DeleteLawZ Motion Fails in Clark County Lawsuit

Jose “Chille” DeCastro had another setback in court on Friday when Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler ruled that he had not shown he had done enough to earn the ability to use alternative means to serve defendants in his lawsuit against Clark County, Nevada.

DeCastro is suing nearly everyone involved in both his conviction for charges of interfering in a traffic stop and obstructing a police officer last year and his later acquittal of the charges.

Because he is suing everyone in their personal capacity, and not official capacity, he has been unable to serve the defendants through usual methods. While defendant Brandon Borque may have been served, only Clark County and Clark County Deputy District Attorney Agnes Botelho have officially accepted service as they filed a motion to dismiss last week.

DeCastro had previously filed for an emergency order to allow him to use alternative means to serve the defendants in the case, noting that his second extension to serve the defendants was coming to an end.

Judge Weksler wrote:

“Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure establishes the methods for service of civil complaints filed in federal court. Federal Rule 4(e)(1) allows for service following the laws of the state in which the federal court is located. Under Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure 4.4(b)(1), a plaintiff may serve a party through alternative means if the methods of service provided for in Rules 4.2 (service within Nevada), 4.3 (service outside Nevada), and 4.4(a) (statutory service) are impracticable. Under Rule 4.4(b)(2), a motion seeking an order for alternative service must provide affidavits, declarations or other evidence demonstrating:

(i) the due diligence that the plaintiff undertook to locate and serve the defendant; and

(ii) the defendant’s known, or last known contact information including address, phone numbers, email addresses, social media accounts, or other information used to communicate with the defendant …

The motion must also outline the proposed alternative service method and explain why it comports with due process. Nev. R. Civ. P. 4.4(b)(2)(B). Under Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure 4.4(b)(3), if the Court orders alternative service, the plaintiff must also make reasonable efforts to provide additional notice under Rule 4.4(d) and mail a copy of the summons and complaint as well as any order authorizing the alternative service to the defendant’s last-known address. Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure 4.4(d) provides that, in addition to any other service method, the court may order a plaintiff to make reasonable efforts to provide additional notice of the commencement of the action by other methods like certified mail, telephone, voice message, email, social media, “or any other method of communication.”

The alternative methods of service must comport with due process. Rio Props., Inc. v. Rio Int’l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2022). Due process requires that a defendant in a civil action be given notice of the action that is reasonably calculated to apprise the defendant of the pendency of the action and afford the defendant an opportunity to present his or her objection. Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950).

Plaintiff has not shown that service of process under Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure 4.2(d) is impracticable. Indeed, he has not even provided an argument that his prior attempts to serve these defendants complies with the appropriate subsection of that statue. As a result, this Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion without prejudice and will extend the deadline for service of process to allow Plaintiff an opportunity to comply with the statute.”

All was not bad for DeCastro, as in the same order denying his request for alternative service, the Judge granted him an extension to serve the remaining defendants until February 2, 2026.

DeCastro himself has livestreamed twice since the ruling, indicating that he would be spending most of the weekend preparing his opposition to Deputy District Attorney Botelho and Clark County’s motion to dismiss, which he claimed was due on Monday.

Friday’s broadcast also featured an extensive fundraising session for another case, where DeCastro is suing in a Federal District Court in California to block a warrant for his arrest in Oklahoma.

The diminutive YouTuber took time to play the incident where he claimed he saw what he claimed to be “unsecured” AR-15 long rifles and attempted to access the interior of the vehicles by pulling on the door handles of each vehicle.

He then claimed that his status as a “First Amendment Auditor” gave him special privileges where attempting to gain access to police vehicles was now legal, as it was part of his duties as an auditor. He later reported his own actions to police, who confirmed that the long rifles were properly stored as long as the vehicles were locked.

DeCastro also launched into an attack on notary Lori Adams, who notarized the warrants for his arrest. He said that she was “biased” as she was recorded asking DeCastro’s associates, Heather Chandler and the YouTuber known as Wild Journey Nation, to move away from her personal vehicle when they were filming in the parking lot.

Adams had no interaction with DeCastro in the incident; though DeCastro now claims her interaction with the women somehow disqualifies her from performing her duties as the women were “known associates” of DeCastro.

DeCastro pulled in several thousand dollars on his Friday livestream, which he said would cover his filing of the lawsuit in California and the service of all of the officers involved in the incident.

Despite telling his fans that the Oklahoma would not be attempting to extradite him for the misdemeanor warrant, DeCastro played up the possibility of extradition. At one point adding that it would be likely that California governor Gavin Newsom would intervene as his name, “Jose Maria DeCastro” sounded like an “illegal alien” and Newsom would prevent the unlawful extradition of such individuals.

The YouTuber is facing an uphill battle with his attempt to have California overturn the actions of another state. Due to state sovereignty issues, limited federal jurisdiction and the Younger Abstention, it is almost impossible to have one state successfully block the actions of another state.

DeCastro is claiming that his first amendment rights were violated as he was only indicted for the charges after he had filed for information on another unrelated case. While his filing shows no real connection between the decision to charge him with the crimes and his investigation into another matter, he made it clear on his Friday and Saturday livestreams that he would be pursuing the issue if the lawsuit moves forward.

The YouTuber is expected to livestream again on Monday, following the his latest filings in the Clark County lawsuit.