Meraz v. Patrol Officer Z. Tallon

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>