Meraz v. Mulvaney, et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION
JEROME M. MERAZ 	PLAINTIFF
V. 	CASE NO. 5:23-CV-5044
CORPORAL TOM MULVANEY,
Washington County Detention Center (WCDC);
CORPORAL CORLEY, WCDC;
JAILER CAMERON STOUT, WCDC;
CORPORAL DOMINICK NUNZIATO, WCDC;
CORPORAL BENJAMIN VELASCO, WCDC;
CORPORAL CHRISTOPHER DRUMWRIGHT, WCDC;
and SERGEANT RANDELL FULLER 	DEFENDANTS
ORDER
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 106) filed on
April 9, 2025, by the Honorable Mark E. Ford, United States Magistrate Judge for the
Western District of Arkansas. He recommends that Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment be granted. Plaintiff Jerome M. Meraz filed Objections to the R&R (Doc. 107),
and the Court undertook a de novo review of the record in response.
Mr. Meraz makes three claims in his lawsuit: (1) he was denied access to the
courts; (2) the Washington County Detention Center improperly classified him as a sex
offender and required him to live in the sex offender pod; and (3) he was denied the right
to groom in the manner he desired.
With respect to the first claim, Mr. Meraz’s objection fails to engage with the R&R’s
conclusion that he has not asserted an actual injury—which means the claim must be
dismissed as a matter of law. As to the second claim, though Mr. Meraz maintains that
the conditions in the sex offender pod amount to punishment because that pod is more
Case 5:23-cv-05044-TLB Document 108 Filed 04/24/25 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
dangerous than general population and offers fewer perks and benefits, see Doc. 107, p.
3, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that there is no evidence in the summary
judgment record to show that Mr. Meraz’s placement in the sex offender pod was the
result of Defendants’ intent to punish him, or was not reasonably related to a legitimate
governmental purpose, or was excessive in relation to that purpose. Finally, despite the
fact that Mr. Meraz believes the jail’s grooming policy violates his rights, the Magistrate
Judge is correct that an incarcerated individual has no constitutional right to groom in his
desired manner, and the record does not disclose any evidence from which a reasonable
jury could infer that the policy was punitive in nature, rather than one based on the needs
of the facility.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Objections are OVERRULED, and the
R&R (Doc. 106) is ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY. The Motion for Summary Judgment
(Doc. 91) is GRANTED, and the case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Judgment will
enter concurrently with this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED on this 24th day of April, 2025.
/s/ Timothy L. Brooks____________________
TIMOTHY L. BROOKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 5:23-cv-05044-TLB Document 108 Filed 04/24/25 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>