As of January 17, 2025, there has been no court activity on this case and no record of any defendant being servered by Jose DeCastro. It appears that Jose DeCastro may have missed his deadline for serving the defendants in this case. The deadline was originally in August but was extended to October 23, 2024.

On March 4, 2024, Mr. DeCastro again tries to sue the Defendant's from his failed Ohio Federal Civil Lawsuit, this time filing and claiming residency in Nevada. With his original case filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio being dismissed, and his follow-up appeal filed in the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals being denied, speculation is that this case will also be dismissed.

On October 5th, 2023, Jose DeCastro filed this appeal when the Judge dismissed DeCastro v. Wagner, et al with prejudice.

On June 25, 2024, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, without hearing oral arguments, denied Jose DeCastro appeal.

On August 14th, 2023, Jose DeCastro filed an appeal with the 9th Circuit when the Judge in his Civil lawsuit ruled against his montion to stay the Criminal Case against him in Vegas.

See related cases DeCastro v. Las Vegas Metro PD and Nevada v. DeCastro (23-CR-013015).

On November 21, 2023, the 9th Circuit ruled that the "district court Judge did not abuse his discretion in denying DeCastro's motion for reconsideration", affirming the Judge and denying DeCastro's appeal.

While not a case where Mr. DeCastro is listed as a Plaintiff or a Defendant, on July 17, 2023, attorneys for Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department filed a MOTION TO PRECLUDE JOSE DECASTRO FROM PRACTICING LAW WITHOUT A LICENSE AND TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AS AN IMPROPERLY FILED PLEADING. It appears the attorney noted sections in this case that are word-for-word copies of statements in the complaint filed in DeCastro v. Las Vegas Metro PD, along with YouTube videos of Mr. DeCastro, offering to help people file complaints, providing instruction on how to write complaints, and performing activities that, in Nevada, can only be done by a qualified attorney.

On October 25, 2023, the Court Denied the Motion [10] and [11], mentioned above, for the reasons stated in [49]. However, the Court cautioned Wallace that he "may not reply on a non-lawyer to ghostwrite his filings" and if later the Court determineds that any non-lawyer did, the Court would strike those documents and "the person engaged in the unauthorized practice of law may face criminal penalties."

On April 17, 2023, Mr. DeCastro went live on YouTube and stated that he was about to file a Federal lawsuit against Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, the State of Nevada, numerous officers and John Does. This appears to be in retaliation for his March 15 arrest for Obstruction and Resisting during which Mr. DeCastro can be heard making claims that the officers were violating his rights for turning off his phone which was running a live stream on YouTube, and that an officer holding his arm to restrain him was torture. Shortly afterward, the case appeared on PACER with a case number and Judge assignment.

On October 23, 2023, major portions of this case were DISMISSED, some With Prejudice and some Without. District Judge Andrew P. Gordon issued an order granting the defendents' motion to dismiss 'with prejudice' the portions of Mr. DeCastro's case pertaining to his claims of Fourth Amendment unreasonable search and seizure based on the arrest and search, false imprisonment, invasion of privacy, and negligence based on the arrest and search. He cannot refile these claims.

Included in the order the Judge states "...the officers had probable cause to arrest DeCastro for obstruction."

Mr. DeCastro appears to have ignored the Court's advice and refiled all the charges in his second amended complaint.

On January 10, 2024, Jose DeCastro gave up trying to represent himself after claiming to be a "constitutial legal scholar." He retained his lawyer from his Criminal case in Las Vegas to represent him in this Federal lawsuit. On February 2, 2024, his attorney, Michael Mee, made his first filing in the case in Document 79, Response to 66 Motion. While it appears that some of the claims that were earlier dismissed with prejudice are no longer mentioned, some are.

COMPLAINT against Kate Peter, Joshua Abrams, filed by Jose Maria DeCastro. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet category form)(Castilla, Francis) (Entered: 09/02/2022)

On November 7th, counterclaims were filed by Josh Abrams and Kate Peter in response to 'DeCastro v. Abrams & Peter'. Mr. DeCastro claims he filed a Voluntary Motion to Dismiss the day prior, but the Court did not agree. According to the Court filings, Mr. DeCastro has since submitted at least 6 motions to have court show his filing as having taken place before the 7th in what may in an attempt to refile the case in California Federal Court. The Court DENIED all of the motions.

Originally, ThePublicDocuments posted the counterclaims as a separate case but later combined the two as all the docket postings were filed under the original case number.

On November 16, 2022, Mr. DeCastro replaced his original claim with Copyright Infringement and added 50 John Doe Defendants. On December 2nd, Mr. DeCastro amended his new claim, adding Google/YouTube and an additional 20 YouTube John Doe Defendants.

On July 11, 2023, Judge Burroughs issued a number of Orders. These ranged from DISMISSING the Motion for Contempt against Peters requested by DeCastro, DISMISSING DeCastro's unusual Motion for Disclosure by the Court, DISMISSING the Counterclaims by Peter and Abrams, and DISMISSING DeCastro's case.

September 26, 2023
The Judge has made it clear that the case has been dismissed with prejudice and cannot be refiled [58].

October 5, 2023
Plantiff has appealed the decision in this case to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals

June 25, 2024
6th Circuit Court of Appeals has DENIED DeCastro's appeal. Document 64 is a copy of the order.

COMPLAINT with JURY DEMAND against Chance Blankenship, Chapman, City of Ironton, Jane Doe, Fouch, Lawrence County, Evan McKnight, Brad Spoljaric, Pam Wagner, filed by Jose Maria Decastro.

On December 6, 2022, Order and Judgement was issued dismissing the case, granting [EFC 23] which requested it be 'dismissed with prejudice" when Mr. DeCastro failed to reply again. On December 7, Mr. DeCastro filed a motion to have the dismissal reversed and sent his reply. On December 13th the Court allowed for additional filings and vacated the order that would have dismissed the case with prejudice.

On August 3, 2023, the Judge DISMISSED Mr. DeCastro's complaint after GRANTING the County Defendant's motion to DISMISS and GRANTING the City Defendant's motion for judgement on the pleadings.

Shortly afterwards, Jose DeCastro filed motions to reconsider, for leave to file a 2nd amended complaint, and other actions in an attempt to revive the case. On September 26, 2023, the Court dismissed his motions.