In a stunning blow to a long-promised vengeance against the Judges that he pledged to bring to justice, Jose “Chille” DeCastro received word that United States Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler has recommended dismissal of a lawsuit against the judge who was responsible for putting him in jail in 2024 and the judge who ultimately set him free from jail the same year.
DeCastro originally filed suit in June of 2025, naming Clark County, Nevada, Judge Anne E. Zimmerman, Judge Michelle Leavitt, Deputy District Attorney Agnes Botelho, Las Vegas Metro Police Department officer Branden Bourque, a John Doe Bailiff and twenty John Doe defendants in their individual capacities.
Like with other DeCastro suits, DeCastro had problems serving the defendants in the case. With no proof of service provided to any of the named defendants within the 90 days required by law to provide service.
Defendants Agnes Botelho and Clark County responded to the lawsuit on their own, without being served and currently have a motion to dismiss that is pending with the court.
This case was described by DeCastro as retribution against both Judges in the case for the action in jailing him in 2024. He claimed bias on the part of Zimmerman, with the allegation that she had been married at one point in her life to a police officer which biased her against him.
His anger at Judge Leavitt, who actually freed him from jail, came when she failed to hold a hearing that could have seen him go free while he appealed Judge Zimmerman’s ruling.
DeCastro has relied on a series of extensions centered around Judges Zimmerman and Leavitt starting in November of last year and ultimately coming to a head with one last extension in June.
That extension gave DeCastro permission to serve Judge Leavitt via e-mail at an e-mail address provided by his private investigator; it also gave him the ability to serve Judge Zimmerman via publication in the Las Vegas Review Journal. That publication would need to be printed once a week for a period of four consecutive weeks. It also gave the YouTuber until August 7, 2026, to show proof of his actions.
None of the extensions applied to Officer Bourque or the John Doe defendants.
When August 7 passed without a filing by DeCastro, the writing was on the wall. Today’s ruling showed real frustration with DeCastro by Magistrate Judge Weksler:
Because this action cannot proceed against an unserved defendant, the only alternative is to enter a sixth order directing Plaintiff to serve Zimmerman and Leavitt. The circumstances here do not indicate that Plaintiff needs additional time nor is there evidence that he did not receive this Court’s order at ECF No. 34. Entering another order and expending more judicial resources is not a meaningful alternative given these circumstances. So, the fifth factor favors dismissal. On balance, the factors above favor a recommendation of dismissal. See Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393 (9th Cir. 1998) (holdings dismissal is proper where least four factors support dismissal or where at least three factors “strongly” support dismissal). IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that THIS ACTION BE DISMISSED as to Defendants Zimmerman and Leavitt for failure to serve them under Rule 4(m) and for failure to comply with a court order.
Weksler did give DeCastro one small chance of keeping the case open, writing:
This report and recommendation is submitted to the United States district judge assigned to this case under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A party who objects to this report and recommendation may file a written objection supported by points and authorities within fourteen days of being served with this report and recommendation. Local Rule IB 3-2(a). Failure to file a timely objection may waive the right to appeal the district court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991).
If DeCastro does not file an objection to the dismissal of the lawsuit, the recommendation will be sent to United States District Court Judge Andrew P. Gordon for a ruling.
In more court related news, DeCastro followed up yesterday’s filing of a sur-reply in his lawsuit against the city of Duncan, Oklahoma, where he is facing charges of molesting police vehicles, by filing for the ability to file an expanded sur-reply to replace the previous sur-reply.
The move itself comes after DeCastro, without permission of the court, revised his previous sur-reply between his proposed filing of said reply and his actual filing of the reply. The new sur-reply includes exhibits and new arguments that may require further response from the defense in the lawsuit.
Special thanks to PDocs of thepublicdocuments.com website for providing the documents used in this story. Please visit his site for the latest information about DeCastro’s on-going criminal and civil cases.
This is a breaking news story.
Yet does any wonder why the courts are so back logged?
The case against the judges was ALWAYS going to be dismissed no matter what. He simply does not have a case due to judicial immunity. Period. So he has been wasting people’s time for the better part of two years?
Wasting his own time, effort and money, well other people’s money in any case, to tilt at a windmill, but one that he cannot even find in the fog of his mind, while others are seeing clear and sunny days.
Note, I really like that sentence, it seems almost poetic in its balance an structure.