Meraz v. Mulvaney, et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION
JEROME M. MERAZ 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Civil No. 5:23-cv-05044-TLB-MEF
SHERIFF JAY CANTRELL,
Washington County, Arkansas;
CAPTAIN NOLAN AKE,
Washington County Detention Center (WCDC);
CORPORAL TOM MULVANEY, MCDC;
CORPORAL CORLEY, WCDC;
JAILER CAMERON STOUT, WCDC;
CORPORAL DOMINICK NUNZIATO, WCDC;
CORPORAL BENJAMIN VELASCO, WCDC;
CORPORAL CHRISTOPHER DRUMWRIGHT, WCDC;
SERGEANT RANDELL FULLER, WCDC; and
PAIGE BLOCK, Dietician 	DEFENDANTS
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff, Jerome M. Meraz (“Meraz”), filed this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. 	Meraz proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis (“IFP”). 	The claims at issue in this case
arose while Meraz was incarcerated in the Washington County Detention Center (“WCDC”).
While housed at the WCDC, Meraz contends Defendants violated his federal constitutional rights
by denying him access to the courts, improperly classifying him as a sex offender, failing to allow
him to groom in the way he desired, by providing an inadequate diet, and by failing to properly
follow COVID-19 protocols. 	Meraz has sued the Defendants in both their individual and official
capacities.
Case 5:23-cv-05044-TLB Document 61 Filed 02/20/24 Page 1 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1) and (3), the Honorable Timothy L.
Brooks, United States District Judge, referred this case to the undersigned for the purpose of
making this Report and Recommendation on the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the
issue of exhaustion (ECF Nos. 46-48) filed by the Defendants Cantrell, Ake, Mulvaney, Corley,
Stout, Nunziato, Velasco, Drumwright, Fuller. 	Meraz has responded. 	(ECF Nos. 52, 54). 	The
Motion is ready for decision.
I. 	BACKGROUND
In his Amended Complaint, Meraz indicates the time frame at issue began on February 14,
2022, and went through April 30, 2023. 	(ECF No. 10 at 3). 	According to his booking records,
Meraz was booked into the WCDC on April 2, 2022, and remained incarcerated there until his
release on July 1, 2022. 	(ECF No. 48-2 at 2). 1 	His pending criminal charges included
harassment, stalking, and violation of a protective order. 	Id. 	Meraz was next incarcerated at the
WCDC from August 13, 2022, through March 30, 2023. 	Id. at 7. 	His criminal charges included
stalking and violation of a protection order. 	Id. 	Meraz again became incarcerated at the WCDC
on May 12, 2023, and was released on May 26, 2023. 	Id. at 9. 	His pending criminal charge was
stalking. 	Id. 	Meraz is currently incarcerated in the Delta Regional Unit of the Arkansas Division
of Correction.
Meraz asserts five separate claims in his Amended Complaint. 	(ECF No. 10). 	In Claim
One, Meraz alleges he was denied access to the courts. 	Id. at 3. 	Specifically, he states he was
1 To ensure ease in locating record citations, all references to the summary judgment record are
to the CM/ECF document and page number rather than to exhibit designations used by the parties.
Case 5:23-cv-05044-TLB Document 61 Filed 02/20/24 Page 2 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
granted permission on February 28, 2023, to represent himself by Judge Taylor—presumably on
his pending criminal charges. 	Id. 	On March 8, 2023, Meraz alleges his personal assistant, his
mother, Charlene Meraz, dropped off a large envelope of exhibits, paper, and envelopes along with
court orders. 	Id.
Meraz says the guards refuse to sharpen pencils which are the only writing implements
inmates have available. 	(ECF No. 10 at 4). 	One guard went so far as to try to give Meraz another
inmate’s pencil. 	Id. 	Meraz indicates he refused to accept it. 	Id.
In some of his legal mail, Meraz says there was a plastic envelope approximately 12 x 15
½ inches. 	(ECF No. 10 at 4). 	Meraz placed ten subpoenas, ten issued subpoenas, three motions,
and the order granting the motions inside the plastic envelope. 	Id. 	Officer Martinez provided
him with a flex pen to address the envelope. 	Id. 	Meraz attempted to give the envelope to
Defendant Stout, but he refused saying the envelope was too large. 	Id. at 4-5. 	After Meraz
explained what it was, Defendant Stout allegedly told him to have the night shift pick it up. 	Id.
at 5. 	An hour later, Defendant Corley refused to take the envelope because it was an unrecognized
envelope and there was no postage on it. 	Id. 	Meraz explained what was in the envelope and that
the “mark of frank” was the postage.2 	Id. 	The following morning, Officer Martinez provided
Meraz with a sharpie to make the address more legible and accepted the envelope. 	Id.
2 According to the United States Postal Service, “[f]ranked mail is defined as Official Mail sent
without postage prepayment, which can be used only by members and members-elect of Congress,
the 	Vice 	President, 	and 	other 	authorized 	individuals.” 	https://about.usps.com/postal-
bulletin/2021/pb22576/html/info_002.htm (last accessed Feb. 14, 2024).
Case 5:23-cv-05044-TLB Document 61 Filed 02/20/24 Page 3 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
Four days later, Meraz was asked “on the speaker” if he was trying to mail an envelope to
his mother. 	(ECF No. 10 at 5). 	Meraz replied that he was but did not know who he was speaking
to. 	Id. 	A short time later, Officer May ordered Meraz to open the envelope and confiscated it.
Id. at 6. 	Meraz says the envelope had been placed in his property. 	Id. 	Meraz was advised that
writing “legal mail” on something did not make it so. 	Id. 	Instead, legal mail was mail to or from
an attorney or the court. 	Id. 	Meraz disagrees with this definition stating it is what is inside the
document that makes it legal mail. 	Id. 	Meraz ended up dividing a portion of the pages between
three stamped envelopes and asked an attorney to walk the envelopes a block and a half to his
office and then “file them.” 	Id. 	Although the attorney agreed, the documents were never filed
and cannot be located. 	Id. 	As of April 26, 2023, when he filed his Amended Complaint, Meraz
indicates he had not been able to “rewrite all of those.” 	Id. at 7. 	This task was complicated by
his 	transfer 	to 	the 	ADC. 	Id. 	Furthermore, 	Meraz 	says 	the 	motions, 	subpoenas, 	and
questionnaires he had in the large envelope would have taken at least nine envelopes and he is only
given two a week by the WCDC. 	Id.
Meraz indicates he asked the Circuit Court for access to the law library, but the prosecuting
attorney objected on the grounds the WCDC had a law library on the kiosk. 	(ECF No. 10 at 7).
Meraz points out that each pod only has one kiosk, and it is mounted approximately three feet off
the floor with no table or place to write. 	Id. 	Meraz states there are on average 30 inmates in the
barracks. 	Id. 	Each inmate is supposed to get approximately 30 minutes at the kiosk, of which
15 minutes is taken up with visits, ordering commissary, etc. 	Id. 	Meraz states the “math &
access don[ʼ]t add up.” 	Id.
Case 5:23-cv-05044-TLB Document 61 Filed 02/20/24 Page 4 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
Meraz indicates Defendant Mulvaney is over “legal matters” at the WCDC and is making
everything difficult. 	(ECF No. 10 at 8). 	Meraz maintains he is not being supplied with the
materials he needs to represent himself. 	Id. 	Meraz indicates he gets one “golf pencil,” no eraser,
no sharpener, eight sheets of paper, and two stamped envelopes a week. 	Id. 	When Meraz
requests additional paper, he is told it is only passed out on Sundays. 	Id. 	When he asks for his
pencil to be sharpened, the response is they do not have time. 	Id.
In Claim Two, Meraz contends Defendant Cantrell has in place a policy that “if you’ve
ever been accused of a crime that would make you have to register you are to be housed in the sex
offender pod & not allowed to be a trustee.” 	(ECF No. 10 at 9). 	On or about August 17, 2022,
Meraz says he advised Defendant Corley that he was in the wrong pod and needed to be
reclassified. 	Id. 	Meraz pointed out he had never been convicted of a “sex crime” and his current
charges, if he was convicted, would not submit him to registration as a sex offender. 	Id.
On February 11, 2023, during a jail check, Defendant Drumwright told Meraz that since
he had been in the sex offender pod for so long and all the trustees had seen him there it would not
be safe to release him into general population. 	(ECF No. 10 at 10). 	On February 12, 2023, Meraz
was advised by Defendant Velasco that the information he had access to indicated Meraz had been
convicted of rape. 	Id. at 9-10. 	The following day, Defendant Fuller made a similar statement
and declined to move Meraz. 	Id. at 10. 	On February 14, 2023, Defendant Nunziato stated his
information showed Meraz had been found guilty of rape in 2008. 	Id. 	Defendant Drumwright
echoed these statements. 	Id.
Case 5:23-cv-05044-TLB Document 61 Filed 02/20/24 Page 5 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
Meraz indicates he paid for a copy of his 2008 commitment papers and mailed them to
Captain Ake. 	(ECF No. 10 at 10). 	On February 23, 2023, the papers were returned and Meraz
advised he would not be moved. 	Id.
In Claim Three, Meraz contends the WCDC grooming policies are demoralizing,
dehumanizing, adversely affects his self-esteem and mental well-being, and violates his religious
beliefs. 	(ECF No. 10 at 11-12). 	Meraz states it he is Native American, and it is their religious
belief that they should be allowed to wear their hair and facial hair “to suit ourself, what ever
mentally makes us feel good.” 	Id. at 11. 	At the WCDC, Meraz said haircuts and shaves are all
considered to be a courtesy. 	Id. at 12. 	The only mandatory shaves occur when an inmate is going
to an in-person court proceeding. 	Id. 	Zoom hearings do not require mandatory shaves. 	Id.
Furthermore, if a person is allowed a haircut or shave it is an “all or nothing” policy—take it all
off or nothing. 	Id.
In Claim Four, Meraz alleges that the diet provided is nutritionally inadequate. 	(ECF No.
10 at 13). 	He indicates he came into the WCDC weighing 205 pounds and when he left, he was
down to 165. 	Id. 	Meraz states the food was under cooked “a lot of times, smelt & or tasted rotten
& not replaced.” 	Id. 	When he complained to the kitchen, the responses he received were: “shut
your face, your momma, mind your own business,” the meals were in compliance in respect to the
quantity given, contained 3,000 calories per day, and they could have him weighed at a charge of
$10 per sick call. 	Id.
Finally, in Claim Five, Meraz contends that between February 28, 2023, and March 20,
2023, all the jailers at the WCDC engaged in “germ war fair.” 	(ECF No. 10 at 14). 	On February
Case 5:23-cv-05044-TLB Document 61 Filed 02/20/24 Page 6 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
28, 2023, Meraz indicates an inmate who tested positive for COVID-19, was removed from the
barracks, and the barracks was put on exposed quarantine status and exposed status protocols were
applied. 	Id. 	Any officer or staff member who encountered an exposed inmate was to be masked
up for the inmate’s and the rest of the jail’s protection. 	Id. 	From February 28 to March 5, Meraz
indicates everyone did well. 	From March 5 until March 20, Meraz says basically no one followed
protocol and as a result the jail had an outbreak. 	Id. 	Meraz indicates there were several inmates
pulled from the barracks at various times causing the barracks to remain on exposed status. 	Id.
According to Meraz, inmates would not ask to be tested. 	Id. 	The WCDC would only test when
an inmate requested or every five days after an inmate had tested positive. 	Id.
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. 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.
Case 5:23-cv-05044-TLB Document 61 Filed 02/20/24 Page 7 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

8
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
Defendants have moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of exhaustion.
Defendants argue Meraz: (1) failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as to all individual
capacity claims against Defendants Cantrell and Ake; (2) failed to exhaust his wrongful
classification claims against Defendant Corley; (3) filed no grievances as to Claim Four—adequate
nutrition; (4) failed to list any of the Defendants as being those involved in Claim Five—COVID-
19 protocols.
As 	to 	the 	claims 	remaining, 	Defendants 	Mulvaney, 	Corely, 	Nunziato, 	Velasco,
Drumwright, and Fuller indicate they do not intend to rely on the exhaustion defense. 	(ECF No.
50 at 1). 	However, they join in the request for Claims Four and Five to be dismissed. 	Id.
A. 	The Exhaustion Requirement
The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) in 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) provides: “[n]o action
shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under section 1983 of this title, or any other
Federal law, by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such
administrative remedies as are available are exhausted.” 	Exhaustion is mandatory. 	Porter v.
Case 5:23-cv-05044-TLB Document 61 Filed 02/20/24 Page 8 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

9
Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524-25 (2002). 	In Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007), the Supreme Court
concluded 	“to 	properly 	exhaust 	administrative 	remedies 	prisoners 	must 	complete 	the
administrative review process in accordance with the applicable procedural rules.” 	Id. at 218
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 	The Court stated that the “level of detail necessary
in a grievance to comply with the grievance procedures will vary from system to system and claim
to claim, but it is the prison’s requirements, and not the PLRA, that define the boundaries of proper
exhaustion.” 	Id. 	A prisoner’s remedies are exhausted “when [the] inmate pursues the prison
grievance process to its final stage and receives an adverse decision on the merits.” 	Hammett v.
Cofield, 681 F.3d 945, 947 (8th Cir. 2012).
B. 	The WCDC Grievance Procedure
The WCDC has an inmate grievance procedure. 	(ECF No. 48-4 at 1-2). 	Inmates are
advised that grievances may be filed “whenever the detainee believes they have been subjected to
abuse, harassment, an abridgment of civil rights, or a denial of privileges specified in the Detainee
Handbook.” 	Id. at 1. 	Grievances are to be made within 10 days of the alleged incident “unless
there is good cause for a reasonable delay.3” 	Id. at 2. 	Grievances filed more than 30 days after
an alleged incident will not be considered. 	Id. 	Grievances are to be submitted via the kiosk
located in the cell block. 	Id. 	The grievance “shall state fully the time, date, location and names
3 When initially describing the grievance procedure in their brief, Defendants state grievances
must be submitted within eight hours from the event complained of. 	(ECF No. 47 at 5). 	The
Court assumes this is merely an error because the grievance procedure clearly provides for a period
of 10 days.
Case 5:23-cv-05044-TLB Document 61 Filed 02/20/24 Page 9 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

10
of those detention officers and/or staff member’s involved and pertinent details of the incident,
including the names of any witnesses and how the incident personally affected the detainee.” 	Id.
The supervisor must notify the jail administrator or his designee “[i]f the grievance
constitutes a prohibited act by an officer or staff member, a criminal act, or a violation of the
detainee’s civil rights.” 	(ECF No. 48-4 at 2). 	The duty supervisor is to provide “a timely
response following the investigation of the grievance, to include findings and actions taken.” 	Id.
A detainee may appeal the response within five days, “by indicating his or her desire for further
review of the response on the kiosk provided in the cell block.” 	Id. 	However, no appeal will be
considered on, among other things, medical decisions, treatment, or testing, dietary concerns, or
disciplinary matters.4 	Id.
Although in less detail, the grievance procedure is also outlined in the Detainee Handbook.
(ECF No. 48-5 at 1). 	Detainees are advised that they are allowed to file a grievance if they have
been “subjected to abuse or an abridgement of [their] civil rights while being detained.” 	Id. at 1.
Grievances are to be made on the kiosk, submitted within 10 days, and must include: the date and
approximate time of the event; the names of the persons involved; the names of any witnesses; and
the pertinent details of the event. 	Id. 	The Handbook states: “All grievances are reviewed by the
Jail Administrator or their designee. 	If you feel your grievance was improperly handled, you may
appeal to the Sergeant or Lieutenant.” 	Id. at 2. 	Although not at issue here, it is noteworthy that
4 Meraz points out that the grievance policy itself is not available to inmates. 	(ECF No. 52 at 4).
Instead, the inmates only have access to the summary version contained in the Handbook. 	Id.
Case 5:23-cv-05044-TLB Document 61 Filed 02/20/24 Page 10 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

11
the Detainee Handbook does not mention that an appeal must be made within five days after receipt
of the response. 	Id.
C. 	Claims Against Defendants Cantrell and Ake
The Court agrees with Defendants Cantrell and Ake that Meraz failed to name them in any
of his grievances. 	In opposition, Meraz argues that no one would mention Defendant Cantrell’s
name and he only learned of it through the news. 	(ECF No. 52 at 1). 	While this may be true,
Meraz did not refer to Defendant Cantrell by his title either, although doubtless he knew the sheriff
had overall supervision over the facility. 	Instead, Meraz merely argues that Defendants Cantrell
and Ake make and enforce the rules and policy at the WCDC. 	Id. 	He maintains “[t]hey should
not be above the law when it comes to human rights violations.” 	Id. 	Finally, Meraz argues
Defendant Cantrell is named “by proxy” whenever Meraz files a “grievance on any officer that is
[e]nforcing his rule.” 	Id. at 3. 	Meraz presents a nearly identical argument with respect to
Defendant Ake. 	Id. at 4.
The Court notes that Meraz has sued all Defendants in both their individual and official
capacities. 	Under § 1983, a defendant may be sued in either his individual capacity, or in his
official capacity, or claims may be stated against a defendant in both his individual and his official
capacities. 	The type of conduct that is actionable and the type of defense available depend on
whether the claim is asserted against a defendant in his official or individual capacity. 	See
Gorman v. Bartch, 152 F.3d 907, 914 (8th Cir. 1998) (internal citations omitted). 	“Claims against
individuals in their official capacities are equivalent to claims against the entity for which they
work; they require proof that a policy or custom of the entity violated the plaintiff’s rights, and the
Case 5:23-cv-05044-TLB Document 61 Filed 02/20/24 Page 11 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

12
only type of immunity available is one belonging to the entity itself.” 	Id. 	In other words, Meraz’s
official capacities claims against the Defendants are claims against Washington County, Arkansas.
If Meraz proves the existence of an official capacity claim, Washington County will be liable even
though Defendants Cantrell and Ake are no longer parties to this lawsuit.
Because Meraz failed to name Defendants Cantrell and Ake5 in his grievances, he failed
to comply with the grievance policy.6 	Defendants Cantrell and Ake are entitled to summary
judgment on the claims against them.
D. 	Claim Three—Wrongful Classification Claims Against Defendant Corley
Defendant Corley argues he was not named in any of Meraz’s grievances related to his
being classified as a sex offender. 	Meraz does not respond to this assertion and points to no
grievance naming Defendant Corley.
Although Meraz submitted numerous complaints regarding his being classified as a sex
offender, none of the grievances mention Defendant Corley, nor does it appear Defendant Corley
responded to any of grievances regarding this topic. 	(ECF No. 48-3 at 2-5, 20-21, 26; ECF No.
54 at 43-44, 46, 67-69). 	For this reason, Meraz failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with
respect to Defendant Corley on Claim Three.
5 The only mention of Defendant Ake appears in Meraz’s response to a statement made by
Defendant Mulvaney that he would investigate why Meraz was in the sex offender pod. 	Meraz
says: “[I]’ve gone as far up the chain as cpt. AKA so [I] don[‘] think a cpl. would be able to correct
it but be my guest.”
6 Although the policy requires a grievance to be submitted, Defendants have analyzed both
grievances and requests as related to Defendants Cantrell and Ake. 	(ECF No. 47 at 5). 	However,
by doing so, they state they “do not waive the explicit policy requirements of a grievance in other
matters.” 	Id.
Case 5:23-cv-05044-TLB Document 61 Filed 02/20/24 Page 12 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

13
E. 	Claim Four—Inadequate Diet
Defendants contend Meraz filed no grievances related to the nutritional value of the meals
until after he had filed this case. 	Review of the grievances indicates that on December 9, 2022,
and December 10, 2022, Meraz submitted grievances complaining that the rice had not been fully
cooked for the evening meal and was crunchy. 	(ECF No. 48-3 at 16-17).
In opposition, Meraz submitted several “affidavits” of fellow inmates indicating they
constantly complained about the food not being cooked all the way, rotten pieces of vegetables,
and the beans being sour tasting or smelling; however, the “affidavits” are not notarized or sworn
to under penalty of perjury, and they cannot be considered by the Court. 	Further, they do not
address the pertinent question: Did Meraz exhaust his administrative remedies on his inadequate
diet claim?
Meraz filed this case on March 23, 2023. 	He filed his Amended Complaint on April 26,
2023. 	(ECF No. 10). 	The Amended Complaint contained the inadequate nutrition claim. 	The
first grievance submitted by Meraz addressing the inadequate nutrition claim was submitted on
May 25, 2023—more than two months after he filed this case.
While his earlier grievances may not have mentioned the quantity of food, Meraz argues
they clearly called into question the quality of the main course. 	Meraz argues that “if the quality
is not there than the quantity is not there either.” 	(ECF Nos. 52, 54). 	He maintains his December
9 and 10 grievances suffice to exhaust his inadequate nutrition claim. 	Id. 	The Court disagrees.
The two December grievances only address the rice being undercooked on two consecutive days.
Case 5:23-cv-05044-TLB Document 61 Filed 02/20/24 Page 13 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

14
They make no reference to the quantity of food, the lack of nutritional value, or Meraz’s weight
loss. 	Defendants are entitled to dismissal of this claim based on Meraz’s failure to exhaust.
F. 	Claim Five—COVID-19 Protocols
Defendants maintain they are entitled to dismissal of this claim on the grounds that Meraz
named none of them in his claim related to COVID-19 protocols/mask wearing in the jail. 	On
March 15, 2023, Meraz submitted a grievance complaining that the barracks was on exposed status
and inmates were constantly exposed to other inmates and to jail staff who were not wearing
masks. 	(ECF No. 48-3 at 30). 	He did not identify any staff member by name. 	Id. 	Meraz also
submitted several requests/grievances to medical services about testing and the length of time the
barracks was on “exposed status.” 	Id. at 38, 40, 41.
In opposition, Meraz asks the Court to leave all named Defendants and to add the entire
facility staff working between February 28, 2023, and March 25, 2023, excluding Defendant
Drumwright, as defendants on Claim Five. 	(ECF No. 52 at 2, 4-5). 	As to Defendant
Drumwright, Meraz indicates he was the only officer Meraz can name who wore a mask. 	Id. at
1. 	Meraz does not, however, point to any grievance naming a single member of the staff.
The WCDC grievance policy clearly requires the naming of the persons involved. 	(ECF
No. 48-5 at 1). 	Meraz does not deny he had access to the detainee handbook which set forth the
requirements of the grievance procedure. 	Clearly, Meraz knew how to operate the kiosk and
submit grievances. 	Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on this claim because Meraz
failed to comply with the terms of the grievance policy and, therefore, failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies.
Case 5:23-cv-05044-TLB Document 61 Filed 02/20/24 Page 14 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

15
IV. 	CONCLUSON
For the reasons and upon the authorities discussed above, it is RECOMMENDED that the
Defendants’ Partial Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 46) be GRANTED, and the
following claims be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE based on Plaintiff’s failure to
exhaust his administrative remedies:
• 	All personal capacity claims against Defendants Cantrell and Ake. 	As Meraz has
asserted official capacity claims against all Defendants, the official capacity claims
against Defendants Cantrell and Ake are duplicative. 	They may, therefore, be
terminated as Defendants.
• 	The wrongful classification claims against Defendant Corley.
• 	Claim Four asserting inadequate nutrition. 	This results in the dismissal of all claims
against Paige Block and Janet Haney. 7 	They may, therefore, be terminated as
Defendants.
• 	Claim Five asserting failure to adhere to COVID-19 protocols.
Status of the Referral: 	This case should remain referred for all matters not
recommended for dismissal in 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
7 Defendants Block and Haney did not file their own motion for summary judgment on the issue
of exhaustion; however, dismissal of the inadequate nutrition claims results in the dismissal of all
claims against Defendant Block, the dietician, and Defendant Haney, the kitchen supervisor.
Case 5:23-cv-05044-TLB Document 61 Filed 02/20/24 Page 15 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>

16
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 February 2024.
/s/	
Mark E. Ford
HON. MARK E. FORD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 5:23-cv-05044-TLB Document 61 Filed 02/20/24 Page 16 of 16 PageID #:
<pageID>