Coryell County Answer To Lawsuit

Case 6:19-cv-00029-ADA-JCM Document 14 Filed 03/11/19 Page 1 of 33
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
WACO DIVISION
JOHN FAIRCHILD and SUSIE §

FAIRCHILD, individually, and as §
Independent Administrators of, and on §
behalf of, the ESTATE OF KELLI §
LEANNE PAGE and the heirs-at-law of §
KELLI LEANNE PAGE, §
§ CASE NO. 6:19-CV-00029-ADA-JCM
Plaintiffs, §
§
v. §
§
CORYELL COUNTY, TEXAS; §
STEVEN RUSSELL LOVELADY; and §
WESLEY HARLAND PELFREY, §
§
Defendants. §
DEFENDANT CORYELL COUNTY’S ORIGINAL ANSWER
TO THE HONORABLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ALAN ALBRIGHT:
Defendant Coryell County, Texas (“Coryell”) files this Answer to Plaintiffs’ Original
Complaint (the “Complaint”) (Doc. 1) as follows:
A. ADMISSIONS AND DENIALS
1. In response to Paragraph 1 of the Complaint, Coryell admits that Letters of
Administration were authorized to be issued to John Fairchild (“John”) on or about November 19,
2018, in Cause No. 18-10032, in the County Court at Law of Coryell County, Texas, in a case
styled In the Estate of Kelli Leanne Page, Deceased. Coryell further admits that John was Page’s
legal father at the time of Page’s death and that Page was the mother of Cesar Tamala Lactod, III:
Angie Fairchild; Mile Sue Fairchild; Patrick Sterling Fairchild; and Tiffany May Gruwell. After
reasonable inquiry, Coryell is without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny all
remaining factual allegations in Paragraph 1 of the Complaint; accordingly, Coryell denies all
Defendant Coryell County’s Original Answer Page 1

remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 1 of the Complaint. The remainder of Paragraph 1
of the Complaint contains only legal conclusions to which no response is required.
2. In response to Paragraph 2 of the Complaint, Coryell admits that Letters of
Administration were authorized to be issued to Susie Fairchild (“Susie”) on or about November
19, 2018, in Cause No. 18-10032, in the County Court at Law of Coryell County, Texas, in a case
styled In the Estate of Kelli Leanne Page, Deceased. Coryell further admits that Susie was Page’s
legal mother at the time of Page’s death and that Page was the mother of Cesar Tamala Lactod,
III: Angie Fairchild; Mile Sue Fairchild; Patrick Sterling Fairchild; and Tiffany May Gruwell.
After reasonable inquiry, Coryell is without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny
all remaining factual allegations in Paragraph 2 of the Complaint; accordingly, Coryell denies all
3. In response to Paragraph 3 of the Complaint, Coryell admits that Coryell is a Texas
county, that service can be effected upon Coryell by serving Coryell County Judge Roger A. Miller
and that Judge Miller’s office is located at 800 East Main Street, Suite A, Gatesville, Texas 76528.
Coryell denies all remaining factual allegations in Paragraph 3 of the Complaint. The remainder
of Paragraph 3 of the Complaint contains only legal conclusions to which no response is required.
4. In response to Paragraph 4 of the Complaint, Coryell admits that Corporal Lovelady
is a natural person who resides and is domiciled and may be served with process at 1704 Saunders
Street, Gatesville, Texas 76528, and that he was employed by Coryell at all times relevant to this
lawsuit. Coryell denies all remaining factual allegations in Paragraph 4 of the Complaint. The
remainder of Paragraph 4 of the Complaint contains only legal conclusions to which no response
is required.

5. In response to Paragraph 5 of the Complaint, Coryell admits that Officer Pelfrey is
a natural person who resides and is domiciled and may be served with process at 23350 Owl Creek
Road, Gatesville, Texas 76528, and that he was employed by Coryell at all times relevant to this
lawsuit. Coryell denies all remaining factual allegations in Paragraph 5 of the Complaint. The
is required.
6. In response to Paragraph 6 of the Complaint, Coryell admits that this Court has
jurisdiction over the claims under 28 U.S.C. Sections 1131 and 1343(4), although Coryell denies
that Plaintiffs John Fairchild and Susie Fairchild, individually, and as Independent Administrators
of, and on behalf of, the Estate of Kelli Leanne Page and the heirs-at-law of Kelli Leanne Page
(“Plaintiffs”) have stated a claim upon which relief can be granted. Coryell further admits that the
claims alleged in this lawsuit arise under the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. §1983.
7. Paragraph 7 of the Complaint contains only legal conclusions to which no response
is required.
8. Coryell admits that venue is proper in the Waco Division of the United States
District Court for the Western District of Texas as alleged in Paragraph 8 of the Complaint,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b)(2), because it is the division in the district in which a substantial
part of the alleged events or omissions giving rise to the claims asserted in the Complaint occurred.
9. After reasonable inquiry, Coryell is without knowledge or information sufficient to
admit or deny the factual allegations in Paragraph 9 of the Complaint; accordingly, Coryell denies
each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 9 of the Complaint. The remainder of Paragraph
9 of the Complaint contains only legal conclusions to which no response is required.

each and every remaining allegation contained in Paragraph 10 of the Complaint.
11. In response to Paragraph 11 of the Complaint, Coryell admits that Coryell County
Sheriff’s Office (“CCSO”) Corrections Corporal Steven Lovelady (“Sergeant Lovelady”) and
CCSO Corrections Officer Tyrell Washington (“Officer Washington”) extracted Page from her
cell. Coryell also admits that, during the extraction, Page’s head/face hit the jail cell wall, but
denies that it was because of Corporal Lovelady and/or Officer Washington’s actions. Coryell
admits that Page was taken to Coryell Memorial Hospital for evaluation and treatment. After
remaining factual allegations in Paragraph 11 of the Complaint; accordingly, Coryell denies all
remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 11 of the Complaint.
12. In response to Paragraph 12 of the Complaint, Coryell admits that Page was placed
into a restraint chair for her safety and the safety of the officers and further admits that the
statements made by Officer Washington and Corporal Lovelady reflect that. Coryell admits that
Corporal Lovelady used pepper spray during this interaction with Page on October 7, 2017. After
remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 12 of the Complaint; accordingly, Coryell denies all
13. In response to Paragraph 13 of the Complaint, Coryell admits that Southern Health
Partners is one of the entities which provided healthcare to the inmates in the Jail during all times
relevant to this case. Coryell is without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny the

factual allegations regarding the Southern Health Partners’ records contained in Paragraph 13 of
the Complaint; accordingly, Coryell denies the allegations regarding Southern Health Partners’
records contained in Paragraph 13 of the Complaint. Coryell denies that Corporal Lovelady would
have been aware of any information contained in Southern Health Partners’ records. Coryell
admits that Page was taken to the hospital on October 7, 2017, to be evaluated and treated for a
contusion to her left eye which she received during her altercation with Corporal Lovelady on
October 7, 2017. After reasonable inquiry, Coryell is without knowledge or information sufficient
to admit or deny all remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 13 of the Complaint;
accordingly, Coryell denies all remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 13 of the Complaint.
14. In response to Paragraph 14 of the Complaint, Coryell denies that the detention
medical questionnaire report regarding Page was available to Corporal Lovelady and Officer
Pelfrey and further denies that they were generally aware of the issues contained therein regarding
Page. Coryell admits that the medical questionnaire report indicates that Page had medical issues
related to shortness of breath, heart problems, and high blood pressure. Coryell denies all
remaining factual allegations contained in Paragraph 14 of the Complaint. The remainder of
Paragraph 14 of the Complaint contains on legal conclusions to which no response is required.
each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 15 of the Complaint.
16. In response to Paragraph 16 of the Complaint, Coryell admits that there is
surveillance video of Page’s cell that recorded what occurred on October 8, 2017, and that the
Complaint does not detail all aspects of such video. Coryell denies all remaining factual

allegations contained in Paragraph 16 of the Complaint. The remainder of Paragraph 16 of the
Complaint contains on legal conclusions to which no response is required.
17. In response to Paragraph 17 of the Complaint, Coryell admits that the surveillance
video reflects that Page was in bed sleeping until approximately 7:08 a.m. on October 8, 2017, that
Page woke up and laid on the bed until approximately 7:27 a.m., that Page sat on the bed until
approximately 7:38 a.m., that Page used the restroom and finished at approximately 7:57 a.m., that
Page dressed and began standing at her cell door at approximately 7:52 a.m., and that Page brushed
her hair and drank from a Styrofoam cup. Coryell denies all remaining factual allegations
contained in Paragraph 17 of the Complaint.
18. In response to Paragraph 18 of the Complaint, Coryell admits that Page was
primarily standing at the cell door from approximately 7:45 a.m. to 8:23 a.m. and that, during that
time she was banging on the window and/or door on and off continuously with both her hands and
a hair bush and that she, at times, banged against the door with her hip. During this time, Coryell
also admits that Page was yelling and screaming for her commissary. Coryell denies all remaining
factual allegations contained in Paragraph 18 of the Complaint.
19. In response to Paragraph 19 of the Complaint, Coryell admits that Page was
speaking to Officer Pelfrey through the cell door from approximately 8:13 a.m. to 8:23 a.m., that
Page was primarily standing by the door during this time frame, that Page was using and/or
refilling a Styrofoam cup with water, that Page stood by the door from approximately 8:27 a.m. to
8:29 a.m., that Page set the Styrofoam cup on a shelf, put her shoes on and went back to standing
by the door. Coryell denies all remaining factual allegations contained in Paragraph 19 of the
Complaint.

20. In response to Paragraph 20 of the Complaint, Coryell denies all factual allegations
contained therein.
21. In response to Paragraph 21 of the Complaint, Coryell admits that, at approximately
8:28:40 a.m., Page held onto the sink with her right hand (which was also holding a hair brush)
and put on her Crocs-style shoes, that, afterward, Page returned to the door and that the recording
ends at approximately 8:29:15 a.m. Coryell denies all remaining factual allegations contained in
Paragraph 21 of the Complaint.
22. In response to Paragraph 22 of the Complaint, Coryell admits that the next
recording begins at approximately 8:29:35 a.m. and further states that the surveillance system only
records when there is movement in the area covered by the camera; so, if there was no recording
between 8:29:15 a.m. and 8:29:35 a.m., it means that there was no movement in the cell. Coryell
denies all remaining factual allegations. The remainder of Paragraph 22 of the Complaint contains
only legal conclusions to which no response is required.
23. In response to Paragraph 23 of the Complaint, Coryell admits that, at approximately
8:29:41 a.m., Corporal Lovelady appeared at the door to Page’s cell and directed her to back up,
turn around and put her hands behind her back so that he can handcuff her and that, in response,
Page backed up on a few feet, shook her head “no” in defiance of Corporal Lovelady’s orders and
stated that she was not going to be handcuffed or placed in a restraint chair. Coryell admits that,
in response to Page’s defiance to Corporal Lovelady’s direct order and for the safety of Page and
the officers involved, Corporal Lovelady sprayed a burst of pepper spray through the food tray in
an effort to get Page to back away from the door and also to distract her so that he could get her
handcuffed more easily. Coryell denies all remaining factual allegations contained in Paragraph

23 of the Complaint. The remainder of Paragraph 23 of the Complaint contains only legal
conclusions to which no response is required.
24. In response to Paragraph 24 of the Complaint, Coryell admits that Page turned her
back to Corporal Lovelady and then walked toward the back of the cell. Coryell denies all
remaining factual allegations contained in Paragraph 24 of the Complaint.
25. In response to Paragraph 25 of the Complaint, Coryell admits the factual allegations
contained in the first sentence thereof. After reasonable inquiry, Coryell is without knowledge or
information sufficient to admit or deny if Page’s legs were swollen as alleged in Paragraph 25 of
the Complaint; accordingly, Coryell denies that Page’s legs were swollen as alleged in Paragraph
25 of the Complaint. Coryell denies all remaining factual allegations contained in Paragraph 25
of the Complaint.
26. In response to Paragraph 26 of the Complaint, Coryell admits that Corporal
Lovelady and Officer Pelfrey opened the cell door and began to enter and that, at that time, Page
looked back at them over her right shoulder while her left hand was on the sink. Coryell further
admits that: (1) Page’s right arm was holding the hair brush and that her arm was straight down
her right side; (2) when Corporal Lovelady and Officer Pelfrey entered the cell, the officers ordered
Page to surrender the hair brush; (3) in response, Page bent her right arm at the elbow and brought
the hair brush up to her stomach and then turned her head away from the officers; and (4) Corporal
Lovelady then sprayed her with pepper spray at approximately 08:30:14 a.m. as she turned her
head away and kept the hair brush tucked against her stomach. Coryell denies that Page was not
acting aggressively as she was refusing Corporal Lovelady’s orders and was in possession the hair
brush. Coryell admits that Page continued to disobey Corporal Lovelady’s orders. Coryell is
without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny why Page was holding onto the sink

as alleged in Paragraph 26 of the Complaint; accordingly, Coryell denies that allegation as
Lovelady sprayed Page with pepper spray at approximately 08:30:17 a.m. and again at 08:30:18
a.m. and that, in response, Page raised the hair brush above her head, then reached down and picked
up a blanket or towel to shield her face with the object. Coryell is without knowledge or
information sufficient to admit or deny why Page was holding onto the sink as alleged in Paragraph
27 of the Complaint; accordingly, Coryell denies that allegation as contained in Paragraph 27 of
the Complaint. Coryell further admits that the pepper spray was not gaining compliance on the
part of Page and, as such, it was necessary to escalate the use of force necessary to gain compliance.
Coryell further admits that Corporal Lovelady then grabbed Page’s right hand (which was holding
the hairbrush) in an attempt to gain possession of the potential weapon. Coryell denies that Jailer
Lovelady slammed Page to the floor; rather, because Page was resisting, she was swung around,
slipped and fell face down on the floor. Coryell further admits that Corporal Lovelady and Officer
Pelfrey are grown men, that Officer Pelfrey is a large man and that Page is a large woman. Coryell
denies all remaining factual allegations contained in Paragraph 27 of the Complaint.
Lovelady was able to extract the hairbrush from Page’s hand at approximately 8:30:33 a.m., and
that the brush fell to the floor. Coryell further admits that, prior to extracting the hair brush from
Page, Page had also taken possession of Corporal Lovelady’s handcuffs, which can also be used
as a weapon, and was holding them under her body. Coryell further admits that Page was resisting
the officers’ efforts to subdue her and, instead, was struggling to retain possession of the handcuffs

and to regain possession of the hair brush. Coryell denies all remaining factual allegations
Lovelady and Officer Pelfrey tried unsuccessfully to regain possession of the handcuffs, while
Page continued to hold them in her hand and/or under the weight of her body. Coryell admits that,
at approximately 08:31:16 a.m., Page was turned over to her left side, but still refused to relinquish
the handcuffs. Coryell denies all factual allegations contained in Paragraph 29 of the Complaint
and states that Page’s actions were aggressive and resisting the officers’ attempts to subdue her in
order to regain possession of the handcuffs; in fact, Page was trying to bite, grab and kick the
officers.
30. In response to Paragraph 30 of the Complaint, Coryell admits that, during the
struggle on the floor in which Page was actively resisting the officers’ efforts to subdue her,
including trying to bite, grab and kick the officers, Corporal Lovelady struck Page with a closed
fist in the head area at approximately 08:31:44 a.m. and at 08:31:57 a.m. Coryell further admits
that, after Page attempted to bite Officer Pelfrey’s arm, he placed his forearm across Page’s upper
back in an effort to control her head to keep her from her continuing attempts to bite the officers.
Coryell further admits that, at approximately the same time, after Page’s continued attempts to
kick Corporal Lovelady, he straddled Page’s left leg in an attempt to handcuff Page as she
continued to resist, but Coryell denies that Corporal Lovelady placed any significant weight on
Page’s lower back and/or buttocks region. Coryell admits that a portion of Officer Pelfrey’s legs
could be viewed from the hallway. Coryell denies all remaining factual allegations contained in
Paragraph 30 of the Complaint. The remainder of Paragraph 30 of the Complaint contains only
legal conclusions to which no response is required.

31. In response to Paragraph 31 of the Complaint, Coryell admits that Officer Pelfrey
was attempting to control Page’s head while Corporal Lovelady was attempting to control her legs
and handcuff her and further admits that Page was continuing to resist until such time when she
stopped resisting. Coryell denies all remaining factual allegations contained in Paragraph 31 of
the Complaint.
contained in the first two sentences thereof. Coryell further admits that the officers removed Page’s
handcuffs at approximately 8:35:47 a.m. and that Corporal Lovelady began chest compressions at
approximately 8:36:05 a.m. Coryell denies all remaining factual allegations contained in
contained therein.
contained therein. The remainder of Paragraph 34 of the Complaint contains only legal
37. Paragraph 37 of the Complaint contains only legal conclusions to which no
response is required.

38. In response to Paragraph 38 of the Complaint, Coryell admits all factual allegations
contained therein, but denies that the referenced manual contained all of the policies under which
the Jail operated which are applicable to the incident which forms the basis of this lawsuit.
contained in the first three sentences thereof, but denies that the referenced manual contained all
of the policies under which the Jail operated which are applicable to the incident which forms the
basis of this lawsuit. Coryell admits that Corporal Lovelady and Officer Pelfrey were aware of the
CCSO Jail Extraction Policy. Coryell denies all remaining factual allegations contained in
40. In response to Paragraph 40 of the Complaint, Coryell denies that the Jail was not
sufficiently staffed and, in fact, states that, at all times, the Jail was and is staffed in compliance
with the standards required and prescribed by the Texas Commission on Jail Standards (“TCJS”).
Coryell denies that the referenced manual contained all of the policies under which the Jail
operated and further denies all remaining factual allegations contained in Paragraph 40 of the
Complaint. The remainder of Paragraph 40 of the Complaint contains only legal conclusions to
which no response is required.
41. In response to Paragraph 41 of the Complaint, Coryell admits that the quoted
portions from the manual are quoted, but denies that the referenced manual contained all of the
policies under which the Jail operated and further denies all remaining factual allegations
contained in Paragraph 41 of the Complaint. The remainder of Paragraph 41 of the Complaint
contains only legal conclusions to which no response is required.

42. In response to Paragraph 42 of the Complaint, Coryell admits that the context of
the material referenced therein, while not an exact quote, is a summary of a portion of the manual,
but denies that the referenced manual contained all of the policies under which the Jail operated.
Coryell admits that Corporal Lovelady and Officer Pelfrey did not follow the summarized sections
of the policy, but denies that the summarized portion of the manual was the only policy applicable
to the circumstances. The remainder of Paragraph 44 of the Complaint contains only legal
Coryell further admits that Corporal Lovelady and Officer Pelfrey were aware of the CCSO Jail
Extraction Policy. Coryell denies that Corporal Lovelady or Officer Pelfrey applied any pressure
to the front of Page’s neck that would result in the compression of the airway. Coryell denies all
Paragraph 45 of the Complaint contains only legal conclusions to which no response is required.

Coryell admits that Corporal Lovelady and Officer Pelfrey were aware of the CCSO Jail Extraction
Policy. Coryell denies all remaining factual allegations contained in Paragraph 46 of the
portion from the manual is quoted, but denies that the referenced manual contained all of the
policies under which the Jail operated. Coryell denies that the quoted material is relevant to this
lawsuit since a TASER was not used in the incident which forms the basis of this lawsuit. Coryell
admits that Corporal Lovelady and Officer Pelfrey were aware of the CCSO Jail Extraction Policy.
Coryell denies all remaining factual allegations contained in Paragraph 47 of the Complaint. The
is required.
is required.
Coryell further denies that the Jail was not sufficiently staffed and, in fact, states that, at all times,

the Jail was staffed in compliance with the standards required and prescribed by TCJS. Coryell
denies all remaining factual allegations contained in Paragraph 49 of the Complaint. The
is required.
Coryell admits that Corporal Lovelady and Officer Pelfrey Corporal Lovelady and Officer
Pelfrey’s extraction deviated from the Extraction Policy, but denies that their interaction with
Page did not follow other Jail policies. Coryell denies that approval for the use of pepper spray
was not obtained by from the highest-ranking person on site and further denies that Page was not
warned of the imminent use of pepper spray. Coryell further denies all remaining factual
allegations contained in Paragraph 50 of the Complaint.
Coryell denies that Corporal Lovelady and Officer Pelfrey used any maneuver which placed any
pressure on the front of Page’s neck, resulting in the compression of Page’s airway. Coryell further
denies that Corporal Lovelady and Officer Pelfrey were not trained in use of force or extraction
tactics. Coryell admits that Corporal Lovelady and Officer Pelfrey did not comply with the entire
Extraction Policy, but denies that their interaction with Page did not follow other Jail policies.
Coryell further denies all remaining factual allegations contained in Paragraph 51 of the

Coryell admits that Corporal Lovelady and Officer Pelfrey intended to place Page into an
emergency restraint chair after extracting her from her cell and after she had been decontaminated.
Coryell admits that the Extraction Policy prohibits the “hog-tie” method of restraining an inmate,
but denies that they used that method when restraining Page. Coryell admits that the Extraction
Policy prohibits placement in the restraint chair without the approval of the jail administrator or
shift commander, but denies that they had not received such approval.
contained in the first two sentences thereof and admits that Sheriff Scott Williams (“Sheriff
Williams”) is the chief policymaker of CCSO. Coryell denies all remaining factual allegations
contains only legal conclusions to which no response is necessary.
contained in the first two sentences thereof, but are without knowledge or information sufficient
to admit or deny all remaining factual allegations contained in Paragraph 54 of the Complaint;
accordingly, Coryell denies all remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 54 of the Complaint.
contained in the first two sentences thereof. Coryell is without knowledge or information sufficient
to admit or deny whether or not it was obvious to Corporal Lovelady and/or Officer Pelfrey that

Page was obese, as that is an opinion; accordingly, Coryell denies that allegation as contained in
Paragraph 55 of the Complaint. Coryell denies all remaining factual allegations contained in
56. In response to Paragraph 56 of the Complaint, Coryell admits that the allegations
contained in the first three sentences and the fifth sentence are statements taken from the autopsy
report. Coryell denies all remaining factual allegations contained in Paragraph 56 of the Complaint,
including but not limited to Plaintiffs’ assumption that it “was possible that [certain injuries] were
present before such attempted resuscitation.”
57. In response to Paragraph 57 of the Complaint, Coryell admits that the statements
contained therein are taken from the autopsy report. Coryell denies each and every remaining
allegation contained in Paragraph 57, including but not limited to, the accuracy of the findings of
the medical examiner.
58. In response to Paragraph 58 of the Complaint, Coryell admits that the autopsy
report contained a statement which identified the manner of death as a homicide, but notes that the
medical examiner did not note any intent or criminal action on the part of any of the Defendants,
and further notes that the usage of this term in this medical context carries a different meaning than
its common usage. Coryell denies all remaining factual allegations contained in Paragraph 58 of
the Complaint.
59. In response to Paragraph 59 of the Complaint, Coryell admits that Plaintiffs have
correctly identified all of the medical examiners who affixed their signature to the autopsy report.
After reasonable inquiry, Coryell is without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny
the last sentence of Paragraph 59 of the Complaint; accordingly, Coryell denies the last sentence

of Paragraph 59 of the Complaint. Coryell denies all remaining factual allegations contained in
60. In response to Paragraph 60 of the Complaint, Coryell admits that Sheriff Williams
completed an on-line Custodial Death Report which was submitted to the Attorney General of
Texas and also completed an on-line Amended Custodial Death Report which was submitted to
the Attorney General of Texas and which replaced the original Custodial Death Report so that it
no longer exists. Coryell further admits that the Custodial Death Report is required by law. Coryell
contained in the first sentence thereof. Coryell denies that Corporal Lovelady and Officer Pelfrey
had knowledge of Page’s physical limitations, illnesses, pre-existing medical conditions, and
medication needs as such information is confidential pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability
and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”). Coryell is without knowledge or information sufficient to
admit or deny whether or not Corporal Lovelady and Officer Pelfrey were well aware of Page’s
personality as alleged in Paragraph 61 of the Complaint; accordingly, Coryell denies those
allegations as contained in Paragraph 61 of the Complaint.
62. In response to Paragraph 62 of the Complaint, Coryell admits that the Amended
Custodial Death Report indicates that Page’s manner of death was homicide (includes justifiable
homicide) and that the medical cause of Page’s death was mechanical asphyxia in association with
physical restraint, but further admits that Sheriff Williams’ statements were based on what the
medical examiner’s autopsy report would reflect. Coryell further admits that the Amended
Custodial Death Report indicates that Page had been receiving treatment for a medical condition
that caused Page’s death after admission to the Jail; and that Page’s cause of death was the result

of a pre-existing medical condition. Coryell denies all remaining factual allegations contained in
Paragraph 62 of the Complaint. The reminder of Paragraph 62 of the Complaint contains only
Custodial Death Report reflects that “Page was ordered to submit to hand restraints so that she
could be placed in the restraint chair until she called down.” Coryell denies all remaining factual
Complaint contains only legal conclusions to which no response is required.
Custodial Death Report reflects that “Page refused all orders given to her by jail staff.” Coryell
Custodial Death Report reflects that: (1) “they attempted to gain compliance by spraying OC
pepper spray through the food slot of the cell door;” (2) “one of the jailers applied two distraction
knee strikes to her right leg and side;” (3) “the same jailer then struck her in the head with a closed
fist;” and (4) “the jailer struck Page about the face.” Coryell further admits that the Amended
Custodial Death Report reflects that Page was attempting to bite and was biting the officers during
the incident. Coryell denies all remaining factual allegations contained in Paragraph 65 of the
Complaint.
66. In response to Paragraph 66 of the Complaint, Coryell is without knowledge or
information sufficient to admit or deny whether or not all of Corporal Lovelady and/or Officer
Pelfrey’s training related to working in a county jail has been reported to the Texas Commission
on Law Enforcement (“TCOLE”) as alleged in Paragraph 66 of the Complaint; accordingly,

Coryell denies those allegations as contained in Paragraph 66 of the Complaint. Coryell admits
that, according to TCOLE records, Corporal Lovelady received a Contract Jailer Certificate
License on April 7, 2003, a Jailer License on May 7, 2004, a Basic Jailer Certificate on September
25, 2007, and an Intermediate Jailer Proficiency Certificate on May 11, 2009. Coryell admits that
Corporal Lovelady began working for CCSO on May 3, 2004, and continued working for CCSO
until December 4, 2017. Coryell admits that Corporal Lovelady’s TCOLE Personal Status Report
correctly reflects training he received and also reflects that Corporal Lovelady worked under a
Contract Jailer Certificate at the T. Don Hutto Correction Center from March 10, 2003 through
February 8, 2006. Coryell admits that Corporal Lovelady’s TCOLE report indicates that there may
have been a period of time during which Corporal Lovelady worked for both CCSO and the T.
Don Hutto Correction Center. Coryell is without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or
deny all remaining allegations; accordingly, Coryell denies all remaining allegations contained in
Lovelady’s TCOLE Personal Status Report reflects that he completed the listed courses, but denies
that those courses are the only courses which provided use-of-force training. Coryell is without
knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny that all of the listed courses provide use-of-
force training; accordingly, Coryell denies that allegation as contained in Paragraph 67 of the
Complaint.
68. In response to Paragraph 68 of the Complaint, Coryell denies that Corporal
Lovelady had knowledge of Page’s pre-existing healthcare issues and that he violated Page’s
constitutional rights. Coryell denies all remaining factual allegations contained in Paragraph 68 of

the Complaint. The remainder of Paragraph 68 of the Complaint contains only legal conclusions
to which no response is required.
69. In response to Paragraph 69 of the Complaint, Coryell admits that it hired Officer
Pelfrey with a Temporary Jailer License. Coryell denies all remaining factual allegations
70. In response to Paragraph 70 of the Complaint, Coryell admits all facts stated in the
first and second sentences thereof. Coryell further admits that Officer Pelfrey completed a Basic
Jailers Course with the Bell County Sheriff’s Office on March 29, 2018, which was comprised of
108 hours. Coryell denies all remaining factual allegations contained in Paragraph 70 of the
Complaint.
71. In response to Paragraph 71 of the Complaint, Coryell admits that, at the time of
Page’s death, Officer Pelfrey’s TCOLE Personal Status Report reflected no completed courses,
but denies that Officer Pelfrey had not received any training based on the fact that on-the-job
training is an integral part of the Temporary Jailer License and Officer Pelfrey also received
comprehensive training prior to and during his work for the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.
Coryell denies all remaining factual allegations contained in Paragraph 71 of the Complaint.
was the chief policymaker of the CCSO and that the Coryell County Commissioner’s Court was
the chief policymaker regarding issues related to budgets. Coryell denies all remaining factual
material is a representation of the letter that was written by Nichole Crouch (“Crouch”) to the

TCJS and further admits that TCJS determined that no violation of jail standards had occurred with
regard to Crouch’s complaint. Coryell denies all remaining factual allegations contained in
contained therein. The remainder of Paragraph 74 of the Complaint contains only legal conclusions
contained in the first three sentences thereof. Coryell also admits that the arrests of Jason Sherrill
and Brent Schmidt occurred three days after Page’s death. Coryell denies all remaining factual
allegations contained in Paragraph 75 of the Complaint and specifically states that Jason Sherrill
was terminated on June 7, 2017 (the day after the incident) by Sheriff Williams upon his review
of the related videotape and Jason’s Sherrill’s confession and that Brent Schmidt was initially
placed on administrative leave with pay during the pendency of the CCSO investigation and
ultimately terminated upon completion of the CCSO investigation.
76. In response to Paragraph 76 of the Complaint, Coryell admits that former CCSO
Corrections Officer Kevin Arzate (“Arzate”) was arrested on January 25, 2017 for the
manufacturing and delivery of a controlled substance (penalty grade one) equal to or more than 1
gram and less than 4 grams and that former CCSO Corrections Officer Paul Picetti (“Picetti”) was
arrested on January 25, 2017 for the manufacturing and delivery of controlled substance (penalty
grade one) of more than 4 grams and less than 200 grams which involved Arzate and Picetti selling
and distributing drugs to various individuals, including but not limited to inmates in the Jail.
Coryell admits that, at the time of their arrest, Arzate and Picetti were employed as corrections
offices for CCSO; however, both Arzate and Picetti have since been terminated from their

employment with CCSO. Coryell denies all remaining factual allegations contained in Paragraph
76 of the Complaint.
77. In response to Paragraph 77 of the Complaint, Coryell admits that Lieutenant Karen
Porter, who served as the Jail Administrator at the time, was indicated on November 29, 2018, for
official oppression. Coryell denies all remaining facts contained in Paragraph 77 of the Complaint.
78. In response to Paragraph 78 of the Complaint, Coryell admits the quoted material
referenced therein is a representation of what Sheriff Williams said in a 2018 news story and
further admits the factual allegations contained in the third and fourth sentences of Paragraph 78
of the Complaint. Coryell denies all remaining factual allegations contained in Paragraph 78 of
79. In response to Paragraph 79 of the Complaint, Coryell admits that it had policies
regarding the use of force and extraction of inmates from cells, but denies that the Extraction Policy
was the only relevant policy. Coryell further denies all remaining factual allegations contained in
Paragraph 79 of the Complaint. The remainder of Paragraph 79 of the Complaint contains only
80. In response to Paragraph 80 of the Complaint, Coryell admits that it had policies
regarding the use of force and extraction of inmates from cells, by denies that the Extraction Policy
was the only relevant policy. Coryell further admits that Plaintiffs have correctly recited DPS
Ranger Russell’s testimony and Coryell County District Attorney Dusty Boyd’s response from the
inquest hearing. Coryell denies all remaining factual allegations contained in Paragraph 80 of the
Complaint. The remainder of Paragraph 80 of the Complaint contains legal conclusions to which
no response is required.

81. In response to Paragraph 81 of the Complaint, Coryell admits that Page’s death was
not a suicide. Coryell denies all remaining factual allegations contained in Paragraph 81 of the
82. In response to Paragraph 82 of the Complaint, Coryell admits that it has Interlocal
Cooperation Agreements with several local counties to ensure that all inmates are housed in a safe
manner and consistent with TCJS standards. Coryell denies all remaining factual allegations
contained in Paragraph 82 of the Complaint and further states that the Jail has always been staffed
within the standards required by TCJS. The remainder of Paragraph 82 of the Complaint contains
contained in the first two sentences thereof. Coryell denies all remaining factual allegations
contained in the first sentence thereof. Coryell denies all remaining factual allegations contained
in Paragraph 84 of the Complaint.
contained in the first and second sentences thereof. Coryell further admits that Page was housed
in the Milam County Jail from June 7, 2017 to June 11, 2017, to ensure that the Jail was not
overcrowded and that Page had been housed in a segregation cell from September 12, 2017, until
October 8, 2017. Coryell denies all remaining factual allegations contained in Paragraph 85 of the
Complaint.

86. In response to Paragraph 86 of the Complaint, Coryell admits that the TCJS
Inspection Report dated February 19, 2016, reflects that the TCJS inspector had a conversation
with Coryell officials regarding the possibility of a new jail facility and further admits that the
report reflects that approximately 50 inmates are housed out of the county on a monthly basis.
Coryell denies that it was “warned . . . about its jail overcrowding.” Coryell denies all remaining
factual allegations contained in Paragraph 86 of the Complaint.
Inspection Report dated March 14, 2017, reflects that the TCJS inspector discussed that inmates
are housed out of Coryell County and the possibility of building a new facility, but denies that the
notation regarding technical assistance had anything to do with the housing of inmates in other
counties. Coryell denies all remaining factual allegations contained in Paragraph 87 of the
Inspection Report dated April 11, 2018, reflects that the TCJS inspector discussed inmates that are
housed out of Coryell County and the possibility of building a new facility, but denies that the
notation regarding technical assistance had anything to do with the housing of inmates in other
counties. Coryell denies all remaining factual allegations contained in Paragraph 88 of the
Lovelady and Officer Pelfrey were not disciplined, reprimanded, instructed to act in a different
manner or participate in additional training as a result of the incident which forms the basis of this

suit. Coryell denies that the use of force was unconstitutional. Coryell admits that it had all of the
evidence discussed in this lawsuit and further states that it submitted the incident for investigation
by the Texas Department of Public Safety, Ranger Division; for consideration by an open inquest;
and for consideration by a grand jury and that each of those entities found no fault on the part of
any of the Defendants. Coryell denies all remaining factual allegations contained in Paragraph 89
of the Complaint. The remainder of Paragraph 89 of the Complaint contains only legal conclusions
is responsible for the training of Jail employees and is the chief policymaker regarding jail
practices at all times relevant to this case. Coryell denies that Officer Pelfrey did not receive any
training prior to working pursuant to his Temporary Jailer License. Coryell further admits that
Officer Pelfrey received extensive training prior to and during his employment with TCJS. Coryell
is required.
conclusions, to which no response is required.
Lovelady and/or Officer Pelfrey handcuffed Page behind her back and restrained her on the floor.
remainder of Paragraph 92 of the Complaint, including the footnote attached thereto, contains only

93. In response to Paragraph 93 of the Complaint, Coryell denies that Plaintiffs’ alleged
damages were caused and/or proximately caused by Coryell and that Plaintiffs are entitled to
damages. The remainder of Paragraph 93 of the Complaint contains only legal conclusions to
94. In response to Paragraph 94 of the Complaint, Coryell denies that Plaintiffs’ alleged
damages were caused and/or proximately caused by Coryell and that Plaintiffs are entitled to
damages. The remainder of Paragraph 94 of the Complaint contains only legal conclusions to
95. In response to Paragraph 95 of the Complaint, Coryell denies that Plaintiffs are
entitled to exemplary/punitive damages and/or attorneys’ fees. The remainder of Paragraph 95 of
the Complaint contains only legal conclusions to which no response is required.
96. In response to Paragraph 96 of the Complaint, Coryell admits that, at the time of
the incident which forms the basis of this suit, Page was a pre-trial detainee who had not yet been
convicted, but denies that Corporal Lovelady and Officer Pelfrey’s actions constituted punishment.
is required.
97. Coryell denies all factual allegations contained in Paragraph 97 of the Complaint.
The remainder of Paragraph 97 of the Complaint contains legal conclusions to which no response
is required.
98. In response to Paragraph 98 of the Complaint, Coryell denies that any alleged
damages were either caused and/or proximately caused by Coryell and that Plaintiffs are entitled

to damages. The remainder of Paragraph 98 of the Complaint contains only legal conclusions to
99. In response to Paragraph 99 of the Complaint, Coryell denies that any alleged
damages were either caused and/or proximately caused by Coryell and that Plaintiffs are entitled
100. In response to Paragraph 100 of the Complaint, Coryell denies that Plaintiffs are
entitled to exemplary/punitive damages and/or attorney’s fees. Coryell further denies all
101. In response to Paragraph 101 of the Complaint, Coryell admits that, at all relevant
times, Corporal Lovelady and Officer Pelfrey were acting in the course and scope of their duties
for Coryell and they were acting under the color of state law. Coryell denies that it is liable to
Plaintiffs and that it violated Page’s rights. Coryell denies all remaining factual allegations
102. In response to Paragraph 102 of the Complaint, Coryell admits that Sheriff
Williams was the chief policymaker for CCSO at all times relevant to this lawsuit and that Sheriff
Williams was the one that determined the customs, practices, and policies referenced herein.
is required.

104. In response to Paragraph 104 of the Complaint, Coryell denies that Plaintiffs’
alleged damages were caused and/or proximately caused by Coryell and that Plaintiffs are entitled
to damages, including attorney’s fees. The remainder of Paragraph 105 of the Complaint contains
106. In response to Paragraph 106 of the Complaint, Coryell admits that, at all relevant
times, Corporal Lovelady and Officer Pelfrey were acting in the course and scope of their duties
for Coryell and they were acting under the color of state law. Coryell denies all remaining factual
107. In response to Paragraph 107 of the Complaint, Coryell admits that Page was a pre-
trial detainee who had not been convicted, but denies that Page was punished. Coryell denies all
108. In response to Paragraph 108 of the Complaint, Coryell admits that Sheriff
Williams was the chief policymaker for CCSO at all times relevant to this lawsuit, that he was the
one who determined the customs, practices, and policies referenced in the Complaint. Coryell

is required.
to damages. Coryell further denies all remaining factual allegations contained in Paragraph 110 of
to damages and/or attorney’s fees. Coryell further denies all remaining factual allegations
contained in Paragraph 111 of the Complaint. The reminder of Paragraph 111 of the Complaint
114. Paragraph 114 of the Complaint, including the footnote attached thereto, contains

117. In response to Paragraph 117 of the Complaint, Coryell denies all factual
allegations contained therein.
118. Coryell is without information or knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the factual
allegations contained in Paragraph 118 of the Complaint; accordingly, Coryell denies each and
every allegation contained in Paragraph 118 of the Complaint.
119. In response to Paragraph 119 of the Complaint, Coryell admits that Plaintiffs have
demanded a trial by jury.
120. In response to Paragraph 120 of the Complaint, Coryell denies all factual
allegations contained therein and further denies that Plaintiffs are entitled to any damages. The
is required.
B. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
121. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of qualified
immunity. The actions of which Plaintiffs complain were taken by Coryell acting in good faith in
the discharge of its duties and responsibilities assigned by the Constitution of the United States
and the Constitution of Texas.
122. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, because of Page’s contributory
negligence and/or contributory culpability.
123. Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part by the fact that Coryell was not the
proximate cause of any of the injuries for which Plaintiff has brought suit.

C. PRAYER
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant Coryell County, Texas prays that
this Court dismiss this action, and award any and all necessary and proper relief to which
Defendant may show itself justly entitled.
Respectfully submitted
MCGINNIS LOCHRIDGE LLP

600 Congress Avenue, Suite 2100
Austin, Texas 78701
512.495.6000 (telephone)
512.495.6093 (telecopier)
ejohnston@mcginnislaw.com
By: /s/ Eric A. Johnston

ERIC A. JOHNSTON
State Bar No. 24070009
Attorneys for Defendant Coryell County, Texas

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that, on the 11th day of March, 2019, I electronically filed with the Clerk of
Court the foregoing document using the CM/ECF system and that the CM/ECF system will provide
service of such filing via Notice of Electronic Filing to the following parties:
T. Dean Malone
LAW OFFICES OF DEAN MALONE, P.C.
900 Jackson Street, Suite 730
Dallas, Texas 75202
dean@deanmalone.com
Attorney in Charge for Plaintiffs John Fairchild and Susie Fairchild, individually, and as Independent
Administrators of, and on behalf of, the Estate of Kelli Leanne Page and the heirs-at-law of Kelli Leanne
Page
Michael T. O’Connor
LAW OFFICES OF DEAN MALONE, P.C.
900 Jackson Street, Suite 730
Dallas, Texas 75202
michael.oconnor@deanmalone.com
Of Counsel for Plaintiffs John Fairchild and Susie Fairchild, individually, and as Independent
Administrators of, and on behalf of, the Estate of Kelli Leanne Page and the heirs-at-law of Kelli Leanne
Page
S. Cass Weiland
SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS LLP
2000 McKinney Avenue, Suite 1700
Dallas, Texas 75201
cass.weiland@squirepdb.com
Attorneys for Defendant Wesley Harland Pelfrey
J. Eric Magee
ALLISON, BASS & MAGEE, L.L.P.
402 West 12th Street
Austin, Texas 78701
e.magee@allison-bass.com
Attorneys for Defendant Steven Russell Lovelady
/s/ Eric A. Johnston

ERIC A. JOHNSTON

Coryell County Answer To Lawsuit

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Coryell County Answer To Lawsuit

Caricato da

Copyright:

Case 6:19-cv-00029-ADA-JCM Document 14 Filed 03/11/19 Page 1 of 33

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

JOHN FAIRCHILD and SUSIE §

DEFENDANT CORYELL COUNTY’S ORIGINAL ANSWER

TO THE HONORABLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ALAN ALBRIGHT:

Complaint (the “Complaint”) (Doc. 1) as follows:

A. ADMISSIONS AND DENIALS

1. In response to Paragraph 1 of the Complaint, Coryell admits that Letters of

Defendant Coryell County’s Original Answer Page 1

remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 1 of the Complaint. The remainder of Paragraph 1

of the Complaint contains only legal conclusions to which no response is required.

2. In response to Paragraph 2 of the Complaint, Coryell admits that Letters of

Administration were authorized to be issued to Susie Fairchild (“Susie”) on or about November

remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 2 of the Complaint. The remainder of Paragraph 2

of the Complaint contains only legal conclusions to which no response is required.

3. In response to Paragraph 3 of the Complaint, Coryell admits that Coryell is a Texas

4. In response to Paragraph 4 of the Complaint, Coryell admits that Corporal Lovelady

Defendant Coryell County’s Original Answer Page 2

5. In response to Paragraph 5 of the Complaint, Coryell admits that Officer Pelfrey is

7. Paragraph 7 of the Complaint contains only legal conclusions to which no response

9. After reasonable inquiry, Coryell is without knowledge or information sufficient to

9 of the Complaint contains only legal conclusions to which no response is required.

Defendant Coryell County’s Original Answer Page 3

10. After reasonable inquiry, Coryell is without knowledge or information sufficient to

each and every remaining allegation contained in Paragraph 10 of the Complaint.

remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 11 of the Complaint.

remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 12 of the Complaint. The remainder of Paragraph 12

of the Complaint contains only legal conclusions to which no response is required.

Defendant Coryell County’s Original Answer Page 4

to admit or deny all remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 13 of the Complaint;

remaining factual allegations contained in Paragraph 14 of the Complaint. The remainder of

Paragraph 14 of the Complaint contains on legal conclusions to which no response is required.

15. After reasonable inquiry, Coryell is without knowledge or information sufficient to

each and every allegation contained in Paragraph 15 of the Complaint.

16. In response to Paragraph 16 of the Complaint, Coryell admits that there is

Defendant Coryell County’s Original Answer Page 5

allegations contained in Paragraph 16 of the Complaint. The remainder of Paragraph 16 of the

Complaint contains on legal conclusions to which no response is required.

contained in Paragraph 17 of the Complaint.

factual allegations contained in Paragraph 18 of the Complaint.

Defendant Coryell County’s Original Answer Page 6

21. In response to Paragraph 21 of the Complaint, Coryell admits that, at approximately

Paragraph 21 of the Complaint.

only legal conclusions to which no response is required.

23. In response to Paragraph 23 of the Complaint, Coryell admits that, at approximately

Defendant Coryell County’s Original Answer Page 7

conclusions to which no response is required.

remaining factual allegations contained in Paragraph 24 of the Complaint.

26. In response to Paragraph 26 of the Complaint, Coryell admits that Corporal

Defendant Coryell County’s Original Answer Page 8

as alleged in Paragraph 26 of the Complaint; accordingly, Coryell denies that allegation as

contained in Paragraph 26 of the Complaint.

27. In response to Paragraph 27 of the Complaint, Coryell admits that Corporal

27 of the Complaint; accordingly, Coryell denies that allegation as contained in Paragraph 27 of

denies all remaining factual allegations contained in Paragraph 27 of the Complaint.

28. In response to Paragraph 28 of the Complaint, Coryell admits that Corporal

Defendant Coryell County’s Original Answer Page 9

contained in Paragraph 28 of the Complaint.

29. In response to Paragraph 29 of the Complaint, Coryell admits that Corporal

legal conclusions to which no response is required.

Defendant Coryell County’s Original Answer Page 10

Paragraph 32 of the Complaint.

conclusions to which no response is required.

conclusions to which no response is required.

conclusions to which no response is required.

37. Paragraph 37 of the Complaint contains only legal conclusions to which no