Jose “Chille” DeCastro’s week started exactly how last week ended – with a new filing in an old lawsuit that is teetering on the edge of existence with a defense request asking for a dismissal because DeCastro failed to state a claim against them.
This time, it’s the Lawrence County Defendants in the revived? Revised? Renewed? Ironton based lawsuit from events of nearly four years ago. DeCastro sued two sets of defendants, referred to as the Ironton Defendants and the Lawrence County Defendants, messed around for around a year before the lawsuit was dismissed twice (revived once on a technicality) because DeCastro could never clearly state what the defendants did wrong.
While he was appealing the second dismissal, he refiled the lawsuit in Nevada on both a state level and a federal level. The state level lawsuit went nowhere, but the Federal lawsuit lingered for a long time as DeCastro was incarcerated and unable to serve the defendants then suffered a “brain cloud,” further delaying the process.
Once the lawsuit was properly served, it lingered a bit as both sets of defendants argued that the lawsuit should have been dismissed as DeCastro hadn’t stated a claim and… the charges themselves were already decided in Ohio in the previous case.
The Nevada federal judge transferred the lawsuit to Ohio, where the Judge who had thrown the original case out is now assigned to the lawsuit. There are motions to dismiss outstanding as DeCastro has yet again allegedly failed to state a claim.
Monday saw the Lawrence County Defendants respond to DeCastro’s recently granted sur-reply to their motion to dismiss.
Typically, a motion is filed, the opposing party gets to reply to it, then the party that filed the motion gets to reply to that reply. A sur-reply gives the replying party a second chance to reply and typically the filing party gets a chance to reply to the sur-reply.
Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman allowed the sur-reply and the Lawrence County Defendants had five days to reply to it.
DeCastro argued that because the Lawrence County Defendants (who he claims are different from the previous Lawrence County Defendants because they consist of the same people but he used a new description for them) have never had his charges against them substantially analyzed because they were dismissed from the previous lawsuit before judgement could be rendered.
The Lawrence County Defendants replied to the sur-reply by pointing out that they were dismissed from the original lawsuit because their motion to dismiss was granted on the grounds that DeCastro never stated a proper claim for which relief can be granted against them… which is, according to the Lawrence County Defendants, exactly what he is doing in the revised/revived/whatever my head hurts lawsuit.
Pending another attempt at a sur-reply by DeCastro, the issue goes back to Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman for a recommendation to District Judge Michael R. Barrett.
But wait! There’s more!
DeCastro also has until March 18, 2026, to show cause as to why the case against the Ironton Defendants should not be dismissed for… failure to state a claim. This was a previous order by Judge Bowman and gives the diminutive YouTuber until the middle of the month to either reply to their motion to dismiss or reply with a reason, any reason, why the lawsuit should not be tossed.
We’ll update as the pending headaches, err, filings make their way to Ohio.
Jonathan “Frauditor Troll” Hudon-Huneault’s Help us Fight this anti-free speech retaliation lawsuit won Monday with $8.00 in apparent exchange rate adjustments.
The First Amendment Protection Agency placed second with a $5.00 donation to his ILLEGAL ARREST DEFENSE FUND!!!
No other campaigns that we follow received donations for the day.
