Plaintiff: Jose Maria DeCastro

Full List by Date Descending

DeCastro v. McKnight et al

As of January 14, 2025, the Disctrict Court for Clark County, Nevada, ORDERS for good cause appearing and after review due to the failure of Plaintiff to prosecute the case, this case is hereby DISMISSED pursuant to EDCR 1.90 and pursuant to EDCR 2.90.

On March 5, 2024. Jose Maria "Chille" DeCastro appears to have made the unusual move of filing another lawsuit against the Officers and Officials in Ironton, Ohio, but this time in Nevada State Court. Not much is known about this filing, but it appears to be another attempt to sue the defendant's that he sued and lost to in Ohio Federal court. That case was dismissed with prejudice. He is currently appealing that decistion in the Federal 6th District. Then, the day before filing this case in State court, he filed a new Federal suit in Nevada against Ohio defendants.

Both these new Federal and State lawsuits have issues due to the earlier dismissal with prejudice, and with juridiction as filing in Nevada for both of these cases is questionable.

Featured

Decastro v. McKnight, Wagner, et al

On February 14, 2025, the court issued their "Notice Regarding Intention to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jose DeCastro had not served the defendants within 90 days after the complaint has been filed.

He appears to have 3 options at this point, and a deadline of March 16th:

  1. Serve the Defendants
  2. File a good cause reason as to why the court should extend the time to serve
  3. Do nothing and let the case be dismissed without prejudice.

On March 4, 2024, Mr. DeCastro again tried 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.

Featured

DeCastro v. Las Vegas Metropolitan PD et al

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.

DeCastro v. Omo (Team Skeptic)

On 10/07/2022 DECASTRO, JOSE MARIA filed a Family - Harassment lawsuit against OMO, DAVID SCOTT, JR. (a/k/a Team Skeptic). This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is GERBER, HILLARY. The Plaintiff was granted an extension of time to serve the Defendant after being unable to do so withing the original timeframe. On November 18th, when the extension ended, the case was dismissed as the Defendant still had not been served. The Plaintiff said on a YouTube video after the denial that he intends to refile. To this date, he has not.

11/18/2022 at 8:30 AM in Department 25, Gerber, Hillary, Presiding
Restraining Order Hearing - Dismissed - TRO-Lack of Prosecution

DeCastro v. Peter/Abrams (HRO Attempt 2)

  • Source: Various Recordings of the Events and comments by both Plaintiff and Defendant.

Around September 23, 2022, Jose Maria DeCastro attempted for the 2nd time to obtain a Harassment Protection Order against Kate Peter using the same evidence that was unsuccessful in the 1st attempt. As with the 1st attempt, a temporary order was denied and when a hearing was held in Massachusetts, the Court DENIED Mr. DeCastro's request for a long term protection order.

This case is documented in the Massachusetts court system and in numerous YouTube videos that are still online. More Information about this and the other MA HRO case will be included on our website when we can confirm the dates and courthouses.

DeCastro v. Abrams, Peter, YouTube (Google) et al

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.

DeCastro v. Peter/Abrams (HRO Attempt 1)

  • Source: Various Recordings of the Events and comments by both Plaintiff and Defendant.

Near the beginning of June, 2022, Jose Maria DeCastro attempted to obtain a Harassment Protection Order against Kate Peter. A temporary order was denied and when a hearing was held in a Massachusetts on June 10th, 2022, the Court DENIED Mr. DeCastro's request for a long term protection order.

DeCastro v. Wagner, et al

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.

DeCastro v. Ironton Police Department, WOWK TV et al

Jose Maria DeCastro filed a civil action against the Ironton Police Department, WOWK TV, Andi Bernhardt, Bailey Brautigan, and Bob Schaper. Numerous motions to dismiss were submitted and service was not made on a number of parties. On July 27th, 2022 the case appears to have been DISMISSED (with PREJUDICE) For Failure to Prosecute.

DeCastro, Jose, et al v Swimsuit Centerfold LLC et al

On 09/30/2015 JOSE DECASTRO a/k/a CHILLE DECASTRO and DAVID CONDON filed a Property - Other Property Fraud - Fraud (no contract) (General Jurisdiction) - lawsuit against SWIMSUIT CENTERFOLD LLC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.

Ethics SCS Inc v. Moradi, Ali

On September 4, 2015, Ethics SS Inc (Jose DeCastro's company) initiated a Small Claims action against Ali Moradi DBA Jadou Web Design. On November 16, 2015, the case was ruled against Ali Moradi after, it appears Ali Moradi failed to appear. A judgement issued against Ali Moradi for $1500 plus costs of $50 for a total of $1550..

DeCastro, Jose v. Bytheway, Kacey

On 06/15/2004 JOSE DECASTRO filed a Family - Other Family lawsuit against KACEY BYTHEWAY. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Santa Monica Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is TILLMON, BOBBI. The case status is Disposed - Other Disposed.

Our Mission

To present the facts about a controversial social media personality and self-proclaimed 'constitutional legal scholar' who may be misinforming and harming the public with commentary that can be viewed as anti-law enforcement, anti-free speech. His reaction to negative or opposing viewpoints often leads to charges of harassment or other legal action, the exposing of critics personal information, and copyright strikes on videos used under the Fair Use doctrine. With the vast number of document locations, our goal is to become a single resource for viewing all the publicly available material.

The Documents

All documents on this site can be found in various locations on the Internet. They have been released under FOIA by government organizations, or by public entities, corporations and individuals. They are public records. ThePublicDocuments.com obtains these files from Internet sites, or directly from the parties listed above. If information appears to be inaccurate or incomplete, contact the person, organization, agency, or corporation responsible for originally releasing the information to the public. New, updated, corrected, or modified documents will be posted here as soon as we receive a copy.

Gavel   = Active Case