1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

JACK MILLER, ANNABEL CAMPBELL,

MATTHEW PESINA, LISA PESINA, M.P., a 

minor, and J.G., a minor,

Plaintiffs,

v.

JOSEPH SALVAGGIO; JIM WELLS; 

OFFICER ANDERSON, OFFICER 

SAUCEDO; OFFICER J. VASQUEZ; 

OFFICER BROOKS; OFFICER KING; 

OFFICER MUNOZ; OFFICER RIVERA;

STATE POLICE OFFICER JOHN DOE; 

CITY OF KIRBY and CITY OF LEON 

VALLEY, 

Defendants.

_______________________________________/

Solomon M. Radner, Esq.

EXCOLO LAW, PLLC

Attorney for Plaintiffs

26700 Lahser Road, Suite 401

Southfield, MI 48033

(866) 939-2656

sradner@excololaw.com

______________________________________/

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

NOW COME Plaintiffs, JACK MILLER, ANNABEL CAMPBELL, 

MATTHEW PAESINA, LISA PESINA, M.P., and J.G., by and through their 

Case 5:20-cv-00642-JKP Document 13 Filed 09/10/20 Page 1 of 20
2

attorneys, EXCOLO LAW, PLLC, for their Complaint against Defendants, 

respectfully alleges the following: 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This is a civil action for money damages brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983, and the First and Fourth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

2. This Court has original jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims presented in 

this Complaint based upon the laws of the United States pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 

1331 and 1343.

3. The amount in controversy exceeds Seventy-Five Thousand 

($75,000.00) Dollars, excluding interest, costs, and attorney fees.

4. The unlawful actions alleged in this Complaint took place within the 

jurisdiction of the United States Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division.

5. Venue is appropriate in the Western District of Texas, San Antonio 

division pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) since the Individual Defendants are 

residents of Western Texas and the acts providing the legal basis for this Complaint 

occurred in the City of Leon Valley, County of Bexar, State of Texas.

PARTIES

6. The Plaintiffs, Jack Miller, Annabel Campbell, Matthew Paesina, Lisa 

Garcia, M.P. and J.G., at all pertinent times were residents of the City of Leon 

Valley, the State of Texas, and citizens of the United States.

Case 5:20-cv-00642-JKP Document 13 Filed 09/10/20 Page 2 of 20
3

7. Defendant Joseph Salvaggio, is the current chief of police of Leon 

Valley. He has demonstrated a practice of disdain and outright disregard for 

individuals’ constitutional rights. Defendant Salvaggio has a history of unlawfully 

and unconstitutionally using the powers with which he has been entrusted as a law 

enforcement officer and more specifically as a chief of police, to squash his 

dissidents, including those whose dissidence is constitutionally protected. At all 

times relevant Defendant Salvaggio was acting under the color of law. 

8. Defendant Jim Wells #548, at all times relevant, was employed as a

police officer and acting under color of state law as a law enforcement officer.

9. Defendant Officer Anderson #502, at all times relevant, was employed 

as a Lieutenant police officer and acting under color of state law as a law 

enforcement officer.

10. Defendant Officer Saucedo, at all times relevant, was employed as a 

police officer and acting under color of state law as a law enforcement officer.

11. Defendant Officer J. Vasquez #552, at all times relevant, was employed 

as a police officer and acting under color of state law as a law enforcement officer.

12. Defendant Officer Brooks #521, at all times relevant, was employed as 

a police officer and acting under color of state law as a law enforcement officer.

13. Defendant Officer King # 519, all times relevant, was employed as a 

police officer and acting under color of state law as a law enforcement officer.

Case 5:20-cv-00642-JKP Document 13 Filed 09/10/20 Page 3 of 20
4

14. Defendant Officer Munoz #522, all times relevant, was employed as a 

police officer and acting under color of state law as a law enforcement officer.

15. Defendant Officer Rivera #567, all times relevant, was employed as a 

police officer and acting under color of state law as a law enforcement officer.

16. Defendant John Doe Kirby Officers, at all times relevant, were 

employed as police officers and acting under color of state law as a law enforcement 

officers. John Doe Kirby Officers participated in the search of Plaintiff’s home and 

use of excessive force but cannot be identified without further discovery. 

17. Defendant State Police Officer John Doe, at all times relevant, was 

employed as a police officer and acting under color of state law as a state law 

enforcement officer. 

18. The individual Defendants are sued in their individual capacity. 

19. Defendant, City of Kirby, is a political subdivision of Texas.

20. Defendant, City of Leon Valley, is a political subdivision of the State 

of Texas. 

21. The individual Defendants, Salvaggio, Jim Wells, Officer Anderson, 

Officer Saucedo, Officer J. Vasquez, Officer Brooks, Officer King, and Officer 

Munoz, will herein be referred to collectively as the individually named Defendant 

Officers. Upon information and belief, all the individually named Defendant 

Officers are citizens of the United States and are law enforcement officers within the 

Case 5:20-cv-00642-JKP Document 13 Filed 09/10/20 Page 4 of 20
5

jurisdiction of the County of Bexar and are employed by the City of Leon Valley or 

the City of Kirby. 

22. On or about May 31, 2018, at the time of the events alleged in this 

Complaint, all the individually named Defendants were at all times each acting in 

their individual capacities, within the course and scope of their employment as police 

officers and/or agents employed by the City of Leon Valley or City of Kirby, and 

under the color of law.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

23. On May 31, 2018, Plaintiff Miller was at city hall at 4:30 pm for

approximately 45 minutes, exercising his First Amendment Right to petition the 

government by delivering a complaint against the police department.

24. Plaintiff Miller had a previous incident with the Olmos Park Police and 

was “arrested for sign” due to having a fake gun. Case# 18-02879 filed by reporting 

officer James Lopez #352 show that the gun was, indeed, fake.

25. Plaintiff Miller entered Leon Valley City Hall to deliver complaint and 

notice in that the City of Leon Valley was violating Texas Government Code Sec. 

411.209. WRONGFUL EXCLUSION OF HANDGUN LICENSE HOLDER.

26. Plaintiff Miller was required by law, under Sec. 411.209, to deliver the 

complaint, document the delivery, and record various facts regarding the violation 

Case 5:20-cv-00642-JKP Document 13 Filed 09/10/20 Page 5 of 20
6

including taking photographic evidence of the violation. This information would be 

turned into the Texas Attorney General office at a later date.

27. Plaintiff Miller entered city hall to deliver complaint.

28. Plaintiff Miller had a holster with a fake gun on his hip in plain sight.

29. Having a fake gun at city hall is not an arrestable offense.

30. Plaintiff Miller informed security that he was there to deliver a 

complaint.

31. Security asked him to stand on the side.

32. Upon information and belief, security is Defendant Rivera. She knew 

the gun was fake but proceeded to file a charge against Plaintiff anyway to institute 

criminal proceedings and a search of his home. 

33. While at city hall, Defendant Officers (as well as others) were 

discussing the complaint. Defendant Officers knew Plaintiff was exercising 

protected conduct. 

34. Defendant Officer Wells came to talk to Plaintiff Miller and asked him 

to leave with his gun.

35. Plaintiff Miller walked out of city hall with Defendant Officer Wells.

36. Plaintiff Miller was instructed to put his gun in car.

37. Plaintiff Miller complied.

Case 5:20-cv-00642-JKP Document 13 Filed 09/10/20 Page 6 of 20
7

38. Plaintiff Miller returned to city hall and was “wanded” by security and 

granted access to city hall.

39. Defendant Officer Anderson came to speak with Plaintiff. 

40. Plaintiff Miller insisted on writing a complaint.

41. Plaintiff Miller remained on premises for 30 minutes, filing his 

complaint/notice, while Defendant Officer Anderson taunted Plaintiff Miller to 

engage in confrontation with Defendant Anderson. Plaintiff Miller refused to engage 

Defendant Anderson.

42. Plaintiff Miller insisted that Officer Anderson get another “more 

professional acting” officer to handle the complaint.

43. Defendant Officer Saucedo joined the group of officers inside of city 

hall where Plaintiff Miller was standing and filing his complaint/notice. He shook 

hands with Plaintiff Miller and took his complaint. 

44. Plaintiff Miller went outside and smoked a cigarette with his friend, 

Brian Howd, in the parking lot. After approximately 20 minutes, Plaintiff Miller and 

Howd drove away, leaving Leon Valley.

45. Defendant Officers knew Plaintiff had a fake gun on his hip. Defendant 

Officers initiated criminal proceedings and an unlawful arrest and search of 

Plaintiff’s home. 

46. Plaintiff Miller arrived home at midnight.

Case 5:20-cv-00642-JKP Document 13 Filed 09/10/20 Page 7 of 20
8

47. Defendant Officers, including but not limited to Defendants Brooks, 

King, Munoz, and the State Officer, arrived at Plaintiff Miller’s home with an arrest 

warrant for Plaintiff Jack Miller and a search warrant for his home, accompanied by 

the John Doe Kirby Police Officers and an unidentified State Police Officer, who 

had the warrant and the affidavit. The search warrant did NOT authorize a “no 

knock.”

48. Defendant Officers had been briefed by Defendant Officers on 

Plaintiff’s possession of a fake gun yet still carried out the unlawful warrant procured 

through knowingly false statements. 

49. Defendants proceeded to conduct a “No Knock” entry into plaintiff 

Miller’s home by first making an unannounced entry into the open garage and then 

subsequent entry through a closed interior door that leads from the garage to the 

kitchen. Defendants did NOT announce their presence or intent prior to making entry 

into Plaintiff Millers’ residence. Defendant only yelled “police” after opening a 

closed door and entering the kitchen area, pointing rifles at Plaintiffs Annabel 

Campbell, Matthew Pesina, Lisa Pesina and their 2 minor children.

50. The sworn affidavits stated that Plaintiff Miller had entered the Leon 

Valley Municipal Court facility, with a firearm. This building does not exist.

51. According to Kelly Kuenstler, MPA, the Leon Valley City Manager, 

Leon Valley does not have a courthouse.

Case 5:20-cv-00642-JKP Document 13 Filed 09/10/20 Page 8 of 20
9

52. The building Plaintiff Miller entered is built/dedicated as, and well 

known to be the “Leon Valley City Hall” and The “Leon Valley Police Department” 

as indicated on the exterior building signage.

53. The allegations in the affidavit were therefore false and the warrant was 

unlawfully obtained.

54. The search warrant was issued at 10:30 pm on May 31, 2018 and signed 

by the Bexar County Magistrate.

55. The warrant commanded Defendant Officers to enter and search 

Plaintiff Miller’s home for a black semi-automatic hand gun, a Go Pro Camera, any 

cell phone media devices used to record, computer desk top or laptop, and 

photographic evidence.

56. Defendant Officers entered Plaintiff Miller’s home and pointed their 

guns at everyone inside (all Plaintiffs party to this case). 

57. Miller was charged with “Places Weapons Prohibited” in violation of 

Texas Penal Code 46.03

58. Miller was prosecuted for the aforementioned crime and the case was 

dismissed due to “insufficient evidence.”

COUNT I

VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983

(First Amendment – Retaliatory Arrest) 

59. Plaintiffs incorporate herein all the prior allegations.

Case 5:20-cv-00642-JKP Document 13 Filed 09/10/20 Page 9 of 20
10

60. Defendant Officers intentionally, knowingly, maliciously, recklessly, 

unreasonably, and/or gross negligently detained, handcuffed, and/or arrested 

Plaintiffs without any lawful basis.

61. These adverse acts were done due to Plaintiff Miller’s exercise of his

First Amendment right to free speech and his right to file a formal complaint against 

law enforcement at city hall.

62. Plaintiff Miller’s retaliatory arrest was based on Defendant Officers’ 

knowing, deliberate, and reckless disregard for the truth, wherein they made false 

statements and omissions that created falsehoods that were incorporated into 

documents, including an affidavit and a no-knock search warrant. Such statements 

were material and necessary to finding probable cause for the false charges that were 

levied against Plaintiff Miller. The retaliatory arrest was made and continued under 

the color of law and without proper investigation, study, diligence, or basis. Further, 

the Defendant Officers had no knowledge of any fact or circumstance which would 

lead a reasonable person to believe that Plaintiff Miller committed any offense, 

whatsoever.

63. Defendant Officers intentionally arrested Plaintiff Miller and/or had 

him arrested with the intention of deterring him from exercising his First 

Amendment right to file a complaint at city hall.

Case 5:20-cv-00642-JKP Document 13 Filed 09/10/20 Page 10 of 20
11

64. Defendant Officers’ conduct in entering Plaintiffs’ home and aiming 

firearms at all of them deprived them of their liberty without their consent, probable 

cause, legal justification, just cause, or any other legally valid reason. 

65. Plaintiffs suffered harm as a result.

COUNT II

VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983

(First Amendment – Retaliatory Arrest) 

66. Plaintiffs incorporate herein all prior allegations.

67. Defendant Officers intentionally, knowingly, maliciously, recklessly, 

unreasonably, and/or gross negligently detained, handcuffed, and/or arrested 

Plaintiffs without any lawful basis.

68. These adverse acts were done in retaliation to Plaintiff Miller being a 

First Amendment auditor.

69. In his role as a First Amendment auditor, Plaintiff Miller routinely 

records and/or photographs police officers.

70. Plaintiff Miller’s retaliatory arrest was based on Defendant Officers’ 

knowing, deliberate, and reckless disregard for the truth, wherein they made false 

statements and omissions that created falsehoods that were incorporated into 

documents, including an affidavit and a no-knock search warrant. Such statements 

were material and necessary to finding probable cause for the false charges that were 

levied against Miller. The retaliatory arrest was made and continued under the color 

Case 5:20-cv-00642-JKP Document 13 Filed 09/10/20 Page 11 of 20
12

of law and without proper investigation, study, diligence, or basis. Further, the 

Defendant Officers had no knowledge of any fact or circumstance which would lead 

a reasonable person to believe that Plaintiff Miller committed any offense, 

whatsoever.

71. Defendant Officers intentionally arrested Plaintiff Miller and/or had 

him arrested with the intention of deterring Plaintiff Miller from engaging in First 

Amendment auditor activities. 

72. Defendant Officers’ conduct in entering Plaintiffs’ home and aiming 

firearms at all of them deprived them of their liberty without their consent, probable 

cause, legal justification, just cause, or any other legally valid reason. 

73. Plaintiffs suffered harm as a result.

COUNT III

VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983

(Fourth Amendment – Unlawful Entry) 

74. Plaintiffs incorporate herein all prior allegations.

75. Defendant Officers, acting under color of law, violated all Plaintiffs’ 

constitutionally protected rights including their right to be free from unlawful entry 

without probable cause, guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment.

76. Defendant Officers filed a false affidavit to obtain a no-knock warrant.

77. At or around 12:30am, Defendant Officers used the illegally obtained 

warrant as a basis for entering the Plaintiffs’ home.

Case 5:20-cv-00642-JKP Document 13 Filed 09/10/20 Page 12 of 20
13

78. Defendant Officers entered the Plaintiffs’ home unlawfully.

79. Plaintiffs suffered harm as a result.

COUNT IV

VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983

(Fourth Amendment – Excessive Force) 

80. Plaintiffs incorporate herein all prior allegations.

81. Defendant Officers, acting under color of law, violated all Plaintiffs’ 

constitutionally protected rights including their right to be free from excessive force.

82. Defendant Officers filed a false affidavit to obtain a no-knock warrant.

83. At or around 12:30am, Defendant Officers used the illegally obtained 

warrant as a basis for entering the Plaintiffs’ home.

84. Upon entry of the home, Defendant Officers aimed firearms at everyone 

inside, including the two minor children, Plaintiffs M.P. and J.G.

85. Plaintiffs suffered harm as a result.

COUNT V

VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983

(Fourth Amendment – Malicious Prosecution)

86. Plaintiffs incorporate herein all prior allegations.

87. The elements of malicious prosecution are as follows:

88. A criminal proceeding commenced against the Plaintiff;

89. Defendant initiated or procured the proceeding;

90. The proceeding was terminated in the Plaintiff’s favor;

Case 5:20-cv-00642-JKP Document 13 Filed 09/10/20 Page 13 of 20
14

91. The Plaintiff was innocent of the crime charged;

92. The Defendant lacked probable cause to initiate the criminal 

proceeding;

93. The Defendant acted with malice; and

94. The Plaintiff suffered harm as a result.

95. Defendant Officers filed a false report to the county prosecutor, 

charging Miller with having a gun on government property.

96. The proceeding was terminated in Miller’s favor because he did not 

have a real gun.

97. Miller was innocent of the crime charged because he did not have a 

real gun.

98. Defendant Officers lacked probable cause to initiate the criminal 

proceeding because they knew Miller did not have a real gun.

99. Defendant Officers acted with malice by filing a false affidavit and 

obtaining a no-knock warrant.

100. Plaintiffs suffered harm as a result.

COUNT VI

VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983

(First Amendment – Retaliatory Prosecution)

101. Plaintiffs incorporate herein all prior allegations.

Case 5:20-cv-00642-JKP Document 13 Filed 09/10/20 Page 14 of 20
15

102. Defendant Officers, acting under color of law, maliciously charged 

Plaintiff Miller with a frivolous criminal charge.

103. This adverse act was done in retaliation for Plaintiff Miller engaging in 

constitutionally protected conduct as described herein, and to prevent him from 

engaging in such conduct, specifically filing a complaint against the police. 

104. Defendant Officers’ adverse acts would deter a man of ordinary 

firmness from continuing to engage in filing complaints against the police in the 

future.

105. Plaintiffs suffered harm as a result.

COUNT VII

VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983

(First Amendment – Retaliatory Prosecution)

106. Plaintiffs incorporate herein all prior allegations.

107. Defendant Officers, acting under color of law, maliciously charged 

Plaintiff Miller with a frivolous criminal charge.

108. This adverse act was done in retaliation for Plaintiff Miller engaging in 

constitutionally protected activity as a First Amendment auditor.

109. Defendant Officers’ adverse acts would deter a man of ordinary 

firmness from continuing to engage in such conduct in the future.

110. Plaintiffs suffered harm as a result.

COUNT VIII

Case 5:20-cv-00642-JKP Document 13 Filed 09/10/20 Page 15 of 20
16

VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983

(Failure to Intervene)

111. Plaintiffs incorporate herein all prior allegations.

112. Each of the above counts in this suit named Defendants, under color of 

law, were either working in concert with one another to deter Plaintiff Miller from 

engaging in constitutionally protected activity

113. Even if not all Defendant Officers acted in concert, none of the 

Defendant Officers intervened to stop the unlawful conduct of one or more of the 

acting Defendant Officers.

114. Plaintiffs suffered harm as a result.

COUNT IX

VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983

(Conspiracy)

115. Plaintiffs incorporate herein all prior allegation

116. Each of the above counts in this suit named Defendants conspired with 

one another to commit each count to deter Plaintiff Miller from engaging in 

constitutionally protected activity.

117. Plaintiffs suffered harm as a result.

COUNT X

VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983

(Municipal Liability – Unlawful Policy / Failure to Train)

118. Plaintiffs incorporate herein all prior allegations.

Case 5:20-cv-00642-JKP Document 13 Filed 09/10/20 Page 16 of 20
17

119. A municipality is liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if the acts that violated 

a person’s right were undertaken pursuant to the municipality’s policies and 

customs.

120. Defendants Leon Valley and Kirby directly caused the constitutional 

violations suffered by Plaintiffs, and is liable for the damages caused as a result of 

the conduct of the individual Defendants. The conduct of the individual Defendant 

officers was a direct consequence of the policies and practices of Defendant City.

121. At all times relevant in this complaint, direct and proximate cause of 

the damages and injuries complained of were caused by policies, practices and /or 

customs developed, implemented, enforced, encouraged, and sanctioned by 

Defendant City, including the failure: 

a. To adequately supervise and train its officers and agents, including 

individual Defendants, thereby failing to adequately discourage further 

constitutional violations on the part of its police officers;

b. To properly and adequately monitor and discipline its officers, 

including individual Defendants; and 

c. To adequately and properly investigate citizen complaints of police 

misconduct and instead, acts of misconduct were tolerated by the 

Defendant City. Defendant City has acted with deliberate indifference 

to the constitutional rights of the Plaintiffs. As a direct and proximate 

Case 5:20-cv-00642-JKP Document 13 Filed 09/10/20 Page 17 of 20
18

result of the acts as stated herein by each of the Defendants, each of the 

Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights have been violated.

122. This failure to supervise, discipline, or control its officers demonstrates 

deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of the plaintiffs and is directly 

responsible for the individual defendants acting the way they did as outlined in this 

lawsuit.

123. Further the de facto unwritten policy, procedure, or custom, described 

herein, including arresting individuals who engage in protected conduct for false 

reasons, demonstrates deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of the 

plaintiffs and is directly responsible for the individual defendants acting the way 

they did as outlined in this complaint. 

124. Defendant City of Leon Valley and Defendant Salvaggio have a history 

of unlawfully training and permitting officers to arrest individuals engaged in 

protected conduct. Defendant Salvaggio on several occasions has encouraged the 

arrest and prosecution of individuals exercising their first amendment rights. 

125. Defendant City’s supervision of the defendant officers, was deficient as 

it to relates to excessive force, unlawful arrests, and unlawful searches and seizures. 

Defendant City made a deliberately indifferent choice to not provide adequate 

supervision of these officers to ensure that such actions are not repeated, and that is 

Case 5:20-cv-00642-JKP Document 13 Filed 09/10/20 Page 18 of 20
19

exactly why these defendant officers were enabled and in fact emboldened to violate 

the plaintiffs’ Constitutional rights as outlined herein. 

126. As a proximate result of the unconstitutional acts and omissions of 

Defendant City, Plaintiffs were harmed and suffer damages for their physical, 

mental, and emotional injury and pain, mental anguish, humiliation, and 

embarrassment. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment and pray for the following relief, 

jointly and severally, against all Defendants:

a. Declaratory judgment that Leon Valley’s and Kirby’s policies are 

unconstitutional;

b. Full and fair compensatory damages in an amount to be determined by 

a jury;

c. Punitive damages in an amount to be determined by a jury;

d. Reasonable attorney’s fees and the costs and disbursements of this 

action; and

e. Any such other relief as appears just and proper.

JURY DEMAND

Case 5:20-cv-00642-JKP Document 13 Filed 09/10/20 Page 19 of 20
20

Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury of all issues so triable, pursuant to 

Fed. R. Civ. Pr. 38(b).

Respectfully submitted,

EXCOLO LAW, PLLC

 By: /s/ Solomon M. Radner

Solomon M. Radner, Esq.

Attorney for Plaintiffs

26700 Lahser Road, Suite 401

Southfield, MI 48033

(866) 939-2656

sradner@excololaw.com

Dated: September 10, 2020

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby affirm that on this 10th day of September, that the foregoing document was 

filed with the Court’s CM/ECF electronic filing system, and that a copy of said 

document was served upon all parties of record, via electronic service.

/s/ Solomon M. Radner

Case 5:20-cv-00642-JKP Document 13 Filed 09/10/20 Page 20 of 20