IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE 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. § 

§ 

CHIEF JOSEPH SALVAGGIO, In His § 

Individual and Official Capacities, § CIVIL ACTION NO. 20-cv-00642 JKP

OFFICER JIM WELLS, In His Individual and § 

Official Capacities, OFFICER ANDERSON, §

In His Individual and Official Capacities, §

OFFICER SAUCEDO, In His Individual and §

Official Capacities, OFFICER J. VASQUEZ, §

In His Individual and Official Capacities, §

STATE POLICE OFFICER JOHN DOE, In His § 

In His Individual and Official Capacities, §

BEXAR COUNTY MAGISTRATE, In Their §

Individual and Official Capacities, § 

KIRBY POLICE DEPARTMENT and §

LEON VALLEY POLICE DEPARTMENT, §

Jointly and Severally, §

§ 

Defendants. § 

__________________________________ §

DEFENDANTS CHIEF SALVAGGIO, OFFICERS WELLS, ANDERSON,

SAUCEDO, VASQUEZ, BROOKS, KING, MUNOZ 

AND RIVERA’S ORIGINAL ANSWER 

TO THE HONORABLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE JASON K. PULLIAM: 

NOW COMES CHIEF JOSEPH SALVAGGIO, and OFFICERS WELLS, ANDERSON,

SAUCEDO, VASQUEZ, BROOKS, KING, MUNOZ and RIVERA Individually, Defendants in the 

above entitled and numbered cause and files this their Original Answer to Plaintiffs’ 

Second Amended Complaint heretofore filed and in support thereof would respectfully 

show unto the Court the following: 

Case 5:20-cv-00642-JKP Document 34 Filed 08/30/21 Page 1 of 9
________________________________________________________________________________________________

Jack Miller, et al v. Chief Joseph Salvaggio, et al Civil Action No. 5:20-cv-00642-JKP

Defendant Officers’ Original Answer Page 2

I.

FIRST DEFENSE

Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint fails to state a cause action against these

Defendants upon which relief may be granted. 

II.

SECOND DEFENSE

Defendants CHIEF JOSEPH SALVAGGIO, and OFFICERS WELLS, ANDERSON,

SAUCEDO, VASQUEZ, BROOKS, KING, MUNOZ and RIVERA admit this action purports to 

arise from violations of Plaintiffs’ Constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as 

alleged in Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint; however, Defendants deny that any 

cause of action exists thereunder.

III.

THIRD DEFENSE

Defendants CHIEF JOSEPH SALVAGGIO, and OFFICERS WELLS, ANDERSON,

SAUCEDO, VASQUEZ,BROOKS, KING, MUNOZ and RIVERA deny Paragraphs 23 through 45 

of Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint. Defendants specifically deny Plaintiffs’

allegations that he was carrying “fake gun” on his hip. Plaintiff entered the City Hall 

Building where municipal court was being held and violated state statute by carrying a gun

on the premises. Defendants deny Plaintiffs’ allegations that he was carrying a fake gun. 

Defendants assert unto the Court that at all times made the basis of Plaintiffs’

Second Amended Complaint that they were acting pursuant to their capacity as police 

officers for the City of Leon Valley and Officers for the State of Texas, acting within their 

discretionary authority and at all times acted in good faith and therefore, they are entitled 

to “good faith” qualified immunity and official immunity, as a matter of law. Defendant’s 

Case 5:20-cv-00642-JKP Document 34 Filed 08/30/21 Page 2 of 9
________________________________________________________________________________________________

Jack Miller, et al v. Chief Joseph Salvaggio, et al Civil Action No. 5:20-cv-00642-JKP

Defendant Officers’ Original Answer Page 3

assert qualified immunity under both prongs of the qualified immunity analysis. 

Defendants’ actions did not violate Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights and Defendant Officers 

actions were objectively reasonable based on established law, as a matter of law. 

IV.

FOURTH DEFENSE

Defendants CHIEF JOSEPH SALVAGGIO, and OFFICERS WELLS, ANDERSON,

SAUCEDO, VASQUEZ,BROOKS, KING, MUNOZ and RIVERA deny Paragraphs 46 through 59 

of Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint. Defendants assert unto the Court that a lawful 

search warrant was obtained for Plaintiff Miller’s residence and was lawfully executed. 

Defendant Officers are entitled to the protective shroud of qualified immunity and official 

immunity, as a matter of law. 

V.

FIFTH DEFENSE

Defendants CHIEF JOSEPH SALVAGGIO, and OFFICERS WELLS, ANDERSON,

SAUCEDO, VASQUEZ, BROOKS, KING, MUNOZ and RIVERA deny “Count I” Paragraphs 60 

through 66 of Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint. Defendants deny Plaintiffs’

allegations of the execution of a “no knock” search warrant. The Search Warrant in 

question was conducted legally and in accordance with proper police procedure. The 

Search Warrant was executed by a Magistrate Judge and executed by the Defendants 

herein. Defendants deny Plaintiffs’ allegations of retaliatory arrest and assert that Plaintiff

Miller was charged with violating Texas Penal Code, Chapter 46, Section 46.03. 

Defendants assert unto the Court that Plaintiff is a First Amendment Auditor whose cohorts 

are cabal of communication zealots who propagate electronic civil disobedience. 

Case 5:20-cv-00642-JKP Document 34 Filed 08/30/21 Page 3 of 9
________________________________________________________________________________________________

Jack Miller, et al v. Chief Joseph Salvaggio, et al Civil Action No. 5:20-cv-00642-JKP

Defendant Officers’ Original Answer Page 4

Plaintiff Miller intentionally came to the City Hall of the City of Leon Valley where 

municipal court was being held carrying a weapon. Plaintiff claims the weapon was a fake 

gun and his intention was to evoke a response from the City of Leon Valley Police 

Department. Defendant Officers acted in good faith at all times made the basis of 

Plaintiffs’ Complaint and are entitled to qualified immunity and official immunity, as a 

matter of law. 

VI.

SIXTH DEFENSE

Defendants CHIEF JOSEPH SALVAGGIO, and OFFICERS WELLS, ANDERSON,

SAUCEDO, VASQUEZ,BROOKS,KING, MUNOZ and RIVERA deny “Count III” Paragraphs 75 

through 80 of Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint. Defendants would show unto the 

Court their entry into Plaintiffs’ residence was lawful and pursuant to a valid search 

warrant. Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity and official immunity, as a matter 

of law. 

VII.

SEVENTH DEFENSE

Defendants CHIEF JOSEPH SALVAGGIO, and OFFICERS WELLS, ANDERSON,

SAUCEDO, VASQUEZ,BROOKS,KING,MUNOZ and RIVERA deny “Count IV” Paragraphs 81 

through 94 of Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint. Defendants deny Plaintiffs’ claims 

of excessive force. Defendants deny Plaintiffs’ allegation of a “no knock” search warrant 

and Defendants assert that their actions at all times made the basis of Plaintiffs’ Second 

Amended Complaint were objectively reasonable, as a matter of law. 

Case 5:20-cv-00642-JKP Document 34 Filed 08/30/21 Page 4 of 9
________________________________________________________________________________________________

Jack Miller, et al v. Chief Joseph Salvaggio, et al Civil Action No. 5:20-cv-00642-JKP

Defendant Officers’ Original Answer Page 5

VIII.

EIGHTH DEFENSE

Defendants CHIEF JOSEPH SALVAGGIO, and OFFICERS WELLS, ANDERSON,

SAUCEDO, VASQUEZ, BROOKS, KING, MUNOZ and RIVERA deny “Count V Malicious 

Prosecution” Paragraphs 95 through 109 of Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint. 

Defendants assert that Plaintiffs have failed to state a cause of action for malicious 

prosecution under the Fourth Amendment 42 U.S.C. §1983, as a matter of law. Castellano 

v. Fragozo, 352 F.3d 939, 957 (5th Cir. 2003).

IX.

NINTH DEFENSE

Defendants CHIEF JOSEPH SALVAGGIO, and OFFICERS WELLS, ANDERSON,

SAUCEDO, VASQUEZ, BROOKS, KING, MUNOZ and RIVERA deny “Count VI” Paragraphs 

110 through 122 of Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint. Defendants deny Plaintiffs’

allegations of retaliatory prosecution under 42 U.S.C. §1983, as a matter of law. 

X.

TENTH DEFENSE

Defendants CHIEF JOSEPH SALVAGGIO, and OFFICERS WELLS, ANDERSON,

SAUCEDO, VASQUEZ, BROOKS, KING, MUNOZ and RIVERA deny “Count VII” Paragraphs 

123 through 126 of Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint. Defendants assert that at all 

times made the basis of Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint that they were acting pursuant to 

their discretionary authority in good faith and are therefore entitled to qualified immunity 

and official immunity, as a matter of law. 

Case 5:20-cv-00642-JKP Document 34 Filed 08/30/21 Page 5 of 9
________________________________________________________________________________________________

Jack Miller, et al v. Chief Joseph Salvaggio, et al Civil Action No. 5:20-cv-00642-JKP

Defendant Officers’ Original Answer Page 6

XI.

ELEVENTH DEFENSE

Defendants CHIEF JOSEPH SALVAGGIO, and OFFICERS WELLS, ANDERSON,

SAUCEDO, VASQUEZ, BROOKS, KING, MUNOZ and RIVERA deny “Count VIII” Paragraphs 

127 through 133 of Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint. Defendants assert unto the 

Court that the Defendants herein are entitled to qualified immunity and official immunity, 

as a matter of law. 

XII.

TWELFTH DEFENSE

Defendants CHIEF JOSEPH SALVAGGIO, and OFFICERS WELLS, ANDERSON,

SAUCEDO, VASQUEZ, BROOKS, KING, MUNOZ and RIVERA deny “Count IX” Paragraphs 

134 through 136 of Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint. Defendants deny Plaintiffs’

allegations of conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. §1983 and assert that Plaintiffs have failed to 

state a cause of action, as a matter of law. 

XIII.

THIRTEENTH DEFENSE

Defendants CHIEF JOSEPH SALVAGGIO, and OFFICERS WELLS, ANDERSON,

SAUCEDO, VASQUEZ, BROOKS, KING, MUNOZ and RIVERA deny “Count X” Paragraphs 

137 through 145 of Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint. Defendants assert unto the 

Court that they are trained in accordance with the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement 

(TCOLE) and have met the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement (TCOLE)

requirements for certification. Plaintiffs have failed to state a cause of action under 42 

U.S.C. §1983 under Monell, as a matter of law. 

Case 5:20-cv-00642-JKP Document 34 Filed 08/30/21 Page 6 of 9
________________________________________________________________________________________________

Jack Miller, et al v. Chief Joseph Salvaggio, et al Civil Action No. 5:20-cv-00642-JKP

Defendant Officers’ Original Answer Page 7

XIV.

FOURTEENTH DEFENSE

Defendants CHIEF JOSEPH SALVAGGIO, and OFFICERS WELLS, ANDERSON,

SAUCEDO, VASQUEZ, BROOKS, KING, MUNOZ and RIVERA assert that for any allegations 

that can be inferred under the TEXAS TORT CLAIMS ACT that governmental immunity has 

not been waived pursuant to the TEXAS TORT CLAIMS ACT, Chapter 101, § 101.021, §

101.0215, § 101.055, § 101.056, § 101.057, §101.101 (e) and (f), as a matter of law. 

XV.

FIFTEENTH DEFENSE

Defendants CHIEF JOSEPH SALVAGGIO, and OFFICERS WELLS, ANDERSON,

SAUCEDO, VASQUEZ, BROOKS, KING, MUNOZ and RIVERA assert that their actions were 

justified pursuant to the TEXAS PENAL CODE, Chapter 9, § 9.51, as a matter of law. 

Defendants assert their entitlement to qualified immunity and official immunity, as a matter 

of law. 

XVI.

SIXTEENTH DEFENSE

Defendants CHIEF JOSEPH SALVAGGIO, and OFFICERS WELLS, ANDERSON,

SAUCEDO, VASQUEZ, BROOKS, KING, MUNOZ and RIVERA assert their defenses under the 

TEXAS CIVIL PRACTICE & REMEDIES CODE, Chapter 41, § 41.0105 and Chapter 108, §

108.002, as a matter of law. 

XVII.

SEVENTEENTH DEFENSE

Defendants CHIEF JOSEPH SALVAGGIO, and OFFICERS WELLS, ANDERSON,

SAUCEDO, VASQUEZ, BROOKS, KING, MUNOZ and RIVERA deny “Prayer for Relief” in 

Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint. Defendants deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to 

Case 5:20-cv-00642-JKP Document 34 Filed 08/30/21 Page 7 of 9
________________________________________________________________________________________________

Jack Miller, et al v. Chief Joseph Salvaggio, et al Civil Action No. 5:20-cv-00642-JKP

Defendant Officers’ Original Answer Page 8

compensatory or punitive damages as alleged. Defendants deny that Plaintiffs are entitled 

to any of the relief requested as alleged. Defendants further deny that Plaintiffs are entitled 

to attorney’s fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988, as a matter of law.

XVIII.

EIGHTEETH DEFENSE

Defendants CHIEF JOSEPH SALVAGGIO, and OFFICERS WELLS, ANDERSON,

SAUCEDO, VASQUEZ, BROOKS, KING, MUNOZ and RIVERA herein deny any allegations in 

Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint not specifically admitted herein and demands strict 

proof thereof as required by law.

XIX.

NINETEENTH DEFENSE

Defendants CHIEF JOSEPH SALVAGGIO, and OFFICERS WELLS, ANDERSON,

SAUCEDO, VASQUEZ, BROOKS, KING, MUNOZ and RIVERA herein demand a jury trial.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendants CHIEF JOSEPH 

SALVAGGIO, and OFFICERS WELLS, ANDERSON, SAUCEDO, VASQUEZ, BROOKS, KING,

MUNOZ and RIVERA pray that Plaintiffs’ suit be dismissed against them, or in the 

alternative, that the Plaintiffs take nothing by their lawsuit against them, that Defendants

have Judgment herein, that Defendants be awarded its costs expended, including 

reasonable attorney’s fees and for such other and further relief, both general and special, 

and at law and in equity, to which they may show themselves justly entitled.

Case 5:20-cv-00642-JKP Document 34 Filed 08/30/21 Page 8 of 9
________________________________________________________________________________________________

Jack Miller, et al v. Chief Joseph Salvaggio, et al Civil Action No. 5:20-cv-00642-JKP

Defendant Officers’ Original Answer Page 9

Respectfully submitted,

LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES S. FRIGERIO PC

Riverview Towers

111 Soledad, Suite 465

San Antonio, Texas 78205

(210) 271-7877

(210) 271-0602 Telefax

Email: csfrigeriolaw@sbcglobal.net

BY: /s/ Charles S. Frigerio

CHARLES S. FRIGERIO 

SBN: 07477500

Lead Counsel 

HECTOR X. SAENZ

SBN: 17514850

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS

CHIEF JOSEPH SALVAGGIO, OFFICERS WELLS,

ANDERSON, SAUCEDO, VASQUEZ, BROOKS,

KING, MUNOZ and RIVERA

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 30th day of August, 2021, I electronically filed the 

foregoing Defendants Chief Joseph Salvaggio, and Officers Wells, Anderson, Saucedo, 

Vasquez, Brooks, King, Munoz and Rivera’s Original Answer with the Clerk of the Court 

using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the CM/ECF 

Participant as follows : 

Mr. Brandon J. Grable Email: brandon@ggm.law

Mr. Austin M. Reyna Email: austin@ggm.law

1603 Babcock Road, Suite 280

San Antonio, Texas 78229

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS

Mr. Adolfo Ruiz Email: aruiz@rampagelaw.com

Mr. Patrick Bernal Email: pbernal@rampagelaw.com

Denton Navarro Rocha Bernal & Zech

2517 N. Main

San Antonio, TX 78212

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS

CITY OF KIRBY AND 

CITY OF LEON VALLEY

/s/ Charles S. Frigerio 

CHARLES S. FRIGERIO

Case 5:20-cv-00642-JKP Document 34 Filed 08/30/21 Page 9 of 9