Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_24-cv-05029/USCOURTS-arwd-5_24-cv-05029-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

JEROME M. MERAZ PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 5:24-cv-05029-TLB-MEF

OFFICER Z. TALLON #471, 

Fayetteville Police Department DEFENDANT

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff, Jerome M. Meraz (“Meraz”), currently an inmate of the Delta Regional Unit of 

the Arkansas Division of Correction, filed this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Meraz

proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis (“IFP”). He contends his constitutional rights were 

violated on April 2, 2022, when he was arrested by Defendant Tallon. 

Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1) and (3), the Hon. Timothy L. Brooks, 

United States District Judge, referred this case to the undersigned for the purpose of making a 

Report and Recommendation. The case is before the Court on a Motion for Summary Judgment 

filed by the Defendant. 1 (ECF Nos. 22-24). Meraz filed a response. (ECF Nos. 28-29). 

Defendant replied. (ECF No. 31). The Motion is ready for decision. 

I. BACKGROUND

On April 2, 2022, officers of the Fayetteville Police Department (“FPD”) were dispatched 

1 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, at the pretrial screening stage, the following claims were 

dismissed: all claims against the John Doe Prosecutor; all claims against the John or Jane Doe 

Dispatcher; and the deprivation of property, defamation, and malicious prosecution claims against 

Defendant Tallon. This left only the false arrest claim against Defendant Tallon. (ECF Nos. 6 

& 13). 

Case 5:24-cv-05029-TLB Document 35 Filed 12/20/24 Page 1 of 13 PageID #:

<pageID>
2

to 775 W. Sycamore, Apt. 49, in response to calls from Rayna Mello (“Mello”), Meraz’s exgirlfriend. (ECF No. 22-4 at 3-4). In each call, Mello reported that Meraz was at her apartment. 

Id. The first time Meraz appeared at her apartment was at 9:16 a.m. when Meraz rang the doorbell 

wearing a brown wig, gloves, and a black mask. Id. at 4. Meraz left before the police arrived. 

Id.

The second time Meraz was at Mello’s apartment was at 1:37 p.m. (ECF No. 22-4 at 4). 

Although Meraz was wearing a different shirt, he still had the wig on. Id. Again, Meraz left 

before officers arrived. Id.

The final time was at 6:51 p.m. (ECF No. 22-4 at 4). On this occasion, Meraz was 

located at the apartment complex. Id. Defendant Tallon was one of the FPD officers dispatched

in response to a trespassing call. (ECF No. 22-3 at 2). Defendant Tallon was informed by 

dispatch that Meraz “was ringing [Mello’s] doorbell and would not leave and [she] was hiding in 

the bathroom with her son because she believed Meraz was a danger to her.” Id. Defendant 

Tallon was also advised that officers had previously responded to the location for the same issue 

but had been unable to locate Meraz. Id. In the earlier call, Defendant Tallon was told Mello 

said that Meraz was wearing a wig, mask, and gloves. Id.

When Defendant Tallon arrived, he located Meraz driving towards the exit of the apartment 

complex. (ECF No. 22-3 at 2-3). Defendant Tallon asked Meraz what he was doing there. Id. 

Meraz responded he was attempting to get his belongings back. Id. Meraz consented to the 

search of his vehicle. Id. Defendant Tallon located a wig, mask, and gloves. Id.

According to Defendant Tallon, he was advised by dispatch that Meraz had a previous 

stalking and kidnapping conviction from 2011 out of Oklahoma and was involved in a felony 

stalking case in 2011 out of Arkansas. (ECF No. 22-3 at 3). Dispatch also advised Defendant 

Case 5:24-cv-05029-TLB Document 35 Filed 12/20/24 Page 2 of 13 PageID #:

<pageID>
3

Tallon that Meraz had previously been trespassed from Mello’s apartment. Id. As a result of 

this information, Defendant Tallon placed Meraz under arrest for “criminal trespass and stalking 

in the third degree.” Id. Meraz was handcuffed and transported to the WCDC. Id. In his 

preliminary report, Defendant Tallon wrote: “Me[r]az purposefully went to the apartment knowing 

the victim was fearful of him, which knowingly would put her in emotional distress for her safety.” 

Id. at 6.

Corporal Bailey was also dispatched on the evening of April 2, 2022. (ECF No. 22-4 at 

2). He spoke with Mello who stated she had dated Meraz from March 2020 to May 2021, and 

they lived together for three months before she broke up with Meraz due to his drug use and 

infidelity. Id. Mello stated she moved to Fayetteville to get away from Meraz. Id. She did not 

tell Meraz where she lived; however, Meraz located her apartment in October 2021. Id. at 2-3. 

Mello reported she had blocked him on social media and blocked his phone number. Id. at 3.

According to Corporal Bailey, Mello also told him that in October of 2021 Meraz attempted 

to hang himself in front of her apartment. (ECF No. 22-4 at 3). Next, Mello stated on February 

26, 2022, she woke at around 2 a.m. and saw Merz standing over her bed. Id. She did not know 

how he got into the apartment. Id. The next thing Mello recalled was waking up on the floor of 

her bedroom with Meraz standing over her and her son sitting on her bed. Id. Mello reported 

she had bruising on her neck, on her left wrist and left shoulder, and believed she had been 

strangled. Id. Meraz had taken possession of her phone and smart watch so she could not call 

the police. Id. Meraz left the apartment at around 6:30 a.m. taking “her father’s Glock 17 Gen 

with 5-6 magazines and ammo, a Taurus 9 mm with 2-3 magazines, and a tactical bullet proof vest 

Case 5:24-cv-05029-TLB Document 35 Filed 12/20/24 Page 3 of 13 PageID #:

<pageID>
4

carrier with hard plates.2” Id. Mello filed for a protective order but did not realize she needed 

to file a separate police report. Id.

Mello reported being concerned for her son’s safety “because Meraz had previously 

kidnapped and raped an ex-girlfriend in Berryville.” (ECF No. 22-4 at 4). Mello informed 

Corporal Bailey of the two other incidents at 9:16 a.m. and 1:37 p.m. that day. (ECF No. 22-4 at 

3-4). Corporal Bailey indicated that when Meraz was arrested for trespassing and stalking, he 

was also served with the protective order. Id. at 4; see also id. at 5-6 (Bailey’s field report).

Officer Ellis Donaldson was one of the FPD officers who responded to the apartment 

complex, apartment 47, at 2:43 p.m. on October 16, 2021. (ECF No. 22-1 at 2). Dispatch had 

advised the officers there was an unconscious male hanging near the apartment. Id.

When the officers arrived Meraz was conscious but had a red ligature mark around his 

neck. (ECF No. 22-1 at 2). Corporal Calvillo spoke with Mello who advised him that Meraz 

was her former boyfriend. Id. at 3. She heard music playing and went outside and found Meraz 

hanging in front of her door. Id. Mello ran to Meraz and attempted to lift him up when a female 

neighbor came out and called 911, grabbed a pair of scissors, and assisted her. Id.; see also (ECF 

No. 22-2 at 2—Affidavit of Corporal Calvillo). Mello explained that when she learned of Meraz’s 

kidnapping and rape convictions she ended the relationship. (ECF No. 22-1 at 3).

Meraz was transported to the hospital and placed on a medical hold. (ECF No. 22-1 at 3). 

When Officer Donaldson returned Meraz’s backpack, he explained to Meraz about his criminal 

trespass from 775 W. Sycamore Street, Apartment 47, and warned him if he returned to the 

premises and FPD was dispatched to the apartments because of a complaint against him, he would 

2 Meraz denies the guns belonged to Mello. (ECF No. 29 at 3). Instead, he maintains they 

belonged to his mother, Charlene Meraz, and were never at Mello’s apartment.

Case 5:24-cv-05029-TLB Document 35 Filed 12/20/24 Page 4 of 13 PageID #:

<pageID>
5 

be arrested for criminal trespass. Id. Officer Donaldson asked dispatch to add Meraz to the 

criminal trespass log “so that if another call was received about Meraz returning to the premises, 

dispatch would advise the officers who responded to the call that Meraz had been warned he would 

be arrested for criminal trespass if he returned to the premises.” Id. at 3-4. 

Court records indicate Mello filed for a protective order on October 18, 2021, in Mello v. 

Meraz, 72DR-21-1563. (ECF No. 22-5 at 2).3 An order of temporary protection was issued that 

day, but the case was dismissed on November 12, 2021. Id. at 4. Court records indicate Mello 

also filed for a protective order on March 29, 2022, in Mello v. Meraz, 72DR-22-451.4 An order 

of temporary protection was issued on March 29, 2022, and served on Meraz on April 4, 2022. 

Id. A final order of protection was issued on April 25, 2022. Id.

On September 7, 2024, a criminal information was filed against Meraz charging him with 

stalking in the first degree and being a habitual offender, State v. Meraz, 72CR-22-2105.5

 (ECF 

No. 22-7 at 2-3). This criminal case, however, deals with the occurrences between August 9, 

2022, and August 13, 2022. Id. The case was nolle prossed on November 13, 2024. 

Arkansas court records also indicate that on September 30, 2024, Meraz filed a civil action 

against Mello, in Meraz v. Mello, 08ECV-24-130.6 In addition to attempting to collect money 

Meraz maintains Mello owes him, the complaint alleges Mello filed two false orders for protection 

that are being used against him. Id.

Meraz’s deposition was taken on June 27, 2024. (ECF No. 22-8 at 3). He testified he is 

3 Arkansas state court records can be found on ARCourts. The record about this case can be found 

at https://caseinfo.arcourts.gov/opad/case/72DR-21-1563 (last visited December 19, 2024). 4 https://caseinfo.arcourts.gov/opad/case/72DR-22-451 (last visited December 19, 2024). 5 https://caseinfo.arcourts.gov/opad/case/72CR-22-2105 (last visited December 19, 2024). 6 https://caseinfo.arcourts.gov/opad/case/08ECV-24-130 (last visited December 19, 2024). 

Case 5:24-cv-05029-TLB Document 35 Filed 12/20/24 Page 5 of 13 PageID #:

<pageID>
6

currently serving a sentence on a kidnapping and stalking conviction from 2008. Id. at 4.

Meraz testified Defendant Tallon had falsely arrested him for trespass from apartment 49. 

(ECF No. 22-8 at 5). Meraz points out that according to the police report he was considered to 

have trespassed from apartment 47 in October of 2021. Id. at 9. Meraz indicates he was told he 

had not been “trespassed from the apartment complex, but I was trespassed from Apartment 47.” 

Id. As he was at the door of apartment 49 in October of 2021, Meraz states he had not trespassed 

at apartment 47. Id. Moreover, Meraz maintains he was not even coherent at the time and 

contends the first trespass was not legitimate. Id. at 10.

Meraz admitted he had been to Mello’s apartment three times on April 2, 2022. (ECF No. 

22-8 at 6). He admitted to wearing a wig and mask on at least one occasion. Id. Meraz 

explained that after his suicide attempt on October 16, 2021, Mello had asked him to try to disguise 

himself when he came to the apartment so he would not upset the other tenants. Id. at 6-7. 

According to Meraz, he and Mello were together on numerous occasions between October 16, 

2021, and April 2, 2022. Id. at 7-9. 

Meraz testified that when Defendant Tallon arrested him, he was relying on incorrect 

information that Meraz had been trespassed from Apartment 49 on a prior occasion. (ECF No. 

22-8 at 11-12). Meraz indicates he did not know until 36 hours later that he was being charged 

with stalking. Id. at 12. He testified he did not understand how Defendant Tallon had grounds 

for either charge. Id. at 14. Meraz further pointed out that these charges were later dismissed. 

Id. at 12.

Except for 45 days when he was out on bond, Meraz states he was incarcerated from April 

2, 2022, until December 13, 2023. (ECF No. 1 at 10). Meraz indicates his arrest triggered a 

parole revocation charge and his bond was revoked. Id.; (see also ECF No. 22-8 at 12).

Case 5:24-cv-05029-TLB Document 35 Filed 12/20/24 Page 6 of 13 PageID #:

<pageID>
7

II. APPLICABLE STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriate if, after viewing the facts and all reasonable inferences 

in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio 

Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986), the record “shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any 

material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). 

“Once a party moving for summary judgment has made a sufficient showing, the burden rests with 

the non-moving party to set forth specific facts, by affidavit or other evidence, showing that a 

genuine issue of material fact exists.” Nat’l Bank of Commerce v. Dow Chemical Co., 165 F.3d 

602, 607 (8th Cir. 1999).

The non-moving party “must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical 

doubt as to the material facts.” Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 586. “They must show there is sufficient 

evidence to support a jury verdict in their favor.” Nat’l Bank, 165 F.3d at 607 (citing Anderson 

v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986)). “A case founded on speculation or suspicion 

is insufficient to survive a motion for summary judgment.” Id. (citing Metge v. Baehler, 762 F.2d 

621, 625 (8th Cir. 1985)). “When opposing parties tell two different stories, one of which is 

blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not 

adopt that version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motion for summary judgment.” Scott 

v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007).

III. DISCUSSION

Defendant Tallon moves for summary judgment arguing he had probable cause to arrest 

Meraz. Even if the Court finds probable cause did not exist, Defendant Tallon contends he had

arguable probable cause and is, therefore, entitled to qualified immunity.

Case 5:24-cv-05029-TLB Document 35 Filed 12/20/24 Page 7 of 13 PageID #:

<pageID>
8

A. Probable Cause and Arguable Probable Cause

“Under the Fourth Amendment, a person has a right to be secure in his person and warrants 

may not issue but upon probable cause.” Ross v. City of Jackson, Mo., 897 F.3d 916, 920 (8th 

Cir. 2018). “It is well established that a warrantless arrest without probable cause violates an 

individual’s constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.” Joseph v. Allen, 

712 F.3d 1222, 1226 (8th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). However, a 

false arrest claim under § 1983 “fails as a matter of law where the officer had probable cause to 

make the arrest.” Kurtz v. City of Shrewsbury, 245 F.3d 753, 758 (8th Cir. 2001).

“[P]robable cause is a fluid concept—turning on the assessment of probabilities in 

particular factual contexts—not readily, or even usefully, reduced to a neat set of legal rules.” 

Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 232 (1983). The Eighth Circuit has stated that probable cause 

exists when “the totality of the circumstances at the time of the arrest ‘[is] sufficient to lead a 

reasonable officer to believe that the defendant has committed or is committing an offense.’” 

Borgman v, Kedley, 646 F.3d 518, 523 (8th Cir. 2011) (quoting Fisher v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 

619 F.3d 811, 816 (8th Cir. 2010)). “The substance of all the definitions of probable cause is a 

reasonable ground for belief of guilt.” Baribeau v. City of Minneapolis, 596 F.3d 465, 474 (8th 

Cir. 2010).

“We must give law enforcement officers ‘substantial latitude in interpreting and drawing 

inferences from factual circumstances,’ ... but such latitude is not without limits.” Kuehl v. Burtis, 

173 F.3d 646, 650 (8th Cir. 1999) (quoting United States v. Washington, 109 F.3d 459, 465 (8th 

Cir. 1997)). First, evidence tending to “negate the possibility that a suspect committed a crime is 

relevant” to whether probable cause exists. Id. “In this sense, the Fourth Amendment requires 

that we analyze the weight of all the evidence—not merely the sufficiency of the incriminating 

Case 5:24-cv-05029-TLB Document 35 Filed 12/20/24 Page 8 of 13 PageID #:

<pageID>
9

evidence.” Id. Second, “law enforcement officers have a duty to conduct a reasonably thorough 

investigation prior to arresting a suspect, at least in the absence of exigent circumstances and so 

long as law enforcement would not be unduly hampered if the agents wait to obtain more facts 

before seeking arrest.” Id. (internal punctuation marks and citations omitted).

If officers did not have probable cause to arrest, an officer is nevertheless entitled to 

“qualified immunity for a warrantless arrest if the arrest was supported by at least ‘arguable 

probable cause.’” Jospeh, 712 F.3d at 1226. “Arguable probable cause exists even where an 

officer mistakenly arrests a suspect believing it is based on probable cause if the mistake is 

objectively reasonable.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The existence of 

probable cause is a question of law. Id. at 1227. 

B. Application

Defendant Tallon relies first on the criminal trespass statute, Ark. Code Ann. § 5-39-203, 

which, in relevant part, provides as follows.

(a) A person commits criminal trespass if he or she purposely enters 

or remains unlawfully in or upon:

(2) The premises owned or leased by another person;

. . . 

(c) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:

(1) The person was a guest or an invitee;

“Criminal trespass is complete upon the making of an unlawful entry. No intent to engage 

in further unlawful conduct is necessary.” Brown v. State, 671 S.W.2d 228, 229 (Ark. App. 1984).

Next, Defendant Tallon relies on the stalking statute, Ark. Code Ann. § 5-71-229. 

Specially, Defendant Tallon contends Meraz committed the crime of stalking in the third degree. 

Case 5:24-cv-05029-TLB Document 35 Filed 12/20/24 Page 9 of 13 PageID #:

<pageID>
10

Under § 5-71-229(c)(1), “[a] person commits stalking in the third degree if he or she knowingly 

commits an act that would place a reasonable person in the victim’s position under emotional 

distress and in fear for his or her safety or a third person’s safety.” Subsection (e) provides, “[i]t 

is not a defense to a prosecution under this section that the actor was not given actual notice by the 

victim that the actor’s conduct was not wanted.” Ark. Code Ann. § 5-71-229(e). Emotional 

distress is defined as “significant mental suffering or distress.” Ark. Code. Ann. § 5-71-

229(f)(2)(A). However, it “does not require that the victim sought or received medical or other 

professional treatment or counseling.” Ark. Code Ann. 5-71-229(f)(2)(B). 

Defendant Tallon was aware of the following when he placed Meraz under arrest: Meraz 

was ringing the doorbell and would not leave; Mello was hiding in the bathroom with her son 

because she believed Meraz was a danger to her; officers had been dispatched to the apartment 

earlier that day but had been unable to locate Meraz; Mello reported that on the earlier occasion 

Meraz was wearing a wig, mask, and gloves; when Meraz’s vehicle was searched a wig, mask, 

and gloves were found; Meraz had a previous stalking conviction from 2011 in Oklahoma and was 

involved in a stalking case in Arkansas in 2011; Meraz had attempted to hang himself in front of 

Mello’s apartment on October 16, 2021; and Meraz had previously been trespassed from Mello’s 

apartment.

That this information was provided to Defendant Tallon is not in dispute. Meraz asks the 

Court to consider the following: at the scene, he was only charged with criminal trespass7

; he was 

not questioned about why he was wearing a wig or about charges Mello had made on his debit 

7 Meraz cites to body cam footage in support of this proposition, but no body cam footage is part 

of the summary judgment record. (ECF No. 28 at 1).

Case 5:24-cv-05029-TLB Document 35 Filed 12/20/24 Page 10 of 13 PageID #:

<pageID>
11

card8; his visit to Mello’s apartment had been prearranged9; he had never been trespassed from 

Apartment 49, but instead the prior trespass was from Apartment 47; there were no 2011 

convictions10; on April 2, 2022, Officer Bailey made the statement he did not believe anything 

Mello said11; and he was not served with the March 2022 protective order until he was arrested.

12

“Whether the police had probable cause at the time of [Meraz’s] arrest is a question of law 

for the court to decide.” Fisher v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 619 F.3d 811, 816 (8th Cir. 2010). 

Probable cause exists “when the facts and circumstances are sufficient to lead a reasonable person 

to believe that the defendant committed or is committing an offense.” Id. (internal quotation 

marks and citation omitted). The Court looks to the “totality of the circumstances as set forth in 

the information available to the officers at the time of arrest.” Id. (internal quotation marks and 

citation omitted). Two other factors are important to consider: first, facts developed after the 

arrest are “irrelevant to the probable cause analysis”; and second, “[o]fficers are generally entitled 

to rely on the veracity of information supplied by the victim of the crime.” Id. at 816-17 (internal 

quotation marks and citation omitted).

8 Meraz refers the Court to body cam footage in support of his argument that he was not questioned 

why he was wearing a wig or about charges Mello had made on his debit card for the February 

rent payment. (ECF No. 29 at 4). As previously noted, no body cam footage is part of the 

summary judgment record.

9 Meraz refers the Court to text messages between Mello and himself between February 25, 2022, 

and April 2, 2022. Id. at 5. While Meraz has submitted some text messages as exhibits, the 

messages do not cover the February of 2022 to April of 2022 time frame. Id. at 115-274. Rather, 

they end in September of 2021. Id. at 274. Additionally, Meraz has submitted phone records as 

exhibits, but these records end in January of 2022. (ECF No. 28-1 at 56-113). 10 Meraz submitted as an exhibit his criminal records from Oklahoma. They indicate he was 

charged with violation of Interstate Corrections Compact for the crime of kidnapping and stalking. 

(ECF No. 28-1 at 43). 11 Once again Meraz refers the Court to body cam footage that is not in evidence. (ECF No. 29 

at 4).

12 Meraz had been served with the first protective order that was ultimately dismissed. (ECF No. 

28-1 at 33).

Case 5:24-cv-05029-TLB Document 35 Filed 12/20/24 Page 11 of 13 PageID #:

<pageID>
12

Given the information Defendant Tallon had at the time of the arrest, the undersigned has 

little trouble finding that probable cause existed to arrest Meraz for trespassing and stalking. 

White v. Jackson, 865 F.3d 1064, 1074 (8th Cir. 2017) (“A warrantless arrest does not violate the 

Fourth Amendment if it is supported by probable cause . . ..”) (internal quotation marks and 

citations omitted). Defendant Tallon acted reasonably in his encounter with Meraz. Meraz’s

possession of the wig, mask, and gloves, established the veracity of the information provided by 

Mello. That some of the information later proved to be misleading or erroneous does not alter 

this determination. Many of the facts Meraz asks the Court to consider are not supported by his 

own exhibits or anything in the summary judgment record. Others, such as that he was previously 

trespassed from Apartment 47 and not Apartment 49, do not alter the fact that Defendant Tallon 

was advised he has been previously trespassed from Mello’s apparent. In short, nothing Meraz 

advances calls into question the existence of probable cause for his arrest.

Alternatively, the Court believes Defendant Tallon had arguable probable cause to arrest 

Meraz for trespass and stalking. Defendant Tallon is, therefore, entitled to qualified immunity.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, it is RECOMMENDED that Defendant’s Motion for 

Summary Judgment (ECF No. 22) be GRANTED, and this case be DISMISSED WITH 

PREJUDICE.

Status of Referral: The referral terminated upon the filing of this Report and 

Recommendation.

The parties have fourteen (14) days from receipt of the Report and Recommendation 

in which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file 

Case 5:24-cv-05029-TLB Document 35 Filed 12/20/24 Page 12 of 13 PageID #:

<pageID>
13

timely objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. The parties 

are reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by 

the district court.

DATED this 20th day of December 2024. 

/s/ Mark E. Ford

HON. MARK E. FORD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:24-cv-05029-TLB Document 35 Filed 12/20/24 Page 13 of 13 PageID #:

<pageID>