Jose “Chille” DeCastro got a rare win in his on-going lawsuit against Clark County Nevada and nearly everyone involved in both his conviction of obstruction and interference and his acquittal on appeal of the same charges when a magistrate judge ruled to give him one last chance to serve the judges in the lawsuit before dismissing the claims against them.
DeCastro had until the end of the week to file an objection to the recent review and recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler which stated that she would recommend dismissing the claims against former Justice of the Peace Ann Zimmerman and Judge Michelle Leavitt for lack of service.
In his reply, DeCastro stated that he attempted to serve both Judges at their place of work and ignored the fact that Judge Zimmerman retired in January of 2025 and no longer worked there.
His implied that there was something nefarious going on at that place of work due to the fact that the front desk told his process server that Zimmerman was an unknown entity (due to the fact that she no longer works there).
In our own research, a simple Google search shows that Justice of the Peace Zimmerman (including her LinkedIn page, her son’s LinkedIn page and her now deleted Ballotpedia page), showed that she is indeed retired and has been for over a year.
He also complained that his process server was given instructions on how to contact Judge Leavitt’s assistant and arrange for service. Noting that the assistant never called the process server back.
What DeCastro did not give was an explanation as to why he stopped attempting to serve either defendant or an attempt to extend the time he would be given to serve the defendants.
DeCastro also spent a good deal of time complaining that he was at a disadvantage because of his on-going problems with the electronic filing system. He again complained his inability to access his account as it was associated with an e-mail address that he no longer has access to and begged the court for assistance in restoring his ECF account.
DeCastro’s inability to access the ECF system has been brought up in other cases, and instead of providing customer service for a service that they do not have control over, most of the judges in DeCastro’s on-going lawsuits have ignored his complaints completely.
Judge Weksler continued the pattern in her ruling on Thursday:
“Plaintiff objected to this Court’s recommendation that the claims against Defendants Zimmerman and Leavitt be dismissed for failure to serve pursuant to Rule 4(m). ECF Nos. 22, 23. It is clear that Plaintiff attempted to serve these Defendants in the past, but he did not advance any arguments explaining why he stopped attempting service of process. In addition, he failed to move for an extension of time. Thus, as this Court explained, Plaintiff failed to show good cause. ECF No. 18. Nevertheless, in the interest of adjudicating cases on the merits and recognizing Plaintiff is now on notice of his need to serve these defendants by the mandated deadline, Plaintiff will be afforded one last chance to serve them. Service of process on Defendants Zimmerman and Leavitt must be effectuated no later than April 24, 2026. Failure to effectuate service of process by that deadline may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed as to these two Defendants.”
With the slight victory, DeCastro now has another six weeks to attempt service on both defendants or else have Judge Weksler recommend to the District Court that the claims against both defendants be dismissed.
There have been no updates as to the service to defendants Branden Borque and a John Doe bailiff.
Defendants Agnes Botelho and Clark County, Nevada, have filed for a stay of discovery until their motion to dismiss the charges against them is ruled on.
That motion to dismiss insists that Botelho in her role of Assistant District Attorney has absolute immunity from suit and that Clark County is not a “person” subject to be sued in its “personal capacity.”
Attorney Olivia C. Denue, writing on behalf of Clark Count stated:
“A plaintiff must foundationally establish that the conduct in question was undertaken by a “person”; the failure to establish this foundation is dispositive as to Plaintiff’s entire suit. Moreover, even if Clark County were a “person” subject to suit, Plaintiff’s failure to plausibly allege a claim for relief against Clark County is dispositive as the entire suit as Plaintiff has failed to meet the threshold pleading requirement. “
Judge Weksler has yet to rule on their filing as of press time.
This is an on-going news story.
