Jose “Chille” DeCastro’s quest to have his late late late response to the Lawrence County, Ohio, defendants in his refiled lawsuit against members of the Ironton, Ohio and Lawrence County police force in Nevada, hit a snag on Friday as the Lawrence County Defendants objected to his motion.
As previously reported, DeCastro filed a motion with the Court for an extension to file his response to the Lawrence County defendants and was granted the extension to reply by May 12, 2025. DeCastro did not reply to the defendants by that date.
Approximately five weeks have passed since DeCastro’s deadline and the Lawrence County defendants asked the Judge to dismiss them from the lawsuit as DeCastro did not reply to their motion to dismiss.
DeCastro had two weeks to reply to their motion to enforce the deadline and missed that deadline as well, replying a week after it passed with a motion for leave to refile a sur-reply that had previously been stricken by the Court.
In his motion, DeCastro spun an elaborate tale about how he actually responded to the Lawrence County defendants in that sur-reply and asked for permission to refile the sur-reply in response to their request for the motion to dismiss.
In their recently filed response, the Lawrence County defendants point out that DeCastro appears confused in his “good faith motion.”
DeCastro did file a sur-reply in the lawsuit that was stricken by the Judge because DeCastro did not receive permission to file it. That sur-reply was a response to the Ironton defendants. As we have previously reported, after having a vigorous back and forth with the Ironton defendants, DeCastro exhausted his opportunities to reply to their motion to dismiss and filed a response without seeking permission to do so.
The sur-reply even refers to his previous discussion with the Ironton defendants and at no time addresses the motion to dismiss by the Lawrence County defendants. It was stricken as DeCastro ignored local rules and filed without seeking permission to do so.
If allowed to refile the sur-reply, DeCastro still would have missed the deadline to reply to the Lawrence County defendants’ motion to dismiss by two months as again, it had nothing to do with their case.
DeCastro’s blundering reply comes just weeks after having his California Superior Court lawsuit effectively end as Judge H. Jay Ford III granted Michael “Blue Bacon” Pierattini’s request for terminating sanctions. Judge Ford also dismissed defendants Team Skeptic and Daniel Clement from the lawsuit at the request of DeCastro.
The diminutive YouTuber also blew a deadline in his federal lawsuit against the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department last month. Even though he is represented by an attorney in that case, DeCastro’s council was required to take lead in filing a joint pre-trial scheduling motion with the court.
The attorney, for whatever reason, did not make contact with the attorney for the LVMPD until the day that the document was due, resulting in two separate filings instead of a single joint filing. The filings were rejected by the Judge in that case and most recently DeCastro’s attorney filed the joint filing to correct another blunder on behalf of DeCastro.
DeCastro has two other federal cases, one against a justice of the peace and a judge in Las Vegas, another against three YouTubers in Massachusetts, which saw DeCastro recently file amended complaints, but, as of press time, has yet to serve anyone with those lawsuits.
The Lawrence County Defendants are seeking a denial of the request by DeCastro to file his sur-reply, alternatively, they’re requesting the ability to reply to the sur-reply should the Judge grant his request.
