeCastro himself had problems identifying the actual officers involved in the incident, which resulted in his extension to provide service to the officers. He also complained bitterly about his lack of funding to serve the officers, which may or may not have played a factor.
As the ruling stated, DeCastro was granted early discovery in order to help him identify and serve the officers and had the deadline of June 23, 2026, to serve the officers. He was given a final deadline of July 26, 2026, to show service. That date came and went without proof from DeCastro.
The diminutive YouTuber’s lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice, however, the statute of limitations on suing passed last year. He may still try again at a later date to challenge his “violent tendencies” flag, though filing another suit about the traffic stop may be out of the question.
This is a breaking news story.
