In more First Amendment auditing related legal updates, there were new filings in former NFL Superstar Warren Sapp’s lawsuit against the city of Tampa, Florida, and proof of service was finally filed in Jose “Chille” DeCastro’s lawsuit against the Las Vegas area judge who sentenced him to jail and the judge who would eventually free him.
Starting with DeCastro’s on-going mess in Las Vegas.
The diminutive YouTuber filed suit in May of 2025 and over a year later had failed to properly serve anyone in the case as of last week.
Defendants Assistant District Attorney Agnes Botelho and Clark County entered the case without service last December when they filed an almost immediate motion to dismiss.
While DeCastro went about seeking delay after delay after delay in serving the other defendants in the case, the motion to dismiss by the pair of defendants was granted on September 28, 2026, with prejudice.
DeCastro has until October 21, 2026, to file a second amended to assert Monell claims against the defendants. A motion to extend that time has not been filed but is expected to be filed tomorrow evening.
Despite action by the two defendants, they are still the only defendants involved in the lawsuit as DeCastro had problems serving both judges involved in the case along with the rest of the defendants.
Last spring, the failed Power Ranger was given permission to serve Judge Michelle Leavitt via e-mail and the ability to serve Judge Ann Zimmerman via publication. While he required another recent extension to do so, he filed proof of service for both on Monday.
We will provide updates when he ultimately files the expected motion for more time to file his amended complaint.
DeCastro’s self-removal from and then return to the news did nothing to change the fortunes of his last GoFundMe campaign.
John “First Amendment Protection Agency” Medaglia’s ILLEGAL ARREST DEFENSE FUND!!! Won Saturday with $20.00 in new donations.
Sunday went to SeanPaul “Long Island Audit” Reyes, who saw $55.00 in new donations to his Support The Fight Against Tyranny & Corruption campaign. Lane Myers placed second with $40.00 to his GiveSendGo account.
Monday was dominated by Aidan “Turtleboy” Kearney, who took in $13,492.00 for the day to his GiveSendGo account. Reyes’s Detained for MY Rights – Continuing the Fight for OUR Rights fund placed a distant second with $20.00 in new donations.
There were no record donations on Tuesday for any of the campaigns that we follow.
NFL legend Sapp’s fortunes have always been a bit different than DeCastro’s, achieving real fame and a spot in the NFL Hall of Fame. The NFL star turned First Amendment auditor was trespassed for one day from a Tampa, Florida, City Council meeting earlier in the year and promptly sued over it.
Sapp’s case saw an appearance filed by Toyin K. Aina-Hargrett, Senior Assistant City Attorney, on behalf of City of Tampa on Friday. That appearance was accompanied by an immediate motion to dismiss.
Some highlights from Aina-Hargett’s filing:
Although Plaintiff alleges an infringement of his First Amendment rights, he does not set forth any facts to suggest that he was engaged in any “speech” at all. Indeed, Plaintiff alleges that he was present, but he does not allege that he was saying or communicating anything in the room adjacent to City Council. In other words, Plaintiff does not set forth sufficient facts to establish that he was engaged in protected speech.
Moreover, Plaintiff does not set forth facts to suggest that City Council or its Chair were aware of anything more than (ultimately) his disruptive behavior, and he certainly does not set forth facts to establish that anyone in the adjacent City Council chambers was aware of his “speech.” Importantly, the office near City Council chambers is not a public forum for speech, such as a sidewalk or a park. Under these facts, Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged that he was engaged in “speech” or that any decision maker was made aware of his specific “speech” such that there was a desire to retaliate against it. Therefore, Plaintiff has failed to allege a violation of his First Amendment rights, and his Complaint is due to be dismissed. See, McDowell v. Brown, 392 F.3d 1283, 1289 (11th Cir. 2004).
Moving forward, she wrote:
To the extent that Plaintiff suggests that City Council or its chair was the final policymaker as to some other municipal policy, custom, or practice besides City Council’s Rules of Procedure – Plaintiff has failed to identify that policy. This failure to identify a municipal policy, custom or practice is fatal to his claim because it is tantamount to an invitation for this Court to permit municipal liability pursuant to respondeat superior, which would be in violation of Monell. Id. at 694-695; see also, City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (1989)(finding that Monell’s rule that a city is not liable under §1983 unless a municipal policy causes deprivation will not be satisfied by merely alleging that [some decision] represents a policy for which the city is responsible).
Finally, because Plaintiff has not identified a municipal policy, custom, or practice, he also has failed to allege sufficient facts to establish that a municipal policy was the moving force behind his removal from City Hall. For example, Plaintiff was required to plead facts showing how City Council’s rule prohibiting disruptive behavior (or some other rule) was the moving force behind his alleged loss of a constitutional right.2 The City, like any other governmental entity, “has the power to preserve the property under its control for the use to which it is lawfully dedicated.” Adderley v. State of Florida, 385 U.S. 39, 47 (1967). Moreover, “the First Amendment does not guarantee access to property simply because it is owned or controlled by the government.” U.S. Postal Service v. Council of Greenburgh Civic Associations, 453 U.S. 114, 129 (1981). Thus, Plaintiff’s failure to allege facts to support that any municipal policy was the moving force behind the alleged violation of his constitutional rights requires dismissal of his Complaint.
Finally concluding with:
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Compliance with this rule is imperative to any defendant’s ability to investigate, understand, and defend itself against the claims against it.
However, in the instant case, Plaintiff’s Complaint is comprised of conclusory allegations that the Defendant retaliated against him for exercising his First Amendment without identifying the municipal policy that would make the City liable under Monell. The Complaint establishes that at all relevant times, Plaintiff retained the ability to access the City of Tampa. Plaintiff was removed solely from the City Hall building. However, what he couldn’t do is create a disturbance right outside of City Council chambers without consequence. Plaintiff’s allegation that he was exercising his First Amendment rights by “seeking governmental paperwork and information,” fails because the right to access public records in codified in state law at Florida Statute Chapter 119. As such, Plaintiff’s right to public records is a statutory one, not a constitutional right under the First Amendment. As plainly described by Plaintiff, he never entered City Council chambers where a public meeting was taking place. Instead, Plaintiff alleges that he entered an office located near City Council chambers when something about “Plaintiff’s presence prompted an extraordinary response from City officials” causing an interruption of the governmental proceedings (to wit: a disturbance). [Dkt. #1, ¶¶16,19, 20]. However, engaging in expressive conduct does not authorize a citizen to create a disturbance as occurred in this instance. Therefore, because the Complaint fails to state a proper causes of action and fails to set forth elements required for his claim, should this Court decline to exercise its discretion to dismiss, at a minimum, the Defendant is entitled to a more definite statement from Plaintiff which will set forth the basis of his claims of municipal liability with clarity.
We will continue to follow both stories and provide updates as they happen.
