YouTuber and advocate Jose “Chille” DeCastro was hit with another loss in federal court on Monday when Chief United States District Judge Andrew P. Gordon granted a motion to dismiss parts of his lawsuit against those involved in his conviction of and acquittal from criminal charges he picked up in a 2023 arrest in Las Vegas.
DeCastro was arrested for interfering in a traffic stop and obstructing a police officer in the 2023 incident and was convicted after a brief trial in 2024. Those charges were later overturned on appeal the same year.
While the diminutive YouTuber had already filed suit against the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department over his initial arrest, he filed suit again last year in order to hold everyone involved in his prosecution and acquittal responsible for their roles in the legal matter.
On Tuesday, Judge Gordon threw out charges DeCastro made against deputy district attorney Agnes Botello and defendant Clark County in the case and Clark County, Nevada, in the Jose DeCastro v. Clark County, Nevada, et al. lawsuit.
The inventor of the Jock Sock alleged that Botello had broken the law by changing her sentencing recommendation from probation to jail time at his initial trial and was attempting to hold Clark County accountable for the actions of the officer that arrested DeCastro, the prosecutor’s office, along with the judges who presided over the case and the court staff.
Defendants Botello and Clark County have been aggressive in their own defenses, pairing together to interject themselves into the case before DeCastro even attempted to serve them. This was followed by an aggressive stance to have DeCastro’s allegations against them thrown out with a long-standing motion to dismiss the case.
Service, as a side note, has remained an problem as there is no proof that DeCastro has successfully served anyone in the lawsuit, with his one last chance to serve Judge Ann Zimmerman and Judge Michell Leavitt, who presided over his conviction and his acquittal, remaining an issue before the court.
Addressing the claims against Botelho, Judge Gordon wrote:
Botelho argues she is entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity. DeCastro responds that prosecutorial immunity does not apply to Botelho’s “post-sentencing escalation following the exercise of appellate rights or evidence handling that arguably crossed into non-advocacy functions.” ECF No. 21 at 4.
A prosecutor enjoys absolute immunity from suit when performing functions “intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process.” Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430 (1976). Thus, “[a] prosecutor is protected by absolute immunity from liability for damages under § 1983 when performing the traditional functions of an advocate.” Genzler v. Longanbach, 410 F.3d 630, 636 (9th Cir.2005) (quotation omitted). This includes immunity even from a “suit alleging that he maliciously initiated a prosecution, used perjured testimony at trial, or suppressed material evidence at trial.” Id. at 637 (citing Imbler, 424 U.S. at 430).
A deputy district attorney is entitled to absolute immunity for their conduct at both sentencing and bail hearings. Ismail v. Cnty. of Orange, 676 F. App’x 690, 691 (9th Cir. 2017) (“requesting a defendant be remanded into custody, adding or dropping charges, [and] requesting high bail . . . are prosecutorial decisions intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process” and thus are protected by absolute prosecutorial immunity). Decisions made “in connection with a bail application are best understood as components of the initiation and presentation of a prosecution, and therefore are protected by absolute immunity.” Cruz v. Kauai Cnty., 279 F.3d 1064, 1067 n.3 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Pinaud v. Cnty. of Suffolk, 52 F.3d 1139, 1149 (2d Cir.1995)); see also Brown v. California Dep’t of Corr., 554 F.3d 747, 750 (9th Cir. 2009) (prosecutors are “afforded absolute immunity for parole recommendations” because they “are a continuation of the sentencing process”); Pinaud, 52 F.3d at 1149 (absolute immunity afforded to a deputy district attorney who allegedly sought to improperly increase bail). In essence, “prosecutorial immunity protects eligible government officials when they are acting in their official role as advocate for the State.” Brewer v. Grierson, No. 2:10-cv-01111-RLH-RJJ, 2010 WL 4608264, at *2 (D. Nev. Nov. 4, 2010).1
State prosecutors also enjoy absolute immunity from suit for Brady violations. “A prosecutor’s decision not to preserve or turn over exculpatory material before trial, during trial, or after conviction is a violation of due process under [Brady]. It is, nonetheless, an exercise of the prosecutorial function and entitles the prosecutor to absolute immunity from a civil suit for damages.” Broam v. Bogan, 320 F.3d 1023, 1030 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Imbler, 424 U.S. at 431–32 n.34 (noting that the “deliberate withholding of exculpatory information” is included within the “legitimate exercise of prosecutorial discretion”).
Absolute prosecutorial immunity protects Botelho’s decisions made in her role as an advocate for the state at the sentencing and bond application phases of the judicial process, as well as her alleged mishandling of potentially exculpatory evidence. Because amendment would be futile, I dismiss DeCastro’s § 1983 claims against Botelho with prejudice.
Continuing to the claims against Clark County:
Clark County cannot be liable for LVMPD’s or its officers’ actions because LVMPD is its own separate legal entity. Nev. Rev. Stat. § 280.280(3)–(4); ECF No. 30 at 4–5. LVMPD is “a political subdivision of the state and may sue or be sued in its own name.” Coleman v. LVMPD, No. 2:25-cv-01721-APG-MDC, 2026 WL 1992703 at *3 (D. Nev. July 8, 2026). I therefore dismiss DeCastro’s claims against Clark County to the extent they are based on Bourque’s or LVMPD’s actions.
As for the judges, Nevada state courts are arms of the State, not the county. Nev. Const., art. 6 § 1. “[T]he legislative and executive branches are strictly prohibited from infringing on the court’s ‘incidental powers reasonable and necessary to carry out the duties required for the administration of justice.’” City of Sparks v. Sparks Mun. Ct., 302 P.3d 1118, (Nev. 2013) (en banc) (quoting Goldberg v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 572 P.2d 521, 522 (Nev. 1977). The Ninth Circuit has held that where, as here, a judge “was functioning as a state judicial officer, [their] acts and omissions were not part of a city policy or custom” because the municipality “lack[ed] the power to require, control, or remedy” the actions. Eggar v. City of Livingston, 40 F.3d 312, 316 (9th Cir. 1994); see also Woods v. City of Michigan City, 940 F.2d 275, 279 (7th Cir. 1991) (noting that the plaintiff, by identifying the judge’s acts “as the source of the constitutional deprivation, detaches the local governments from the unconstitutional policy” because under the relevant state law, the judge was a state, not municipal, officer). Clark County has no control over the judges’ official actions and therefore cannot be held liable for them. So I dismiss DeCastro’s claims against Clark County to the extent they are based on the judges’ actions. Because amendment would be futile, I dismiss these claims against Clark County with prejudice.
The Judge ultimately ruling:
I THEREFORE ORDER that defendant Clark County and defendant Agnes Botelho’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 16) is GRANTED. I dismiss with prejudice DeCastro’s claims against Botelho in her individual capacity. I dismiss with prejudice his Monell claims against Clark County based on the conduct of LVMPD, Branden Bourque, Judge Ann Zimmerman, and Judge Michelle Leavitt. I dismiss without prejudice his Monell claim against Clark County based on the conduct of Agnes Botelho and the bailiffs.
All is not lost for the failed Power Ranger as Judge Gordon gave him one last opportunity to amend the case, writing:
I FURTHER ORDER that DeCastro may file a second amended complaint to assert Monell claims consistent with this order by October 21, 2026 if sufficient facts exist to plausibly allege such claims.
It is unclear if DeCastro will attempt to continue his fight against the two defendants.
This is a breaking news story.
