Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_24-cv-05029/USCOURTS-arwd-5_24-cv-05029-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Doe
Defendant
John or Jane Doe Dispatch Officer
Defendant
Jerome M. Meraz
Plaintiff
Z. Tallon
Defendant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

JEROME M. MERAZ PLAINTIFF

V. CASE NO. 5:24-CV-5029

JOHN OR JANE DOE DISPATCH OFFICER,

Fayetteville Police Department (FPD);

PATROL OFFICER Z. TALLON, FPD; and

JOHN DOE, District Prosecuting Attorney DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Now pending is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 6) of the 

Honorable Mark E. Ford, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of 

Arkansas, who conducted a preservice screening of the Complaint pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1915A. The Magistrate Judge recommends dismissing all claims except one 

for false arrest against separate Defendant Tallon. Plaintiff Jerome M. Meraz filed 

Objections (Doc. 11) to the R&R, and in response, the Court has reviewed the entire 

case de novo. 

First, Mr. Meraz objects to the dismissal of the prosecuting attorney—whom he 

now identifies by name. In support of this objection, he restates the facts surrounding 

his arrest and prosecution and concludes, “If that [is] not malicious[,] I don’t no [sic] what 

is.” Id. at p. 2. Even assuming all facts Mr. Meraz states in his Complaint and 

Objections are true, none of the prosecutor’s actions plausibly fall outside his 

prosecutorial functions. Though Mr. Meraz disagrees with the speed with which his 

prosecution was handled and the prosecutor’s decision to pursue certain charges, the 

Case 5:24-cv-05029-TLB Document 13 Filed 02/15/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:

<pageID>
R&R is correct that the prosecutor is subject to absolute immunity from suit for all these 

actions. The objection is therefore OVERRULED.

Second, Mr. Meraz argues that defamation should be a claim of constitutional 

dimension—though the law says otherwise. This objection is also OVERRULED.

Third and finally, Mr. Meraz insists that his claim for false arrest against John or 

Jane Doe Dispatch Officer is plausible and should survive preservice screening. The 

Court disagrees. As the R&R explained, Mr. Meraz’s allegation that the Dispatch 

Officer misread a report is, at most, negligent conduct, which does not support a § 1983 

claim. This objection is OVERRULED.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the R&R is ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Meraz’s Motion to Amend Parties (Doc. 12) 

is MOOT. The Motion states the true name of the John Doe Prosecuting Attorney, but 

for the reasons stated herein and in the R&R, this party is dismissed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED on this 15th day of February, 2024.

/s/ Timothy L. Brooks_______________ 

TIMOTHY L. BROOKS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:24-cv-05029-TLB Document 13 Filed 02/15/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:

<pageID>