1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

JOHN PORTER HOLCOMBE 

II, AS NEXT FRIEND OF 

MINORS E.J.H. AND P.J.H., 

AND AS INDEPENDENT 

ADMINISTRATOR OF THE 

ESTATES OF MINORS 

G.L.H., E.R.H., AND M.G.H.,

Plaintiff

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIV. ACTION NO: 5:20-cv-368

vs. §

UNITED STATES OF 

AMERICA,

Defendant

§

§

§

§

§

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

This case arises out of negligence by the United States of America and its 

agencies causing the massacre at Sutherland Springs First Baptist Church on 

November 5, 2017. Plaintiff John Porter Holcombe II, as Next Friend of Minors 

E.J.H. and P.J.H., and as Independent Administrator of the Estates of Minors 

G.L.H., E.R.H., and M.G.H., brings this Complaint under the Federal Tort Claims 

Case 5:20-cv-00368 Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 1 of 57
2

Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2674 against the United States of America and would respectfully 

show the following.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. PARTIES................................................................................................. 4

II. BACKGROUND...................................................................................... 6

A. Congress passed key legislation to prevent shootings like 

the Sutherland Springs shooting. ............................................................ 6

B. Congress, the Department of Defense, and the Department 

of Air Force voluntarily undertook a non-delegable duty to 

report convictions for domestic violence, incarceration for a 

crime punishable by more than one year, and mental 

institution commitment. ........................................................................... 9

C. The Department of Defense and Air Force knew that it was 

not reliably collecting and reporting fingerprints and final 

disposition information to the FBI......................................................... 14

III. DEVIN KELLEY...................................................................................15

A. The Air Force knew Devin Kelley’s violent history. ............................... 15

B. The Air Force commits Devin Kelley to a mental health 

facility. .................................................................................................... 23

C. The Air Force charges and convicts Devin Kelley of 

domestic violence, resulting in his incarceration for a 

crime punishable by more than one year. .............................................. 26

D. Kelley commits a mass shooting at the Sutherland Springs 

First Baptist Church on November 5, 2017. .......................................... 31

IV. AIR FORCE’S COMISSIONS & OMISSIONS.................................32

A. The Department of Air Force missed multiple 

opportunities to provide Devin Kelley’s fingerprint cards 

and final disposition reports to the FBI................................................. 32

B. Systematic failures in operations, organization, hiring, 

training, and supervision caused the Air Force’s failure to 

collect, maintain, and submit Devin Kelley’s fingerprint 

cards and final disposition reports to the FBI....................................... 37

Case 5:20-cv-00368 Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 2 of 57
3

V. CAUSES OF ACTION..........................................................................41

A. Negligence ............................................................................................... 41

B. Negligent Failure to Train & Supervise ................................................ 44

C. Negligent Undertaking........................................................................... 45

VI. CAUSATION .........................................................................................47

A. Department of Defense and Department of the Air Force’s 

negligence caused injuries to the Plaintiff. ............................................ 47

B. Had the Air Force reported Kelley’s history, the FBI’s 

Instant Criminal Background Check System would have 

blocked Devin Kelley’s firearm purchase. .............................................. 49

VII. DAMAGES.............................................................................................50

VIII. JURISDICTION, VENUE, & SERVICE ...........................................54

IX. LIABILITY OF THE UNITED STATES...........................................55

X. JURISDICTIONAL ALLEGATIONS................................................56

Case 5:20-cv-00368 Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 3 of 57
4

I. PARTIES

1.1 United States of America (“USA”) is a defendant in this action pursuant to 

28 U.S.C § 1346 (b) and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671, et seq., commonly referred to as the 

Federal Tort Claims Act, in that the claims which give rise to this action are 

against, in whole or in part, the United States of America.

1.2 Plaintiff has complied with the administrative prerequisites regarding 

filing suit against Defendant USA in that, on August 27, 2019, Plaintiff served upon 

Defendant USA Notices of Claim (Standard Form 95) on behalf of John Porter 

Holcombe II, as Next Friend of Minors E.J.H. and P.J.H., and as Independent 

Administrator of the Estates of Minors G.L.H., E.R.H., and M.G.H. and/or on behalf 

of any individual entitled to recover under the applicable law, and each Form 95 

referenced herein was received by an agency of Defendant USA, namely, the United 

States Air Force, on September 9, 2019, and more than six (6) months have elapsed 

since receipt by Defendant USA of the Form 95s, and Defendant USA has not taken 

any action with respect to the Notices of Claim.

1.3 Accordingly, the within action is timely given that it has been instituted 

more than six (6) months after service of the Notices of Claim upon the Air Force, 

notwithstanding that Defendant USA has yet to take any action with respect to the 

Notices of Claim. A copy of all five (5) Form 95s filed on behalf of John Porter 

Holcombe II, as Next Friend of Minors E.J.H. and P.J.H., and as Independent 

Case 5:20-cv-00368 Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 4 of 57
5

Administrator of the Estates of Minors G.L.H., E.R.H., and M.G.H. are attached 

hereto as Exhibit 1 and are incorporated herein by reference. 1

1.4 Plaintiff John Porter Holcombe II resides in Stockdale, Wilson County, 

Texas, within the jurisdiction of this Court.

1.5 Plaintiff John Porter Holcombe II is the surviving legal husband of 

Crystal Holcombe, deceased. John Porter Holcombe II is also the surviving 

stepfather and court-appointed conservator of the surviving minor children of 

Crystal Holcombe, deceased: E.J.H. and P.J.H. The Court Order appointing John 

Porter Holcombe II as conservator of Minors E.J.H. and P.J.H. is attached as 

Exhibit 2.

1.6 Plaintiff John Porter Holcombe II is the legally appointed Independent 

Administrator of the Estates of Minors G.L.H., E.R.H., AND M.G.H., all of whom 

are the natural children of Crystal Holcombe, deceased, and all of whom were killed 

in the shooting. The Court Order appointing John Porter Holcombe II as 

Independent Administrator of the Estates of Minors G.L.H., E.R.H., AND M.G.H. is

attached as Exhibit 3.

2

1 Exhibit 1 has been redacted to remove the names and dates of birth of minors in 

accordance with FRCP 5.2.

2 Exhibit 3 has been redacted to remove the names of minors and financial 

information in accordance with FRCP 5.2.

Case 5:20-cv-00368 Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 5 of 57
6

II.BACKGROUND

A. Congress passed key legislation to prevent shootings like the 

Sutherland Springs shooting.

2.1 Through several pieces of legislation spanning almost 30 years, Congress

acted to block individuals who present a known risk of violence from purchasing 

firearms. To that end, Congress mandated that certain individuals must be flagged 

in an instant criminal background check system used by firearms sellers nationwide 

in the interest of public safety. The Air Force and Department of Defense ignored 

three statutory mandates that required Devin Kelley’s entry into the background 

check system: his domestic violence conviction, his conviction for a crime punishable 

by imprisonment for over a year, and his commitment to a mental institution. As a 

direct result of the Air Force and Department of Defense’s failure to flag Kelley in 

the FBI database, his domestic violence escalated into a murderous shooting 

rampage targeting his ex-wife’s family and neighbors at the Sutherland Springs 

First Baptist Church on November 5, 2017. 

2.2 Federal law makes it unlawful to sell a firearm to a person whom the 

seller knows or has reasonable cause to believe is someone who (a) has been 

convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence; (b) has been convicted of a 

crime punishable by imprisonment for longer than a year; or (c) has been committed 

to any mental institution. 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(1), (4), (9). These categories of 

individuals are forbidden from possessing firearms. Id. § 922(g).

Case 5:20-cv-00368 Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 6 of 57
7

2.3 Congress attempted to quell the dangers presented by mass shooters like 

Devin Kelley before he was even born. Initially passed as the Gun Control Act of 

1968, the law banned the sale of firearms to those individuals with criminal 

histories and those individuals who have been committed to mental institutions. 

2.4 In 1993, Section 103 of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act 

required the Attorney General of the United States to establish an instant criminal 

background check system that a firearm seller must use to determine whether the 

sale of the firearm violates 18 U.S.C. § 922. Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(t), a licensed 

dealer of firearms shall not sell or transfer to any person without first contacting 

the national instant criminal background check system.

2.5 Congress passed the Brady Bill to prevent shootings just like the 

Sutherland Springs shooting. When the Brady Bill was introduced in the House, 

one of the Bill’s sponsors explained that express purpose:

Mr. Speaker, I rise to strongly support today’s 

introduction of the Brady bill. Five years ago, a man 

named Larry Dale walked into Mercer’s Discount Foods in 

Tulsa, OK, and opened fire on an unsuspecting crowd of 

shoppers. Dale’s rampage killed one person and severely 

wounded another. Many Oklahomans were outraged to 

learn that Dale, a convicted felon with a history of mental 

illness, had walked into a gun store the day before his 

crime, filled out a single form, and walked out with his 

instrument of death. The tragedy is that 5 years after 

Larry Dale proved how flawed the system is, the Brady 

Bill is not the law of the land.3

3 Congressional Record, House, at H731 (Feb. 22, 1993).

Case 5:20-cv-00368 Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 7 of 57
8

2.6 When the Brady Bill went to committee, the Chairman’s opening 

statement in the House Subcommittee hearings noted that the Brady Bill would 

effectively prevent barred individuals from purchasing firearms:

We are meeting today to consider a bill whose time has 

come-the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act....

There is nothing complicated about this bill. ... It will 

save lives. The Brady bill will save lives that are being 

wasted in an epidemic of handgun violence from Brooklyn 

to Florida and all across America. And that is not theory, 

that is fact.

After Brady passes, a convicted felon will no longer be 

able to walk into a gun store, as thousands have done this 

year, and walk out 10 minutes later with a murder 

weapon. State after State has shown that waiting periods 

and background checks work.4

2.7 The committee issued the House Committee Report. Under the heading 

“Summary and Purpose,” the committee reported:

The purpose of H.R. 1025 is to prevent convicted felons 

and other persons who are barred by law from purchasing 

guns from licensed gun dealers, manufacturers or 

importers.

The House report underscored that background checks are necessary to prevent 

violent offenders from gaining access to firearms:

The experiences of States which require background 

checks before firearm sales also indicate that many repeat 

offender criminals buy guns directly from firearms 

dealers. For example, in California, a background check 

intercepted 2,500 felons attempting to buy guns from 

4 Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act, hearing before the Subcommittee on 

Crime and Criminal Justice of the House Judiciary Committee (Sept. 30, 1993).

Case 5:20-cv-00368 Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 8 of 57
9

dealers last year. ... Each year in Illinois some 3,000 

prohibited persons seek to purchase firearms and are 

denied. 5

2.8 In 1996, the Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban, also referred to as the 

“Lautenberg Amendment,” made it unlawful to sell firearms to anyone convicted of 

a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. Congress enacted the Domestic Violence 

Offender Gun Ban to “close [a] dangerous loophole” in the gun control laws: while 

felons had long been barred from possessing guns, many perpetrators of domestic 

violence are convicted only of misdemeanors.6

2.9 In abusive relationships, the severity of domestic violence often increases 

over time, and the presence of a firearm increases the likelihood of homicide.7

Congress recognized that “[f]irearms and domestic strife are a potentially deadly 

combination.”8 As one Senator noted during the debate over § 922(g)(9), “[A]ll too 

often, the only difference between a battered woman and a dead woman is the 

presence of a gun.” 142 Cong. Rec. 22986 (1996) (statement of Sen. Wellstone).

B. Congress, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Air 

Force voluntarily undertook a non-delegable duty to report 

5 H. Rep. No. 103-344, Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Nov. 10, 1993).

6 United States v. Castleman, 134 S. Ct. 1405, 1408–09 (2014) (citing 

United States v. Hayes, 555 U.S. 415, 426 (2009)).

7 See id., at 14–15; Campbell et al., Assessing Risk Factors for Intimate Partner 

Homicide, DOJ, Nat. Institute of Justice J., No. 250, p. 16 (Nov. 2003) (“When a 

gun was in the house, an abused woman was 6 times more likely than other 

abused women to be killed”).

8 See Voisine v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2272 (2016) (citing Hayes, 555 U.S. at 427).

Case 5:20-cv-00368 Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 9 of 57
10

convictions for domestic violence, incarceration for a crime 

punishable by more than one year, and mental institution 

commitment.

2.10 Federal law requires Government agencies to report ineligible firearm 

purchasers to a national database. Specifically, 34 U.S.C. § 40901(e)(1)(C) states 

that federal agencies that have “any record of any person demonstrating” that the 

person should not be able to purchase a gun “shall, not less frequently than 

quarterly, provide the pertinent information contained in such record to” the 

Attorney General for the national instant criminal background check system.

Section 40901(e)(1)(D) creates an obligation on agencies to correct and update these 

records.

2.11 Title 10, U.S.C. section 1562 requires that the Department of Defense 

establish a central database of information on the incidents of domestic violence 

involving members of the armed forces. This section also requires that all military 

departments, including the Department of the Air Force, report domestic violence 

incidents.

2.12 It is Department of Defense policy that all Department agencies, including 

the Department of the Air Force, comply with the (a) crime reporting requirements 

of the Uniform Federal Crime Reporting Act of 1988; (b) reporting requirements for 

victim and witness assistance notifications of the Victim's Rights and Restitution 

Act of 1990, and (c) reporting requirements of the Brady Handgun Violence 

Prevention Act.

2.13 To implement these federal laws, the Department of Justice established 

the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). Congress, 

Case 5:20-cv-00368 Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 10 of 57
11

through the Brady Act, established the NICS Indices, which contains information 

provided by federal agencies of persons prohibited from receiving firearms under 

federal law. The NICS responds instantly to background check inquiries by 

querying the NICS Indices, the National Crime Information Center, and the 

Interstate Identification Index. The Interstate Identification Index contains 

biometric criminal history based on fingerprint submission.

2.14 The Department of Defense issued policies that required submission of 

fingerprint cards and final disposition reports to the FBI for inclusion in the NICS 

database. The Department of Defense and U.S. Air Force promulgated these policies 

through Department of Defense Instruction 5505.11, “Fingerprint Card and Final 

Disposition Report Submission Requirements.” Instruction 5505.11 requires the 

collection fingerprints and the submission criminal history to the FBI. Under this 

instruction, U.S. Air Force law enforcement agents are to collect and submit 

fingerprint cards when they have probable cause to believe that a person committed 

a violation of a crime that would make the ineligible to obtain a firearm. In 

addition, final disposition reports must be submitted to the FBI upon final 

disposition of the offense.

2.15 Department of Defense Manual 7730.47-M Volume 1, Enclosure 3, 

prescribes the reporting data elements needed to comply with Federal criminal 

incident reporting pursuant to federal law. Enclosure 3 states the Defense IncidentBased Reporting System:

shall be used to centralize the collection of information 

that is reportable by the DoD Components pursuant to 

Case 5:20-cv-00368 Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 11 of 57
12

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, 

which requires the Department of Defense to report these 

eight categories to the FBI for purposes of prohibiting 

firearm purchases:

(1) Persons who have been convicted in any court of a 

crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 

year. ...

(4) Persons who have been adjudicated as mental 

defectives or who have been committed to a mental 

institution. ...

(7) Persons convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime 

of domestic violence.

2.16 The Department of Air Force issued Instruction 31-206 and 31-118. Air 

Force policies required that Air Force Security Forces units obtain complete sets of 

fingerprints on fingerprint cards. Air Force Instructions require the submission of 

these fingerprint cards and final disposition reports to the FBI. Department of Air 

Force Instruction 31-205 requires fingerprinting of all post-trial inmates during the 

in-processing into a confinement facility. The Instruction also required that Air 

Force train its staff in in-processing matters, including collecting and submitting 

fingerprint cards and final disposition reports to the FBI. 

2.17 The Department of Air Force also has instructions, handbooks, and 

manuals that provide policy, guidance, and procedures for collecting and reporting 

criminal history data to the FBI, consistent with Department of Defense policies.

2.18 Air Force Office of Special Investigations Handbook 71-105 (“An Agent’s 

Guide to Conducting and Documenting Investigations,” March 9, 2009) obliges Air 

Force agents or employees to collect a subject’s fingerprints (or the electronic 

Case 5:20-cv-00368 Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 12 of 57
13

equivalent) after a subject interview. The Handbook requires Detachment 

leadership to review the fingerprint cards and final disposition reports for accuracy, 

verify the fingerprints were acceptable, and document their review.

2.19 Air Force Office of Special Investigations Manual 71-118, Volume 4, 

(“General Investigative Methods,” April 5, 2012) requires the collection of 

fingerprints from all subjects of Special Investigations after the subject interview if 

investigating the subject for violation of certain offenses, including crimes of 

domestic violence. It refers Air Force agents to Department of Defense Instruction 

5505.11 for the criteria of collecting and submitting fingerprints to the FBI.

2.20 Air Force Office of Special Investigations Manual 71-121 (“Processing and 

Reporting Investigative Matters,” October 12, 2012) requires Air Force agents to 

submit a subject’s fingerprints to the FBI if they have probable cause to believe the 

subject of their investigation committed certain offenses, including offenses 

involving domestic violence. This manual also requires agents to submit completed 

final disposition reports on military members to the FBI within fifteen (15) days of 

sentencing. Duplicates of these reports must be maintained in the Air Force 

investigative case files. This manual further requires Detachment leadership to 

review—for sufficiency—investigative files monthly from the date of the allegation 

until the case is closed.

Case 5:20-cv-00368 Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 13 of 57
14

C. The Department of Defense and Air Force knew that it was not 

reliably collecting and reporting fingerprints and final disposition 

information to the FBI.

2.21 The Department of Defense Inspector General conducted several 

investigations that found failures in the submission of required fingerprints and 

final disposition reports to the FBI throughout the Department.

2.22 In 1997, the Inspector General found a high level of noncompliance by 

Department of Defense and its agencies. For example, the Air Force failed to submit 

fingerprint cards in 38% of its criminal cases and failed to submit final disposition 

reports in half of its criminal cases. The Inspector General recommended that the 

Military Departments and Defense agencies develop polices and implement 

procedures to correct these failures and prevent such failures from occurring in the 

future. The United States Air Force agreed with the recommendation. 

2.23 In 2013, an Inspector General investigation revealed that Defense 

Departments failed to collect or failed to report 20% of fingerprints in sexual assault 

cases. (Report No. DoDIG-2013-091, “Evaluation of Military Criminal Investigative 

Organizations’ Sexual Assault Investigations,” July 9, 2013.) Similarly, in 2014, an 

Inspector General investigation revealed that Defense Departments failed to collect 

or submit fingerprints to the FBI in sexual assaults of children. Also in 2014, the 

Inspector General found Defense Departments failed to collect and submit 

fingerprints in child death investigations. In 2015 and 2017, the Inspector General 

found that Defense Departments failed to collect or submit fingerprints in 

investigations of sexual assault.

Case 5:20-cv-00368 Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 14 of 57
15

2.24 In 2015, the Inspector General issued another report (Report No. DoDIG2015-081, “Evaluation of Department of Defense Compliance with Criminal History 

Data Reporting Requirements,”) where it found that the Military Services failed to 

consistently submit fingerprint cards and final disposition reports as required. For 

example, the Air Force failed to submit 31% of required fingerprint cards and 32% 

of final disposition reports. The Inspector General recommended that Air Force take 

prompt action to submit missing fingerprint and final disposition reports to the FBI. 

The Inspector General also recommended that Air Force take prompt action to 

ensure submission of fingerprint cards from future criminal investigations and 

future final dispositions reports. The Department of Air Force agreed with these 

recommendations.

2.25 A 2017 review conducted by the Inspector General (Report No. DODIG2018-035, “Evaluation of Fingerprint Card and Final Disposition Report 

Submissions by Military Service Law Enforcement Organizations,” December 5, 

2017) again determined that the Military Services failed to submit fingerprint cards 

and final disposition reports as required.

III. DEVIN KELLEY

A. The Air Force knew Devin Kelley’s violent history.

3.1 Devin Kelley entered the Air Force Delayed Enlistment Program on June 

12, 2009. While enlisting, Kelley lied to the Air Force about using and possessing 

marijuana. On January 5, 2010, he recertified his lies about marijuana use and 

Case 5:20-cv-00368 Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 15 of 57
16

possession when he entered active military service. On March 5, 2010, Kelley 

graduated from basic military training.

3.2 On April 14, 2010, the Air Force began training Kelley as a Network 

Intelligence Analyst, but Kelley had academic issues. Kelley’s military training 

leaders recommended Kelley for elimination from the course because he did not 

meet academic standards. The report also indicated that Kelley had several minor 

disciplinary infractions. 

3.3 On December 16, 2010, the Air Force reassigned Kelley to a traffic 

management career field. On January 11, 2011, the Air Force permanently changed 

Kelley’s station to Holloman Air Force Base (“Holloman”). Kelley arrived at 

Holloman in late April 2011. Between June 19, 2011, and March 20, 2012, he 

accumulated four Memorandums for Record, four Letters of Counseling, and five 

Letters of Reprimand. Kelley’s conduct included failure to obey direct orders, 

creating a hostile work environment, making false statements, and insubordination 

of a superior officer. This included a letter of reprimand for lying to his supervisor 

and for failing to report to his duty station after being ordered to do so. In other 

letters, Kelley was warned that his conduct was a criminal act. In at least three of 

these letters, the Air Force told Kelley that he had proven that he could not be 

depended upon. In at least two of these letters, the Air Force noted that Kelley 

could not always be trusted and had demonstrated a disregard for the Air Force’s 

core values. The Air Force warned Kelley that future misconduct would lead to more 

severe punishment.

Case 5:20-cv-00368 Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 16 of 57
17

3.4 In February 2011, Kelley began dating Tessa K. Kelley (neé Loge). Tessa 

Kelley had a child from a previous marriage. On April 12, 2011, Devin Kelley and 

Tessa Kelley married.

3.5 On June 2, 2011, Tessa Kelley took her child to William Beaumont Army 

Medical Center (a facility owned and operated by an agency of the United States). A 

nursing note indicated concern for child abuse or neglect. While questioning Tessa 

Kelley about her son’s injuries, Tessa Kelley stated that Devin Kelley had kicked 

her.

3.6 On June 8, 2011, Devin and Tessa Kelley took the child to an ER 

complaining of vomiting and falling. The physicians noticed the child had bruising 

on the child’s left cheek that “appeared to be fresh and a little purple.” A CT scan 

revealed a fractured clavicle and subdural hemorrhage (bleeding on the brain). 

After the fact, Devin Kelley admitted to the United States Air Force that he caused 

these injuries without excuse or justification. Devin Kelley produced a video 

confessing to his wrongful conduct. Physicians notified the Children, Youth and 

Families Department in New Mexico, who, in turn, notified the Air Force Office of 

Special Investigations Detachment 225 at Holloman of the possible child abuse.

3.7 On June 9, 2011, Air Force Special Investigations opened an investigation 

for assault on a child, listing Devin Kelley as the subject. They interviewed Kelley 

that day. Kelley denied striking his stepson and denied having any knowledge of 

Tessa Kelley striking the son. Kelley stated that he and Tessa Kelley were the only 

ones with direct access to his stepson. Kelley claimed he did not know how his 

Case 5:20-cv-00368 Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 17 of 57
18

stepson received the injury to his head. Kelley suggested that his stepson received 

the injury from falling on the floor while crawling or playing in his crib. At the end 

of the interview, agents collected Kelley’s fingerprints and released him to his unit 

representatives. Air Force agents collected Kelley’s fingerprints because they 

believed probable cause existed that Kelley committed the assault on his stepson.

However, Air Force agents did not send Kelley’s fingerprint cards to the FBI, as 

required by policy.

3.8 On June 24, 2011, Kelley’s stepson was placed in foster care because of 

unexplained injuries and the suspicions of child abuse. Also on that day, Tessa 

Kelley reported that Kelley had physically assaulted her by grabbing her around 

the throat, choking her, and throwing her against a wall. This report was provided 

to Air Force Reserve leadership and to the 49th Security Forces Squadron at 

Holloman Air Force Base. The Air Force report of the incident stated that the 

investigation “determined no crime had been committed and there was no evidence 

of any injuries to either party.”

3.9 On September 7, 2011, Kelley voluntarily went to the Holloman Mental 

Health Clinic as a walk-in patient and stated that he was unable to cope with the 

stress he was under at work. He stated that Child Protective Services was removing 

his stepson from the house due to an allegation of abuse caused his stress. Kelley 

also stated that his supervisor was constantly “yelling at work.” A staff psychologist

wrote in Kelley’s mental health record that treatment would concentrate on his 

“anxiety/attention/occupational; continue to develop relational and mood

Case 5:20-cv-00368 Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 18 of 57
19

management coping skills.” The psychologist also wrote that Kelley would be seen 

weekly. Between September 7, 2011, and February 22, 2012, Kelley was treated 17 

times at the Holloman Mental Health Clinic. During this time, Kelley was

prescribed Atomoxetine, Ibuprofen, Albuterol, Fluticasone, and Omeprazole.

3.10 In a report on Kelley’s October 11, 2011, visit, a psychologist wrote that 

Kelley had difficulty interacting with authority figures and that he perceived that 

they were criticizing him. On January 10, 2012, the psychologist examined Kelley 

again and reported that Kelley was “able to attend to and focus on pertinent 

material at home and work.” The psychologist also wrote that Kelley was able to 

“control and direct his energy appropriately” and that there were “no significant 

changes in [his] symptoms.”

3.11 On February 17, 2012, Tessa Kelley called the 49th Security Forces 

Squadron to report that Kelley had abused her after fleeing to El Paso, Texas. Tessa 

Kelley told Air Force 49th Logistics Readiness Squadron First Sergeant that 

Kelley’s actions caused her to fear for her life. In response, the First Sergeant told 

her that the Squadron Commander would issue Kelley a no contact order. Tessa 

Kelley told the Squadron investigators that the reason she left Kelley was to get 

away from him “and the abuse,” that Kelley had been physically abusing her since 

July 2011 and that Kelley had choked her on multiple occasions. She stated that in 

one instance on December 24, 2011, Kelley pushed her against a wall and choked 

her because she had told him that she did not want to visit his family and stated, 

“You better pack your bags or I’ll choke you to the ceiling and pass you out.” Tessa 

Case 5:20-cv-00368 Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 19 of 57
20

Kelley also said that on another occasion, she and Kelley argued over her wanting 

to go for a walk at night. This argument resulted in Kelley choking her, kicking her 

in the stomach, and then dragging her by her hair into the bathroom. She said that 

Kelley told her “I’m going to water-board you” and stuck her head directly under the 

showerhead. Tessa Kelley also told the investigators that Kelley emotionally and 

physically abused her throughout their marriage. Tessa Kelley provided other 

examples of abuse, stating that Kelley would threaten to choke her if she did not do 

as he said, and would slap her, kick her, pull her hair, drag her through t heir 

house, and control her. She stated that Kelley told her if she “said anything to 

anybody he would bury her in the desert somewhere.” Tessa Kelley stated that the 

reason she had not reported the abuse sooner was due to fear for both her life and 

the life of her son.

3.12 On February 12, 2012, Air Force investigators tried to interview Devin 

Kelley as a subject of their investigation into crimes of domestic violence. Kelley 

requested legal counsel and did not make a statement. The 49th Security Forces 

Squadron did not collect his fingerprints. Department of Defense and Air Force 

policies required the collection and submission of fingerprint cards to the FBI.

3.13 On February 21, 2012, Devin Kelley voluntarily went to the Holloman 

Mental Health Clinic as a walk-in patient. He told the staff psychologist that he 

was upset because his wife left him and because he believed that she told the 49th 

Security Forces Squadron that he assaulted her. On February 22, 2012, Kelley 

returned to the Clinic because he was still upset that his wife left him. A licensed 

Case 5:20-cv-00368 Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 20 of 57
21

clinical social worker stated that Kelley told her “he would like to go to the 

psychiatric hospital for help because he did not believe he could help himself on an 

outpatient status.”

3.14 On February 23, 2012, Kelley voluntarily entered in-patient care at the 

Peak Behavioral Health Services (“Peak”), where he remained until March 8, 2012. 

Peak is a mental health institution. During Kelley’s intake evaluation, staff 

diagnosed him as having “an adjustment disorder with depressed mood.” The staff 

wrote, “The patient reported feeling suicidal with a plan to shoot himself with a gun 

after his wife informed him that she was filing assault charges for an altercation 

that occurred three weeks prior to admission.” Kelley told the Peak personnel that 

he had frequent mood swings. Kelley also reported that he had severe anxiety. 

Kelley told a clinical nurse specialist that he was diagnosed with Attention Deficit 

Hyperactivity Disorder while he was in the fourth grade. He also told the staff that 

the Holloman Mental Health Clinic had counseled him to help him cope with his 

Child Protective Services case, his marital problems, and his alleged emotional 

abuse from a female supervisor at work. During Kelley’s in-patient treatment, he 

was prescribed Strattera for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, Wellbutrin 

for depression, Clonazepam for anxiety, and Ambien for insomnia.

3.15 On March 8, 2012, the Peak discharged Kelley and told him to follow up 

with the Holloman Mental Health Clinic. Between March 14, 2012, and April 26, 

2012, Kelley was seen at the Clinic seven times. The Clinic had access to Kelley’s 

records at Peak. The last visit to the Clinic was April 26, 2012, during which Kelley 

Case 5:20-cv-00368 Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 21 of 57
22

told Clinic personnel that he was experiencing more difficulty than ever before 

because the final hearing for the adoption of his stepson was one hearing away from 

resolution.

3.16 In approximately mid-March 2012, while at their residence, Tessa Kelley 

watched as Kelley put one bullet in a .38 Special revolver. Kelley then pointed the 

gun at his own head and pulled the trigger three times. Kelley then pointed the gun 

at Tessa Kelley and threatened her. On approximately April 23, 2012, while Tessa 

Kelley and Kelley were driving to El Paso, Tessa Kelley asked Kelley to slow down. 

Devin Kelley cursed at her and told her “don’t tell me how to drive.” The police later 

pulled Kelley over and cited him for speeding. After receiving the ticket and 

continuing to drive, Kelley blamed the ticket on Tessa Kelley and pulled the car

over again. Devin Kelley then pulled out a gun and placed the muzzle of the weapon 

against her temple, stating, “Do you want to die?” Tessa Kelley pushed the gun 

away and began to cry. Kelley then put the gun in his mouth and asked her why she 

wanted to be with him. Kelley then told her that he had slapped her son on June 8, 

2011, the day her son was taken to the hospital. Kelley additionally stated that he 

had struck his stepson on multiple occasions, the first time being in March 2011, in 

New Braunfels. The Air Force became aware of these facts through Tessa Kelley in 

an interview the Office of Special Investigations conducted on May 3, 2012.

3.17 On April 27, 2012, Tessa Kelley convinced Devin Kelley to make a full 

video confession. In the video, he admitted to hitting her son multiple times in 

frustration. Kelley stated that this frustration would lead him to push, strike, and 

Case 5:20-cv-00368 Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 22 of 57
23

slap his stepson. Kelley also acknowledged that he caused the bruising on his 

stepson’s face on June 8, 2011. Kelley further admitted that he caused his stepson’s 

skull injury. He stated that he had pushed his stepson down multiple times and 

shook him on at least two occasions. After completing the video, he gave it to Tessa 

Kelley. On April 29, 2012, Tessa Kelley provided the recording of Kelley’s confession 

to his First Sergeant. The First Sergeant provided the recording to Air Force Office 

of Special Investigations.

B. The Air Force commits Devin Kelley to a mental health facility.

3.18 On April 29, 2012, Kelley’s chain-of-command arranged to have him 

admitted back into the Peak Behavioral Health Services. On April 30, 2012, Kelley 

entered Peak a second time. Kelley stated that he was going to shoot himself and 

Peak staff put a high-risk notification alert on his chart due to his homicidal and 

suicidal indicator.

3.19 On May 3, 2012, Air Force agents re-interviewed Tessa Kelley. She stated 

that she thought Kelley might have hurt her son, but she had not seen him do 

anything to hurt her son. She stated that she began suspecting him of “injuring” her 

son when Kelley started physically, verbally, and mentally abusing her. Tessa 

Kelley stated that Kelley had struck, kicked, choked, and pulled her hair out on 

multiple occasions. She stated that Kelley threatened to kill her if she ever reported 

the abuse to police, or any other party. Additionally, Kelley had stated to her, “If the 

cops show up at my door, I will shoot them.” She also said that he had told her, “My 

work is so lucky I do not have a shotgun because I would go in there and shoot 

Case 5:20-cv-00368 Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 23 of 57
24

everyone.” Tessa Kelley said that on one occasion while driving, Kelley struck her in 

the stomach in front of two friends, threatening to beat her if she continued 

speaking. In a separate interview of other witnesses, Air Force investigators 

discovered that other individuals had witnessed Kelley verbally abuse Tessa Kelley 

on multiple occasions. In an interview of Tessa Kelley’s childhood friend, he stated 

that Tessa Kelley told him about “all of the times” Kelley abused her. Tessa Kelley 

included the details of how Kelley would “hit her in the stomach and pull her hair 

out” and how he attempted to “water board” her. Tessa Kelley told her childhood 

friend that water boarding consisted of Kelley pushing her head under the shower 

faucet and turning on the water.

3.20 On June 6, 2012, a Peak staff member discovered Kelley’s interest in 

guns. His medical records note that Kelley’s insight and judgment are so impaired 

that Kelley does not understand “how that does not look good on him.”

3.21 While receiving inpatient care at Peak, Mr. Kelley made several threats 

that if he were picked up by Security Forces, he would go for their guns. While at 

Peak, Devin Kelley tried to obtain firearms and conducted research into body 

armor. Mr. Kelley was trying to carry out threats he made against his chain of 

command. He made these plans to purchase another firearm because his other 

weapons had been confiscated by the Air Force, its agents, or contractors.

3.22 On June 7, 2012, Kelley left the Peak facility without permission from the 

staff and without notifying anyone. On June 8, 2012, a Peak Director located Kelley 

at a Greyhound bus station in El Paso. A Greyhound security officer and an El Paso 

Case 5:20-cv-00368 Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 24 of 57
25

police officer handcuffed him, and police officers from the Sunland Police 

Department transported him back to Peak. Kelley did not voluntarily return to 

Peak but was involuntarily re-committed to Peak. On the same day, Kelley’s 

Commander prepared a pretrial confinement package. The package included a 

memorandum stating that Kelley’s Commander was “convinced” that Kelley was 

“dangerous and likely to harm someone if released.” Kelley’s Commander also cited 

Kelley’s Internet search for body armor and firearms as further justification for the 

pretrial confinement. The Commander concluded that Kelley was a flight risk and 

ordered him into pretrial confinement.

3.23 So, the 49th Security Forces Squadron detained Kelley at Peak and 

transported him to the 49th Security Forces Squadron Confinement Facility. 

Because Kelley was ordered into pretrial confinement, Air Force policy required the 

confinement facility personnel to fingerprint Kelley during the in‐processing into 

the confinement facility and to submit those records to the FBI after sentencing. Air 

Force agents or employees did not take Kelley’s fingerprints at this time. If 

fingerprints were taken, Air Force agents or employees did not retain those 

fingerprints as required by policy. Further, if fingerprints were taken, Air Force 

agents or employees did not submit fingerprints to the FBI after his sentencing, as 

required.

Case 5:20-cv-00368 Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 25 of 57
26

C. The Air Force charges and convicts Devin Kelley of domestic 

violence, resulting in his incarceration for a crime punishable by 

more than one year.

3.24 On June 8, 2012, Air Force investigators interviewed Kelley about Tessa 

Kelley’s assault allegations and his Absent without Leave status when he left Peak. 

Kelley told them that “something tragic had happened and he wanted to kill 

himself.” Kelley also told the agents that he “escaped” from Peak because he was 

planning to go to New Braunfels, to plan his suicide. Kelley told agents that he 

made a confession video “on his own free will.” Because Air Force Detachment 225 

Special Agents were in possession of Kelley’s confession, conducted a subject 

interview, and Kelley was ordered into pretrial confinement, Department of Defense 

policy required the Special Agents to collect and submit Kelley’s fingerprints to the 

FBI. Kelley’s Commander ordered Kelley into pretrial confinement on June 8, 2012, 

stating that he had “reasonable grounds to believe” Kelley assaulted Tessa and her 

son. In a memorandum dated June 10, 2012, the Pretrial Confinement Review 

Officer found that “adequate probable cause” existed to believe Kelley had assaulted 

Tessa and her son. Yet, Air Force failed to collect or submit Kelley’s fingerprints.

3.25 A Pretrial Confinement Memorandum, dated June 8, 2012, concluded that 

Kelley had violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice: Article 86, Date of 

Offense, June 7, 2012, Description of Offense, Absence without leave; Article 128, 

Date of Offense June 9, 2011, Description of Offense, Assault on a Child; Article 

134, Date of Offense, April 23, 2012, Description of Offense, Communication of a 

Threat; and Article 134, Date of Offense, April 23, 2012, Description of Offense, 

Assault.

Case 5:20-cv-00368 Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 26 of 57
27

3.26 On July 10, 2012, the Air Force determined that Devin Kelley should be 

confined while awaiting trial because “it is foreseeable that [Kelley] will not appear 

for trial and/or will engage in serious criminal misconduct.” As a basis for this 

conclusion, the Air Force noted:

The Evidence shows a serious escalation of behavior 

involving firearms and threats after the physical abuse of 

a child. Particularly alarming is his decision to try to 

obtain another firearm while undergoing inpatient mental 

health care, conducting research on body armor, and then 

escaping from the facility late at night without 

authorization....

Lesser forms of restraint are inadequate to mitigate the 

flight risk he poses nor would they prevent him from 

carrying out the threats that he has made against others, 

especially given the forethought and planning that he 

showed by attempting to purchase another firearm and 

his escape from the mental health facility.

3.27 On July 26, 2012, the Air Force charged Kelley with suspected violations 

of Article 128 (Assault), against Tessa Kelley and her son. This is a charge of a 

crime of domestic violence. On August 2, 2012, an Article 32 hearing was conducted. 

An Article 32 hearing is a preliminary hearing that determines whether there is 

probable cause to believe an offense has been committed and the accused committed 

the offense; determines if the convening authority has court-martial jurisdiction; 

considers the form of charges; and recommends the disposition of the case. The 

hearing presented evidence that Kelley had abused Tessa Kelley from June 2011 

through April 2012. The medical evidence presented during the hearing indicated 

her son suffered severe injuries inflicted by Kelley. The Article 32 Investigating 

Case 5:20-cv-00368 Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 27 of 57
28

Officer found reasonable grounds existed to believe that Kelley committed the 

offenses alleged.

3.28 On August 15, 2012, Kelley was also charged with a suspected violation of 

Article 128 (Assault) for threatening Tessa Kelley with a firearm. This a crime of 

domestic violence and a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one 

year.

3.29 On August 27, 2012, charges were referred to court-martial. Kelley 

remained in confinement until the court-martial trial on November 6, 2012.

3.30 On November 3, 2012, trial counsel offered, and the Staff Judge Advocate 

presented, Kelley and his defense counsel with an Offer for Pretrial Agreement. The 

agreement specified that, in return for Kelley’s plea of guilty to the charges of 

assault against his wife and stepson, the firearm charge would be dismissed, and 

his confinement would not exceed 3 years. On November 4, 2012, Kelley and his 

defense counsel agreed to the terms of this agreement.

3.31 On November 6, 2012, in accordance with the pretrial agreement, Kelley 

pleaded guilty in the General Court-Martial proceedings to assault on his wife and 

stepson. On November 7, 2012, the Court-Martial panel sentenced Kelley to a 

reduction in rank to Airman Basic, confinement for 12 months, and a Bad Conduct 

Discharge. The plea of guilty to assault on his wife and stepson was a crime of 

domestic violence and a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one 

year. In fact, Kelley’s maximum sentence for the assaults on his wife and stepson 

included potential confinement for 5 years and 6 months.

Case 5:20-cv-00368 Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 28 of 57
29

3.32 The Air Force General Court Martial Order No. 10 specifically noted at 

the top of the order that this was a “Crime of Domestic Violence. 18 U.S.C. 

§ 922(g)(9).” The citation to section 922(g)(9) references the federal law that 

prevents individuals convicted of even a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence 

from possessing a firearm. 

3.33 On November 7, 2012, after his conviction, Kelley returned to the 

Confinement Facility at Holloman. Because his conviction changed his status from 

pretrial confinement detainee to post trial inmate, Air Force Corrections System 

policy required the confinement facility personnel to collect and submit Kelley’s 

fingerprints during his in-processing into the confinement facility. Air Force 

employees did not collect, maintain, or submit Kelley’s fingerprints to the FBI. Air 

Force agents or employees did not submit a final disposition report of Kelley’s 

criminal history to the FBI. Air Force policy requires agents to submitt the final 

disposition report within fifteen days (15) of Kelley’s sentencing.

3.34 On December 14, 2012, the Air Force Office of Special Investigations 

received a Report and Result of Trial of Devin Kelley. Per policy, the Air Force 

should have reported the final disposition of Devin Kelley’s convictions to the FBI. 

But it did not. Instead, the Air Force Special Agent in Charge certified that Kelley’s 

fingerprints were submitted to the FBI. This permitted the agent to close the 

investigation file when, in fact, the Air Force never collected, maintained, or 

submitted Devin Kelley’s fingerprints or final disposition reports to the FBI.

Case 5:20-cv-00368 Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 29 of 57
30

3.35 On December 18, 2012, Kelley was transferred to and incarcerated at the 

Naval Consolidated Brig, Miramar, California, until his release on March 31, 2013. 

During his intake evaluation, Naval Consolidated Brig personnel placed Kelley in 

separate sleeping quarters from the general population while conducting medical 

and psychological assessments of him. Because of the evaluation, Kelley was 

classified as a “suicide risk in gown” as well as an “Assault risk – escape risk.” 

3.36 On March 31, 2013, Kelley was released from the Naval Consolidated 

Brig, upon completion of his sentence. Between March 31, 2013, and April 2, 2013, 

Kelley completed Air Force out‐processing paperwork and was ordered “not to enter 

or reenter or be found within the limits of the United States military installation of 

Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico, for an indefinite period.”

3.37 On December 3, 2013, the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed 

the findings and sentencing in Kelley’s court-martial. On May 9, 2014, after the 

automatic appeals courts upheld Kelley’s conviction and sentence, he was officially 

separated from the Air Force with a Bad Conduct Discharge.

3.38 On September 30, 2016, Kelley’s former 49th Logistics Readiness 

Squadron supervisor received a threatening message from Kelley on Facebook. The 

message stated, “Hey you stupid b****. You should have been put in the ground a 

long time ago. Better hope I don’t ever see you. You can’t face facts, you fat piece of 

s***.” Kelley’s former supervisor said that she had not attempted to contact Kelley 

before receiving the message, and that it was unexpected. She stated that she saved 

Kelley’s Facebook message as a screenshot and forwarded it to her former Air Force 

Case 5:20-cv-00368 Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 30 of 57
31

supervisor. Kelley’s former supervisor also stated that she had considered reporting 

this incident to law enforcement and obtaining a restraining order against Kelley, 

but decided against it because she felt that he would find out where she lived.

D. Kelley commits a mass shooting at the Sutherland Springs First 

Baptist Church on November 5, 2017.

3.39 On December 22, 2014, Kelley purchased a Glock Model 19, a 9-

millimeter, semi-automatic handgun, from Specialty Sports and Supply, in Colorado 

Springs, Colorado. He completed the ATF Forms 4473 and the store completed the 

required NICS check on the same day. The response provided was that the sale 

could proceed.

3.40 On June 26, 2015, Kelley purchased a Ruger GP100, a .357 Magnum, 

revolver handgun, again from Specialty Sports and Supply in Colorado Springs. He 

completed the ATF Form 4473 and the store completed the required NICS check on 

the same day. The response provided was that the sale could proceed.

3.41 On April 7, 2016, Kelley purchased a Ruger AR-556, a 5.56-millimeter, 

semi-automatic rifle, from Academy Sports and Outdoors (Store No. 41), in San 

Antonio, Texas. He completed the ATF Form 4473, and the store completed the 

required NICS check on the same day. The response provided was that Academy 

could proceed with the sale.

3.42 On October 18, 2017, Kelley purchased a Ruger SR22, a .22 caliber, 

semiautomatic handgun, from Academy Sports and Outdoors (Store No. 46), in 

Selma, Texas. He completed the ATF Form 4473 and the store completed the 

Case 5:20-cv-00368 Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 31 of 57
32

required NICS check on the same day. The response provided was that Academy 

could proceed with the sale.

3.43 On four ATF Forms 4473 that Kelley filled out to purchase the firearms 

after his conviction, he certified that he had never been convicted of any crime for 

which the judge could sentence him for more than 1 year in confinement. One of the 

questions on ATF Form 4473 asks, “Have you ever been convicted in any court of a 

felony, or any other crime, for which the judge could have imprisoned you for more 

than one year, even if you received a shorter sentence including probation.” Kelley 

should have answered “yes” to this question.

3.44 On November 5, 2017, Kelley entered the First Baptist Church of 

Sutherland Springs, Sutherland Springs, Texas, and opened fire with three of the 

four firearms he had purchased. He killed 26 people and wounded 22 others. After 

being shot by armed citizens who responded to the shooting, Kelley fled from the 

church in his automobile. Kelley later died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound.

IV. AIR FORCE’S COMISSIONS & OMISSIONS

A. The Department of Air Force missed multiple opportunities to 

provide Devin Kelley’s fingerprint cards and final disposition 

reports to the FBI

4.1 On June 9, 2011, the Air Force first missed its opportunity to submit 

Kelley’s fingerprint cards to the FBI, when the Office of Special Investigations 

opened an investigation into the assault of Kelley’s stepson. 

Case 5:20-cv-00368 Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 32 of 57
33

4.2 Also on June 9, 2011, an Air Force Special Agent wrote an affidavit to the 

military magistrate to obtain authority to search Kelley’s on-base residence for 

evidence related to Kelley’s alleged assault of his stepson. In the affidavit, the 

Special Agent wrote that he believed probable cause existed to search for evidence 

of child abuse. On June 17, 2011, a second Special Agent wrote a separate affidavit 

to a military magistrate requesting authority to seize certain property from Kelley. 

In that affidavit, the agent represented that he or she believed that probable cause 

existed to seize the property to determine the source of the victim’s injuries. Even 

though Air Force agents believed that probable cause existed, they never submitted 

to the FBI the fingerprint cards collected on the June 9th interview. Additionally, 

their supervisors did not create a note in the investigative case file stating that the 

fingerprint card had been reviewed, as required by Air Force Office of Special 

Investigation Handbook 71-105. Almost certainly, the supervisors failed to certify 

the review of the cards because they did not review them.

4.3 The Air Force Special agents who interviewed Kelley on June 9, 2011 

knew of the Air Force policy requirements to collect and submit fingerprints to the 

FBI. The agents were unable to provide any reason why the Air Force failed to 

submit Kelley’s fingerprints to the FBI. The Department of Defense Inspector 

General concluded that the Special Agents did not follow Department of Defense 

and Air Force policies regarding the submission of fingerprints, and that some 

agents did not understand the policies. The Inspector General also found confusion 

among the Special Agents as to when fingerprints should be submitted to the FBI. 

Case 5:20-cv-00368 Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 33 of 57
34

The former Special Agent-in-Charge and Superintendent believed that fingerprints 

were normally submitted within 2 days of the subject interview. The case agent 

stated that at the time of the Kelley assault investigation, he was not aware that of 

the requirement for submission of the fingerprints to the FBI upon a probable cause 

determination.

4.4 The second missed opportunity for the Air Force to submit Kelley’s 

fingerprints to the FBI occurred on February 17, 2012. The 49th Security Forces 

Squadron opened an investigation on Kelley for assaulting Tessa Kelley, after she 

told the 49th Security Forces Squadron investigators that Kelley had been 

physically abusing her since July 2011. At that time, the investigators should have 

collected Kelley’s fingerprints, in accordance with Department of Defense and Air 

Force policy. At the time, the Air Force had probable cause to believe that Kelley 

committed assault. The Inspector General concluded that Air Force investigators 

did not have a clear understanding of, and did not follow, DoD and USAF policy 

regarding the collection and submission of fingerprints.

4.5 The third missed opportunity for the Air Force to collect and submit 

Kelley’s fingerprints to FBI occurred on June 8, 2012, when Air Force Office of 

Special Investigations interviewed Kelley immediately after he was placed in 

pretrial confinement. Air Force investigators believed that probable cause existed 

that Kelley assaulted his stepson based on the evidence collected, including Kelley’s 

confession on video. According to records of the interview with Kelley, investigators 

collected Kelley’s fingerprints at the end of the subject interview. The Air Force 

Case 5:20-cv-00368 Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 34 of 57
35

negligently maintained Devin Kelley’s fingerprints because a review of the case file 

found no fingerprint cards within it. Regardless, Air Force agents or employees did 

not submit the fingerprint cards to the FBI. So, while Special Agents initialed the 

block signifying that they collected Kelley’s fingerprints, there is no evidence that 

they were collected and submitted to the FBI. 

4.6 The Inspector General concluded Special Agents did not know or follow 

Department of Defense and Air Force policy, and they did not collect and submit 

Kelley’s fingerprints to the FBI following his second subject interview on June 8, 

2012. The failure to collect or submit the fingerprints occurred, in part, because of 

the Special Agent-in-Charge’s practice not submit the fingerprints to the FBI until 

after the Detachment received the Report of Result of Trial from the Staff Judge 

Advocate or the Commander’s record of discipline. However, none of the Special 

Agents could provide a sufficient or supportable reason why Kelley’s fingerprints 

were not collected or submitted following his subject interview.

4.7 The fourth missed opportunity for the Air Force to submit Kelley’s 

fingerprints and the first missed opportunity to submit Kelley’s final disposition 

report to the FBI occurred on November 7, 2012, when the Air Force convicted 

Kelley by General Court-Martial for assault on Tessa Kelley and his stepson. As 

noted above, Air Force Corrections System policy required the confinement facility 

personnel to collect an inmate’s fingerprints and submit the fingerprints with final 

disposition during in-processing into the confinement facility. As required by Air 

Force Instruction 31-205, the 49th Security Forces Squadron Confinement Facility 

Case 5:20-cv-00368 Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 35 of 57
36

staff should have included the final disposition on the fingerprint card they collected 

when they in-processed Kelley into the confinement facility after his court-martial. 

That fingerprint card should have been sent to the FBI with the final disposition 

report.

4.8 When the Air Force processed Kelley for post-trial confinement, the Air 

Force confinement staff failed to collect Kelley’s fingerprints. The Confinement 

Facility personnel did not follow Department of Defense and Air Force policy for 

collecting and submitting fingerprints and final disposition reports to the FBI. 

Personnel also did not know and were not trained that once fingerprints were 

collected, they should be submitted to the FBI. So, even if they had collected Devin 

Kelley’s fingerprints and final disposition data, more likely than not, the personnel

would not have submitted them to the FBI as a proximate result of the lack of 

training and supervision. 

4.9 The second missed opportunity for the Air Force to submit Kelley’s final 

disposition report to the FBI occurred on December 14, 2012, when the Office of 

Special Investigations Detachment 225 Special Agent-in-Charge received the 

results of Kelley’s trial and closed the Kelley investigation. The Agent falsely 

certified in the Air Force’s database system that the Air Force submitted to the FBI 

Kelley’s fingerprints and final disposition reports. Moreover, the investigative case 

file cover sheet did not contain a supervisor’s signature or a date to signify that the 

file was reviewed for closure, as required by Air Force Office of Special 

Investigations Manual 71-121.

Case 5:20-cv-00368 Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 36 of 57
37

B. Systematic failures in operations, organization, hiring, training, and 

supervision caused the Air Force’s failure to collect, maintain, and 

submit Devin Kelley’s fingerprint cards and final disposition reports 

to the FBI.

4.10 The Air Force’s failure to collect, maintain, and submit fingerprint cards 

and final disposition reports to the FBI was not an isolated error. Instead, this 

failure was caused by failures in operations, organization, training, and supervision.

4.11 For example, the Detachment leadership did not review the file or 

complete the Closed Investigative File checklist and the Investigative Information 

Management System checklist properly. Instead, the Special Agent-in-Charge 

assumed that the case agent had completed the actions necessary and submitted 

Kelley’s fingerprints and final disposition to the FBI. He therefore completed the 

two checklists without verifying that the fingerprints and final disposition report 

had been submitted to the FBI. If the Agent-in-Charge and Superintendent had 

included a review of Kelley’s fingerprints in the leadership review, the fact that the 

fingerprints had not been submitted would have been identified.

4.12 Next, according to Air Force Office of Special Investigations Manual 

71‐121, all criminal investigations require monthly supervisory reviews to ensure 

that investigators follow policy and that investigations are sufficient and timely. Air 

Force leadership conducted 15 supervisory reviews of the Kelley investigation from 

June 29, 2011, through October 5, 2012. However, none of the supervisory reviews 

that were documented discussed fingerprint card collection or submission. Although 

Air Force policy required supervisory reviews to include the investigatory case file, 

no such reviews of the case file occurred. Kelley’s fingerprint cards were retained in 

Case 5:20-cv-00368 Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 37 of 57
38

the investigative case file. Had they reviewed the case file, more likely than not, 

they would have identified that the Air Force had not submitted Kelley’s 

fingerprints to the FBI. The monthly supervisory reviews of Kelley’s investigative 

case file were incomplete and ineffective in identifying that Kelley’s fingerprint 

cards remained in the investigative case file and had not been submitted to the FBI.

4.13 The high turnover and disorganization in the Office of Special 

Investigations contributed to the Air Force’s failure to collect, maintain, and submit 

Kelley's fingerprint cards and final disposition reports to the FBI. Between June 

2011 and March 31, 2013, Air Force Office of Special Investigations 

Detachment 225 had two Special Agents-in-Charge and three interim Special 

Agents-in-Charge. The second interim Agent-in-Charge described the 

administrative process for closing cases was a “disaster” as a result of the large 

backlog of investigative case files stacked throughout the office. The third interim 

agent observed approximately 30 cases spread throughout the Detachment office 

area in various stages of closure, in terrible condition, with many of the cases 

missing investigative documentation and corresponding activities with the agent 

notes. Air Force assigned a permanent Agent-in-Charge in December 2011. This 

agent noticed that staffing challenges and operations tempo caused the office to be 

“hell.” The office was severely behind in closing out old cases and described the unit 

as a “bottomless pit” that was impossible to dig out from.

4.14 The Inspector General determined that the Air Force’s failure to submit 

Kelley’s fingerprints was part of a systemic problem with the Office of Special 

Case 5:20-cv-00368 Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 38 of 57
39

Investigations Detachment 225. After reviewing 70 closed investigations for 

fingerprint card and final disposition report submission to the FBI, the Inspector 

General found 8% of cases where investigators did not collect fingerprints; 20% of 

cases where investigators collected, but did not submit to the FBI, fingerprint cards; 

and 31% of cases where investigators failed to submit to the FBI final disposition 

reports. 

4.15 In 2014, the Inspector General of the Department of Defense evaluated 

the reporting system’s compliance with its own mandatory procedures and policies. 

The principal finding of this investigation condemned the performance of the 

Department of Defense. Specifically, it found that the military was:

not reporting criminal incident data to the Federal 

Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for inclusion in the annual 

Uniform Crime Reports to the President, the Congress, 

State governments, and officials of localities and 

institutions participating in the Uniform Crime Report 

Program, as required by Federal law.

As a result of this failure:

10 years of DoD criminal incident data have not been 

provided to the FBI for inclusion in the annual uniform 

crime reports to the President, the Congress, State 

governments, and officials of localities and institutions 

participating in the UCR Program, as implemented in 

DoD Directive 7730.47 and DoD Manual 7730.47‐M, 

Volume 1.

4.16 At the time of the Kelley investigation, the Air Force Security Forces 

Center was responsible for training, equipping, and organizing all Security Forces 

for the Air Force. At the time of the Kelley assault investigation, the Air Force 

Case 5:20-cv-00368 Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 39 of 57
40

Security Forces Academy did not train students on fingerprint card collection and 

submission or on final disposition report submission procedures. In 2015, the Air 

Force Security Forces created fingerprint training as part of the “Annual Home 

Station Training” requirements. The 1-hour long lesson plan was designed to be 

used by individual Security Forces Squadrons to train personnel on the physical 

collection of fingerprints and completion of the fingerprint card. However, the lesson 

plan does not contain any information relating to the submission of fingerprints. 

Additionally, the lesson plan did not reference Department of Defense or Air Force 

policy requirement and did not specify the conditions under which the fingerprint 

cards should be submitted nor did the lesson plan discuss the submission of the 

final disposition report. 

4.17 The agents working on the Kelley investigation acknowledge the lack of 

training. One investigator explained that the only fingerprint training he received 

was “on-the-job” and that it related to the collection of fingerprints. Other 

investigators could not recall any training on fingerprinting subjects of 

investigation and under what circumstances. Neither did the Air Force provide 

training on an annual or reoccurring basis. The Inspector General interviewed one 

officer who explained that the majority of 49th Security Forces personnel were not 

familiar with collecting fingerprints at the time of the Kelley assault investigation.

Case 5:20-cv-00368 Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 40 of 57
41

V. CAUSES OF ACTION

A. Negligence9

5.1 The Department of Air Force failed to use ordinary care and failed to do 

that which a person of ordinary prudence would have done under same or similar 

circumstances by failing to collect, maintain, and transmit Devin Kelley’s 

fingerprint’s to the FBI, as described in this Complaint.

5.2 The Department of Air Force failed to use ordinary care and failed to do 

that which a person of ordinary prudence would have done under same or similar 

circumstances by failing to submit Devin Kelley’s final disposition information to 

the FBI, as described in this Complaint.

5.3 The Department of the Air Force negligently failed to report criminal 

incident data to the Defense Incident-Based Reporting System of Devin Kelley’s 

criminal conviction of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one 

year, convictions of domestic violence, and commitment to the mental institution. 

5.4 The Department of the Air Force failed to submit criminal-history data to 

the FBI when probable cause existed in the Air Force Office of Special Investigations 

and Air Force Security Forces investigations on Kelley, after Kelley’s court-martial 

conviction, and also upon his post-trial confinement at Holloman Air Force Base.

9 Per the District Court’s order in the related proceeding, Plaintiff has not included 

a cause of action sounding in negligence per se. ECF Doc. #59 (May 23, 2019). 

Plaintiff reserves the right to appeal this decision and would have included the 

cause of action, but for the Court’s order.

Case 5:20-cv-00368 Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 41 of 57
42

5.5 The United States, through Secretary of the Air Force Heather Wilson,

admitted the allegations found in Paragraph 5.4 in response to a question by 

Senator Mazie K. Hirono in a submission dated December 13, 2017.

5.6 Alternatively, the Department of the Air Force negligently submitted 

inaccurate or incomplete criminal incident data to the Defense Incident-Based 

Reporting System of Devin Kelley’s criminal conviction of a crime punishable by 

imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, convictions of domestic violence, or 

commitment to the mental institution.

5.7 The Department of the Air Force negligently failed to correct incomplete 

or incorrectly submitted criminal-incident data to the Defense Incident-based 

Reporting System of Devin Kelley’s criminal conviction of a crime punishable by 

imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, convictions of domestic violence, or 

commitment to the mental institution.

5.8 The Department of the Air Force negligently failed to submit fingerprint 

cards and final disposition reports for Devin Kelley’s criminal convictions, or 

alternatively submitted incomplete or incorrect data to the FBI as required by 

federal law. As a result, the FBI’s Next Generation Identification database lacked 

critical information about Devin Kelley’s history and failed to prevent the sale of 

firearms to Devin Kelley.

5.9 Findings by the Inspector General confirmed the Air Force Office of 

Special Investigations and Security Forces personnel then assigned at Holloman Air 

Force Base, New Mexico, did not report required information to civilian law 

Case 5:20-cv-00368 Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 42 of 57
43

enforcement in the Kelley case. The review also found the error in the Kelley case 

was not an isolated incident and similar reporting lapses occurred at other 

locations. 

5.10 In fact, the problem was widespread across both the Office of Special 

Investigations and the Air Force Security Forces. A 2015 Defense Department audit 

revealed that the Air Force was not in compliance with a mandatory statutory 

requirement to report all offender criminal history data and, despite the discovery 

of non-compliance, the Air Force made no retroactive corrections.

5.11 The Department of the Air Force admitted the allegations contained in 

Paragraph 5.9 in a press release published on November 28, 2017. The Department 

of the Air Force, through the Secretary of the Air Force Heather Wilson, admitted 

the allegations contained in Paragraph 5.10 on December 6, 2017 before the United 

States Senate Judiciary Committee.

5.12 The Department of Defense negligently failed to ensure that the 

Department of the Air Force submitted the required criminal incident, fingerprint 

cards, and final disposition data.

5.13 The Department of Defense negligently failed to ensure that identified 

criminal incident data errors are tracked to correction.

5.14 The Department of Defense negligently failed to populate data about 

Devin Kelley’s criminal conviction of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term 

exceeding one year, convictions of domestic violence, and commitment to the mental 

Case 5:20-cv-00368 Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 43 of 57
44

institution from the Defense Incident-Based Reporting System into the FBI’s 

National Incident-Based System.

B. Negligent Failure to Train & Supervise

5.15 The United States and its agencies has an obligation to adequately train 

and supervise employees. The Air Force’s failure to collect, maintain, and submit 

fingerprint cards and final disposition reports to the FBI was not an isolated error. 

Instead, this failure was caused by failures in operations, organization, training, 

and supervision, as described in this Complaint.

5.16 The United States, through its agencies, failed to adequate supervise the 

individuals who were tasked with the collection, maintenance, and submission of 

Devin Kelley’s fingerprints and final disposition reports to the FBI or the DOD’s 

DIBRS database. Had they adequately supervised the collection of fingerprints, 

they would have noticed that in some instances, their employees did not collect 

fingerprints. They would have noticed in other instances, their employees did not 

maintain fingerprint cards in the case file. And they would have noticed that at no 

point, did their employees submit Devin Kelley’s fingerprint cards or final 

disposition reports to the FBI for inclusion in the National Instant Criminal 

Background Check System.

5.17 The United States Air Force at no point between 2009 and 2013 trained 

its employees to collect, maintain, and submit fingerprint cards and final 

disposition reports to the FBI for inclusion in the National Instant Criminal 

Case 5:20-cv-00368 Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 44 of 57
45

Background Check System. Nor did the Air Force put in place a system that verified 

if the required reporting had occurred, which it had not.

5.18 These failures by the Air Force and Department of Department of Defense 

to train and supervise its reporting personnel led to its employees failing to submit 

reports and data to both the DIBRS and FBI about Devin Kelley. Thus, the United 

States is liable for negligent training and negligent supervision.

C. Negligent Undertaking

5.19 The United States Congress voluntarily undertook the creation of a 

national instant background check system upon passage of the Brady Bill. To 

implement this system, the Department of Justice created the National Instant 

Criminal Background Check System. The Department of Defense and Department 

of Air Force implemented policies, procedures, manuals, and instructions—and 

acted under the color of these regulations—regarding the reporting of individuals 

who received convictions for domestic violence, incarceration for a crime punishable 

by more than one year, and mental institution commitment. These policies and 

procedures included the collection, maintenance, and reporting of fingerprint cards 

of those disqualified individuals.

5.20 The United States, through its agencies, voluntarily undertook the 

training and supervision of its employees responsible for the collection, 

maintenance, and submission of fingerprint cards and final disposition reports to 

the FBI.

Case 5:20-cv-00368 Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 45 of 57
46

5.21 The United States, through its agencies, voluntarily undertook the 

correction of inaccurate or incomplete submissions to FBI’s National Instant 

Criminal Background Check System. On multiple occasions, the Department of 

Defense’s Inspector General alerted the United States and its agencies to its 

negligent failure to collect, maintain, and submit fingerprint cards and final 

disposition data to the FBI. The Air Force agreed with the Inspector General’s 

recommendations and agreed to take corrective action.

5.22 The United States, through Congress and its agencies, rendered these 

services because Congress and the agencies recognized that they were necessary for 

the protection of individuals like the Plaintiff. To limit this violence, Congress 

disqualifies certain people from buying, owning, or possessing guns and established 

a national background check system to prevent these people from obtaining guns. In 

fact, when asked the question, “[W]ho do you believe is the beneficiary of the Brady 

Act? Who do you think Congress was trying to protect?” Thomas Ward, Deputy 

Assistant Attorney General for the United States responded, “All of us. Three 

hundred and sixty-five million Americans.”10 Mr. Ward told the truth when he 

stated the Brady Act was intended to protect all Americans.

5.23 The failure to use reasonable care increases the risk that individuals like 

Devin Kelley obtain firearms when they are prohibited by law from obtaining such 

firearms. In fact, the foreseeable and proximate result of the failure to use 

10 Sanders v. United States, No. 18-1931 (4th Cir. May 7, 2019) (Oral Argument).

Case 5:20-cv-00368 Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 46 of 57
47

reasonable care is that individuals like Devin Kelley will pass the background check 

when obtaining firearms for the use of mass murders, like the one he committed in 

Sutherland Springs. What’s more, the United States, through its agencies, knew of 

the specific increase of risk posed by Devin Kelley if the United States failed to 

exercise reasonable care in its undertaking because the United States knew of 

Devin Kelley’s conduct between 2009 and 2013, as detailed in this Complaint and in 

the Department of Defense Inspector General’s investigation of the matter.

5.24 The United States, through its agencies, negligently failed to: (a) collect, 

maintain, and transmit Devin Kelley’s fingerprint cards to the FBI and DOD 

DIBRS; (b) submit Devin Kelley’s final disposition report to the FBI and DOD 

DIBRS; (c) train and supervise its employees and agents with regard to the 

collection, maintenance, and transmission of fingerprint cards to the FBI and DOD 

DIBRS; (d) train and supervise its employees and agents with regard to the 

submission of final disposition reports to the FBI and DOD DIBRS; and (c) take 

corrective action multiple times when alerted to this negligence.

VI. CAUSATION

A. Department of Defense and Department of the Air Force’s negligence 

caused injuries to the Plaintiff.

6.1 One or more of the above negligent acts of the Department of the Air 

Force and the Department of the Defense directly and proximately caused injury to 

the Plaintiff. 

Case 5:20-cv-00368 Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 47 of 57
48

6.2 When Devin Kelley attempted to purchase firearms to use in the

Sutherland Springs shooting, the FBI Incident-Based Reporting System should 

have included Devin Kelley’s criminal conviction of a crime punishable by 

imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, convictions of domestic violence, and 

commitment to the mental institution. The FBI’s database did not contain any of 

this required information, or alternatively, contained incorrect or incomplete 

information, as a direct and proximate result of one or more of negligent acts of the 

Department of Defense and Department of the Air Force.

6.3 When Devin Kelley attempted to purchase firearms to use in the 

Sutherland Springs shooting, the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background 

Search System should have contained Devin Kelley’s criminal history, populated 

from the FBI’s Next Generation Identification (or the Interstate Identification 

Index) system. The FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Search System 

should have contained Devin Kelley’s criminal history populated by submission of 

his final disposition report from the Air Force. However, because of the 

Government’s negligence, Kelley’s fingerprint identification and criminal 

disposition reports were not submitted to the FBI and the FBI’s Background Check 

System did not disqualifying information on Devin Kelley.

6.4 As a result of one or more of the above acts of negligence, when Academy 

requested the FBI search its National Instant Criminal Background Search System 

to determine whether it could sell firearms to Devin Kelley, the FBI notified 

Academy to “proceed” with the sale. But for the United States’ negligence, there 

Case 5:20-cv-00368 Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 48 of 57
49

would have been prohibiting information within the FBI’s Background Search 

System. And but for the United States’ negligence, the FBI would have notified 

Academy that the sale should be “denied.”

6.5 When Devin Kelley attempted to purchase the firearms used in the 

Sutherland Springs shooting, the sale should have been blocked for one or more of 

the following reasons: (a) he had a conviction of a crime punishable by 

imprisonment for a term exceeding one year; (b) he had a conviction for domestic 

violence; and (c) he had previously been committed to a mental institution.

6.6 When Devin Kelley purchased the firearms used in the Sutherland 

Springs shooting, his omission from the FBI’s background check system and ability 

to complete the purchase was a direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of one or 

more acts of negligence of the Department of Defense and Department of the Air 

Force.

B. Had the Air Force reported Kelley’s history, the FBI’s Instant 

Criminal Background Check System would have blocked Devin 

Kelley’s firearm purchase.

6.7 Devin Kelley purchased the firearms used in the Sutherland Springs 

shooting from a federal firearms licensee, Academy Sports & Outdoor. At the time, 

the licensee must submit biographical information about Kelley to the FBI’s Instant 

Criminal Background Check System. If the Air Force had properly reported Devin 

Kelley’s fingerprint cards and history to the FBI, the Background Check System 

would have informed the firearms dealer to deny the purchase.

Case 5:20-cv-00368 Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 49 of 57
50

6.8 The purpose of the Uniform Federal Crime Reporting Act of 1988, the

Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, and the Domestic Violence Offender Gun 

Ban are to ensure that violent offenders and high-risk individuals like Kelley do not 

get access to firearms. The Department of Defense in 1994 began designing the 

Defense Incident-Based Reporting System (DIBRS) to meet criminal justice related 

reporting requirements mandated by the Uniform Federal Crime Reporting Act and 

the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. The DIBRS permits the DOD to 

forward offense and arrest information required by FBI. 

6.9 The entry into the federal law-enforcement database would have blocked

Mr. Kelley’s purchase of the firearms used in the Sutherland Springs’ shooting. The 

Government’s acts or omissions directly and proximately resulted in Devin Kelley’s 

purchase of the firearms used in the November 5, 2017 Sutherland Springs First 

Baptist Church shooting.

VII. DAMAGES

7.1 Devin Kelley used the guns he purchased at Academy Sports & Outdoor to 

kill twenty-six individuals and injure twenty others on November 5, 2017.

7.2 Plaintiff John Porter Holcombe II brings this action (1) as Next Friend on 

behalf of minor E.J.H. for her personal injuries, bystander damages and wrongful 

death claim for the death of her mother, (2) as Next Friend on behalf of minor 

P.J.H. for his wrongful death claim for the death of his mother, and (3) in his 

capacity as the Independent Administrator of the Estates of Minors G.L.H., E.R.H., 

and M.G.H.

Case 5:20-cv-00368 Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 50 of 57
51

7.3 Minor G.L.H. was shot and killed on November 5, 2017, with firearms 

that should have been denied to Devin Kelley. As a result of the negligence of the 

United States employees, agents, or representatives, the Estate of Minor G.L.H.

suffered damages for which recovery is sought, including:

Past physical pain & suffering;

Past medical expenses;

Past mental anguish; 

Past and future lost income and earning capacity, and

Funeral and burial expenses.

7.4 In addition, John Porter Holcombe II, as Independent Administrator of 

the Estate of Minor G.L.H., seeks recovery of all other damages to which the Estate 

of Minor G.L.H. is entitled pursuant to the applicable state and federal law.

7.5 Minor E.R.H. was shot and killed on November 5, 2017, with firearms 

that should have been denied to Devin Kelley. As a result of the negligence of the 

United States employees, agents, or representatives, the Estate of Minor E.R.H.

suffered damages for which recovery is sought, including:

Past physical pain & suffering;

Past medical expenses;

Past mental anguish; 

Past and future lost income and earning capacity, and

Funeral and burial expenses.

7.6 In addition, John Porter Holcombe II, as Independent Administrator of 

the Estate of Minor E.R.H., seeks recovery of all other damages to which the Estate 

of Minor E.R.H. is entitled pursuant to the applicable state and federal law.

7.7 Minor M.G.H. was shot and killed on November 5, 2017, with firearms 

that should have been denied to Devin Kelley. As a result of the negligence of the 

Case 5:20-cv-00368 Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 51 of 57
52

United States employees, agents, or representatives, the Estate of Minor M.G.H. 

suffered damages for which recovery is sought, including:

Past physical pain & suffering;

Past medical expenses;

Past mental anguish; 

Past and future lost income and earning capacity, and

Funeral and burial expenses.

7.8 In addition, John Porter Holcombe II, as Independent Administrator of 

the Estate of Minor M.G.H., seeks recovery of all other damages to which the Estate 

of Minor M.G.H. is entitled pursuant to the applicable state and federal law.

7.9 Minor E.J.H. was assaulted on November 5, 2017, with firearms that 

should have been denied to Devin Kelley. As a result of the negligence of the United 

States employees, agents, or representatives, Minor E.J.H. suffered individual 

damages, for which recovery is sought, including:

Past and future physical pain & suffering;

Past and future mental anguish;

Past and future medical and healthcare expenses;

Past and future physical impairment;

Past and future physical disfigurement;

Past and future lost income and earning capacity;

Past and future loss of consortium with mother, Crystal Holcombe;

Past and future loss of companionship and society with her mother;

Past and future loss of pecuniary contributions, including loss of advice, 

counsel, services, care, support, and maintenance from her mother;

Past and future loss of services from her mother, including loss of her 

mother’s nurturing, care, education, and guidance;

Loss of inheritance;

Out of pocket expenses; and

Other pecuniary damages.

7.10 On November 5, 2017, Minor E.J.H. and Minor P.J.H.’s mother, Crystal 

Holcombe, was shot and killed. As a result of the negligence of the United States 

Case 5:20-cv-00368 Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 52 of 57
53

employees, agents, or representatives, Minor E.J.H. and Minor P.J.H. suffered 

individual damages because of the death of their mother, for which recovery is 

sought, including:

Past and future loss of consortium with their mother, Crystal Holcombe;

Past and future loss of companionship and society with their mother, Crystal 

Holcombe;

Past and future loss of pecuniary contributions, including loss of advice, 

counsel, services, care, support, and maintenance from their mother, Crystal 

Holcombe;

Past and future loss of services from their mother, including loss of their 

mother, Crystal Holcombe’s, nurture, care, education, and guidance;

Past and future mental anguish because of the death of their mother, Crystal 

Holcombe;

Loss of inheritance from their mother, Crystal Holcombe;

Out of pocket expenses; and

Other pecuniary damages.

7.11 In addition, John Porter Holcombe II, as Next Friend on behalf of Minors 

P.J.H. and E.J.H., seeks recovery of all other damages to which they are entitled 

due to the death of their mother, Crystal Holcombe, pursuant to the applicable state 

and federal law.

7.12 In addition, Plaintiff John Porter Holcombe II, (1) as Next Friend on 

behalf of minor E.J.H. for her personal injuries, bystander damages and wrongful 

death claim for the death of her mother, (2) as Next Friend on behalf of minor 

P.J.H. for his wrongful death claim for the death of his mother, and (3) in his 

capacity as the Independent Administrator of the Estates of Minors G.L.H., E.R.H., 

and M.G.H., seeks recovery of all other damages to which he is entitled pursuant to 

the applicable state and federal law.

Case 5:20-cv-00368 Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 53 of 57
54

VIII. JURISDICTION, VENUE, & SERVICE

8.1 This Federal District Court has federal-question jurisdiction of this action 

because this action is brought pursuant to and in compliance with 28 U.S.C. §§ 

1346(b), 2671–2680, commonly known as the Federal Tort Claims Act.

8.2 Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 3191(e)(1) because 

the United States is a defendant, Plaintiff resides in this district, and no real 

property is involved in the action. 

8.3 The United States of America may be served with process in accordance 

with Rule 4(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Service is affected by serving 

a copy of the Summons and Complaint on the United States Attorney John F. Bash, 

United States Attorney for the Western District of Texas by certified mail, return 

receipt requested at his office:

United States Attorney’s Office 

ATTN: Civil Process Clerk

601 NW Loop 410, Suite 600 

San Antonio, Texas 78216

8.4 Service is also affected by serving a copy of the Summons and Complaint 

on William Barr, Attorney General of the United States, by certified mail, return 

receipt requested at:

The Attorney General’s Office 

ATTN: Civil Process Clerk

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20530-0001

Case 5:20-cv-00368 Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 54 of 57
55

IX. LIABILITY OF THE UNITED STATES

9.1 This case is commenced and prosecuted against the United States of 

America to and in compliance with Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671-80, the Federal Tort 

Claims Act. Liability of the United States is predicated specifically on 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2674 because the personal injuries and resulting damages of which the Complaint 

is made were proximately caused by the negligence, wrongful acts or omissions of 

employees or agents of the United States of America working for the United States 

Department of the Air Force or Department of Defense, while acting within the 

scope of their office, employment, or agency under circumstances where the United 

States of America, if a private person, would be liable to the Plaintiff in the same 

manner and to the same extent as a private individual.

9.2 The United States Departments of Defense and Department of the Air 

Force are agencies of the United States. The Defendant, the United States of 

America, through its agencies, at all times material to this lawsuit, owned and 

operated Holloman Air Force Base and staffed its facilities and vehicles with its 

agents, servants and employees. The Defendant, the United States of America, 

through its agencies, at all times material to this lawsuit, owned and operated the 

Defense Manpower Data Center, which operates the Defense Incident-Based 

Reporting System.

9.3 The United States, through its agency, the Department of Air Force, at all 

times material to this lawsuit and at all times described in this lawsuit, owned and 

operated the following and staffed it with its agents, employees, or representatives:

Case 5:20-cv-00368 Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 55 of 57
56

• Air Force Security Forces;

• Air Force Security Forces Center;

• Air Force Security Forces Academy; 

• Air Force Office of Special Investigations Detachment 225;

• 49th Security Forces Squadron;

• Holloman Air Force Base Mental Health Clinic;

• 49th Logistics Readiness Squadron; and

• 49th Security Forces Squadron Confinement Facility.

9.4 This lawsuit is not a claim listed in 28 U.S.C. § 2680, exceptions to the 

Federal Tort Claims Act.

X. JURISDICTIONAL ALLEGATIONS

10.1 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2672 and 2675(a), the claims set forth here were 

filed with and presented administratively to the United States of America on 

August 27, 2019 via Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested. On September 9, 

2019, the United States Department of the Air Force acknowledged receipt of 

Plaintiff’s claims, stating that it had received Plaintiff’s claims on September 4, 

2019. The claims stated a “sum certain.”

10.2 The United States failed to make final disposition of these claims within 

six (6) months of presentation of these claims. This action was filed greater than six 

(6) months from the presentation of the claims underlying the lawsuit.

10.3 Accordingly, Plaintiff has complied with all jurisdictional prerequisites 

and conditions precedent to the commencement and prosecution of this lawsuit.

Case 5:20-cv-00368 Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 56 of 57
57

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff requests that Defendant be cited to appear and answer this 

Complaint; that upon final trial, the Plaintiff have judgment against Defendant, for 

the amount of actual damages and for other and different amounts as they shall 

show by proper amendment before trial; for post-judgment interest at the applicable 

legal rate; for all Court costs incurred in this litigation; and for such other relief, at 

law and in equity, both general and special, to which Plaintiff may show himself 

entitled to on behalf of all minors identified herein and to which the Court believes 

Plaintiff deserving.

Respectfully Submitted,

THE AMMONS LAW FIRM, L.L.P.

 /s/ Robert E. Ammons

Robert E. Ammons

Texas State Bar # 01159820

Email: rob@ammonslaw.com

April A. Strahan

Texas State Bar # 24056387

Email: april@ammonslaw.com

3700 Montrose Boulevard

Houston, Texas 77006

Telephone: 713-523-1606

Facsimile: 713-523-4159

Attorneys for Plaintiff John Porter Holcombe 

II, as Next Friend of Minors E.J.H. and 

P.J.H., and as Independent Administrator of 

the Estates of Minors G.L.H., E.R.H., and 

M.G.H.

Case 5:20-cv-00368 Document 1 Filed 03/23/20 Page 57 of 57