Tuesday saw a new filing in Jose “Chille” DeCastro’s attempt to revive his federal lawsuit against the city of Ironton, Ohio, in Nevada as he submitted his service of the defendants in the case with service dated March 4, 2025.
The trouble, of course, was that DeCastro apparently misread the court’s orders, which were to show proof of service from a previous extension order by March 16, 2025, or show the circumstances that prevented him from meeting the court’s previous deadline of October 23, 2024 to show service.
DeCastro originally sued the City of Ironton and County of Lawrence, Ohio, along with members of the Ironton police force in April of 2022. After many delays on he part of DeCastro, with the lawsuit dismissed and revived at least once, it was dismissed with prejudice in September of 2023.
DeCastro appealed and while he was awaiting the result of his appeal in March of 2024, DeCastro filed lawsuits containing the same charges and same in Nevada. He sued in both State Court and Federal court and claimed he was filing on behalf of his “customers,” some of whom lived in the state of Nevada, giving him a right to sue in the state.
Eventually, the appeals court would affirm the outcome of the original lawsuit, and it would be dismissed with prejudice. As the case was dismissed with prejudice, DeCastro would not have normally been able to refile the charges against the same group of defendants.
By a preemptive filing of the lawsuits, DeCastro kept the case alive and was in the process of serving the defendants when he was sentenced to jail last year. DeCastro then was jailed by mid-March and would be in jail past the 90-day deadline to submit proof that he had served the defendants.
The Nevada version of the Ohio in Nevada lawsuit was set to be dismissed due to lack of service, but DeCastro was given until late October to serve the defendants in the case. DeCastro again did not provide service by the deadline and the lawsuit lingered until early in 2025.
An order was issued in February giving DeCastro until March 16, 2025, to show that he served the defendants during the period of the previous extension by March 16, 2025, or come up with a compelling excuse as to why he could not serve the defendants during the original extension.
Instead of showing service, DeCastro produced documentation that he served the defendants on March 4, 2025.
It’s unclear how the court will deal with DeCastro’s filing. Adding an additional four months to the previous extension is a stretch at best, but we can only wait and see what the court decides on the issue.
