DeleteLawZ Motion to Quash Oklahoma Warrant Fails

YouTuber Jose “Chille” DeCastro suffered another legal defeat on Monday when his motion to have multiple warrants for his arrest in Oklahoma quashed by a Federal District Court in California was denied by the court.

DeCastro sued the town of Duncan, Oklahoma, in the Central District of California last week claiming that the warrant for his arrest for “molesting a police vehicle” was retaliation for his later attempt to file a freedom of information request in an unrelated case.

Included with the lawsuit was an application for a temporary restraining order blocking Oklahoma from carrying out the warrants that accompanied the charges DeCastro is facing in Oklahoma.

DeCastro essentially asked the California Federal court to intervene in state level charges in Oklahoma. Normally, such an act is prevented by U.S. legal doctrine known as the Younger Abstention, which prevents federal courts from interfering with pending state court cases.

Furthermore, Articles and IV and VI of the United States Constitution prevent states from invalidating each other’s laws. Instead, disputes between the states are handled by the United States Supreme Court.

On Monday, United States District Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr., ruled against DeCastro’s motion shortly before the diminutive YouTuber went on the air to solicit money from his fans in a vigorous defense of his motion to have the charges dismissed.

DeCastro ignored notices in his side chat, including one from ReallyCoolNews’ Owner and Operator Jim Finch, indicating that Judge Blumenfeld had ruled against DeCastro. DeCastro ignored offers to have the ruling e-mailed directly to him and spent most of his livestream explaining how his motion was rock solid and predicting that it would be granted by the Court.

It is unclear if DeCastro is aware of the ruling at press time.

Judge Blumenfeld wrote:

“Plaintiff filed this civil rights lawsuit in the Central District of California against the City of Duncan, several Duncan police officers, and the Duncan City Attorney challenging his arrest and prosecution. Dkt. No. 1. He also filed an “emergency motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction,” seeking to enjoin “enforcement of the arrest warrant and further prosecution activity[.]” Dkt. No. 2. at 5. The motion is procedurally and substantively deficient.

 Procedurally, Plaintiff does not state that he has served or attempted to serve any defendant with the application, nor does he make any showing why notice should not be required. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1) (“The court may issue a temporary restraining order without written or oral notice to the adverse party or its attorney only if . . . the movant’s attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required.”). Moreover, Plaintiff traveled to Oklahoma to conduct business investigating a local police department in that state. He has now sued numerous defendants in their individual and official capacities without showing that there is personal jurisdiction to proceed against them in California or that venue is appropriate here.

Substantively, Plaintiff fails to demonstrate a likelihood of success or even a serious question on the merits. Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008); Flathead-Lolo-Bitterroot Citizen Task Force v. Montana, 98 F.4th 1180, 1190 (9th Cir. 2024). Under Younger v. Harris, federal courts generally abstain from enjoining state prosecutions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 401 U.S. 37, 43–45 (1971); Green v. City of Tucson, 255 F.3d 1086, 1094 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Younger and “reiterat[ing] longstanding public policy against federal court interference with state court proceedings”) (cleaned up). Younger created a limited exception for bad-faith prosecutions. 401 U.S. at 47–49. “In the Younger abstention context, bad faith generally means that a prosecution has been brought without a reasonable expectation of obtaining a valid conviction.” Baffert v. California Horse Racing Bd., 332 F.3d 613, 621 (9th Cir. 2003) (cleaned up).

Here, Plaintiff acknowledges that his § 1983 claims challenging his arrest and prosecution satisfy the Younger requirements for abstention but argues that the bad-faith exception applies. His bad-faith claim, however, is largely conclusory and based on the same claims underlying his First and Fourth Amendment challenges. The Ninth Circuit has emphasized that the Younger exception is “narrow” and should not be read so broadly as to swallow the rule. Yelp Inc. v. Paxton, 137 F.4th 944, 952 (9th Cir. 2025). “A core premise of Younger, we must remember, is that defenses to the state court action, including constitutional defenses, may be raised in state court.” Id. Applying this principle, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the bad-faith exception does not apply merely because a plaintiff argues that the “state enforcement action is weak, meritless, or even unconstitutional.” Id. This is all Plaintiff does here. Thus, his claims are barred by Younger. See id. (affirming dismissal based on Younger abstention).

Accordingly, the application for a temporary restraining order and the alternative request for an immediate hearing on his motion for a preliminary injunction are denied. Plaintiff is ordered, by December 30, 2025, to file either (a) a status report indicating whether he intends to prosecute this civil lawsuit in light of this ruling and, if so, the status of his service of the summons and complaint on each defendant; or (b) a notice of dismissal (if he intends to dismiss). Failure to timely comply may result in dismissal.”

The ruling comes as DeCastro’s second legal setback in under a week. On Friday, a Nevada court ruled against his emergency motion to be allowed to use alternative means of service to serve the defendants in his lawsuit against Clark County, Nevada, and nearly everyone connected to both his conviction of and acquittal from charges in the state in 2024.

DeCastro now has a deadline of December 30, 2025, in the California case to either file a status report indicating if he’s still going to pursue the case in light of the ruling against him and update the court on the status of serving the defendants in the case or issue a notice of dismissal.

The YouTuber is expected to livestream again Tuesday night.