# Polk

> District Court, E.D. Arkansas · May 27, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11366088

## Case

- **Full name:** Alvin Jerome Polk v. A. Stratford, et al.
- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Arkansas
- **Decided:** May 27, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11366088

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
CENTRAL DIVISION

ALVIN JEROME POLK PLAINTIFF
ADC #185014

v. 4:24CV01080-DPM-JTK

A. STRATFORD, et al. DEFENDANTS

PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
INSTRUCTIONS
The following recommended disposition (“Recommendation”) has been sent to United
States District Judge D.P. Marshall Jr. Any party may file written objections to all or part of this
Recommendation. If you do so, those objections must: (1) specifically explain the factual and/or
legal basis for your objections; and (2) be received by the Clerk of this Court within fourteen (14)
days of this Recommendation. By not objecting, you may waive the right to appeal questions of
fact.
DISPOSITION
I. Introduction
Alvin Jerome Polk (“Plaintiff”) currently is incarcerated at the Barbara Ester Unit of the
Arkansas Division of Correction (“ADC”). His claims in this case arise from the time he was in
custody as a convicted prisoner at the Pulaski County, Arkansas, Detention Center (the “Detention
Center”). (Doc. No. 2 at 4). Plaintiff sued Deputies A. Stratford, A. Holmes, Q. Maxfield, Chris
Santee, and T. Williams, along with Lieutenants Allen and A. Lee (collectively, “Defendants”) in
their personal and official capacities pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Id. at 1-3). Plaintiff claims
he was subjected to unlawful conditions of confinement, including a leaky toilet, black mold, and
lockdown for up to five days a week. (Id. at 5-8).
Plaintiff’s sewage related claims were dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative
remedies. (Doc. Nos. 38, 45, 46).

Plaintiff’s claims in connection with black mold and lockdown remain pending.
Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on the merits of Plaintiff’s claims, Brief
in Support, and Statement of Facts. (Doc. Nos. 67- 69). On April 16, 2026, the Court directed
Plaintiff to respond to Defendants’ Motion within 30 days, or by May 16, 2026. (Doc. No. 70).
The Court advised Plaintiff that failure to comply with the Order would result in all facts set forth
in Defendants’ summary judgment papers being deemed admitted, or the dismissal of the action
without prejudice for failure to prosecute. (Id.) To date, Plaintiff has not filed a response.
After careful consideration and for the reasons explained below, I recommend Defendants’
Motion be granted.
II. Plaintiff’s Pending Claims

Plaintiff’s Complaint is the operative pleading in this action. (Doc. No. 2). Plaintiff says
“S Unit [cell] 416 and every shower” has “extreme black mold in them that is very unhealthy for
[him].” (Id. at 6). Plaintiff was locked down more than five days a week in these conditions. (Id.
at 5, 6, 8).
Plaintiff asserts that between September 28, 2024, and November 5, 2024, he alerted
Defendants to the horrible living conditions. (Id. at 7). Each Defendant said he would put in a
maintenance request, but the problems were never remedied. (Id.). Instead, Plaintiff was moved
to the R Unit where there were also “bad living conditions.” (Id.).
Plaintiff seeks damages. (Doc. No. 2 at 9).
III. Summary Judgment Standard
Pursuant to Rule 56(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment is
appropriate if the record shows that there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Dulany v. Carnahan, 132 F.3d 1234, 1237 (8th Cir.

1997). “The moving party bears the initial burden of identifying ‘those portions of the pleadings,
depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,
which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.’” Webb v. Lawrence
County, 144 F.3d 1131, 1134 (8th Cir. 1998) (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323
(1986) (other citations omitted)). “Once the moving party has met this burden, the non-moving
party cannot simply rest on mere denials or allegations in the pleadings; rather, the non-movant
‘must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.’” Id. at 1135. Although
the facts are viewed in a light most favorable to the non-moving party, “in order to defeat a motion
for summary judgment, the non-movant cannot simply create a factual dispute; rather, there must
be a genuine dispute over those facts that could actually affect the outcome of the lawsuit.” Id.

In addition, “[a]ll material facts set forth in the statement (of undisputed material facts)
filed by the moving party...shall be deemed admitted unless controverted by the statement filed by
the non-moving party . . . .” Local Rule 56.1, Rules of the United States District Court for the
Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas. Failure to properly support or address the moving
party’s assertion of fact can result in the fact considered as undisputed for purposes of the motion.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e).
IV. Discussion
Plaintiff alleges Defendants subjected him to unlawful conditions of confinement. (Doc.
No. 2). Defendants argue they are entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiff’s personal capacity
claims based on qualified immunity because Plaintiff cannot establish a violation of his clearly
established rights. (Doc. No. 68 at 16 -19). Defendants further maintain summary judgment in
their favor is appropriate on Plaintiff’s official capacity claims because Plaintiff cannot establish
that a Pulaski County policy or practice was the moving force behind the alleged violation of his

rights. (Id. at 19-23).
A. Uncontested Material Facts
As an initial matter, the Court notes that Plaintiff has not filed a response to Defendants’
Motion. He has not controverted any material fact set forth by Defendants in their statement of
undisputed material facts. Accordingly, all material facts submitted by Defendants (Doc. No. 69)
are deemed admitted. Local Rule 56.1(c); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e).
Arkansas Mold and Water performed a Mold Analysis at the Detention Center on January
6, 2023. (Doc. No. 69 at ¶ 1; Doc. No. 69-6). A small amount of toxic mold was found in the
downstairs area of the Detention Center, which had not housed inmates for some time. (Doc. No.
69 at ¶ 35; Doc. No. 69-6; Doc. No. 69-1 at ¶ 6). No Defendant was aware of toxic black mold

in any area housing inmates. (Doc. No. 69 at ¶¶ 35, 41, 50, 59, 67, 76, 83, 91; Doc. No. 69-1 at
¶ 6; Doc. No. 69-10 at ¶ 3; Doc. No. 69-11 at ¶ 3; Doc. No. 69-12 at ¶ 3; Doc. No. 69-13 at ¶ 2;
Doc. No. 69-14 at ¶ 3; Doc. No. 69-15 at ¶ 3; Doc. No. 69-16 at ¶ 2).
The Arkansas Department of Public Safety Criminal Detention Facilities Review
Committees inspected the Detention Center on November 2, 2023. (Doc. No. 69 at ¶ 2; Doc. No.
69-8 at 1-10). The Arkansas Department of Public Safety Criminal Detention Facilities Review
Committees inspected the Detention Center again on November 12, 2024. (Doc. No. 69 at ¶ 16;
Doc. No. 69-8 at 11-19).
Detention Center Policies
The Detention Center has policies and procedures in connection with cleaning and cleaning
supplies. Section IV.C.1 of the Control of Tools, Hazardous (Caustic) Materials, and Cleaning
Supplies Policy states: Deputies will provide inmates with the following cleaning supplies and

materials to assist them in cleaning their housing units and rooms: broom(s); mop(s) and mop
bucket(s); non-toxic premixed cleaning solution; shower and commode brushes; rags and/or paper
towels for dusting and cleaning windows, etc. (Doc. No. 69 at ¶ 100; Doc. No. 69-9 at 10). The
Warehouse Manager will supply each housing unit with the necessary cleaning supplies and non-
toxic premixed cleaning solutions to maintain a clean and sanitary housing unit. (Doc. No. 69 at
¶ 101; Doc. No. 69-9 at 10).
At least once per hour, deputies will conduct routine inspections of inmate living areas to
maintain the security and sanitation of the facility and to prevent the introduction, hoarding, or
distribution of contraband throughout the facility by inmates. (Doc. No. 69 at ¶ 102; Doc. No. 69-
9 at 15). Security inspections will include, but are not limited to, the physical/visual inspection

of windows; door(s); bathroom facilities and fixtures; locking devices; furnishing; ceilings and
walls; fire prevention devices; and any other physical structure of the unit. (Doc. No. 69 at ¶ 103;
Doc. No. 69-9 at 15). Security inspections and discrepancies of immediate concern to safety or
security will be immediately reported to the zone supervisor and recorded on a written incident
report as well as on the appropriate unit inspections form(s) by the deputy. (Doc. No. 69 at
¶ 104; Doc. No. 69-9 at 26). To maintain the safety of the facility and promote the health and
wellbeing of staff, inmates, and visitors, facility officials will ensure that the Detention Center
conforms to applicable rules and regulation pertaining to environmental sanitation and hygiene.
(Doc. No. 69 at ¶ 105; Doc. No. 69-9 at 22).
Daily housekeeping/sanitation inspections will be conducted by the staff to ensure the
cleanliness of the facility. (Doc. No. 69 at ¶ 106; Doc. No. 69-9 at 22). The supervisor on duty
is responsible for conducting a daily sanitation inspection of the facility to ensure the cleanliness
and appearance of all areas, including inmate living areas. (Doc. No. 69 at ¶ 107; Doc. No. 69-9

at 23). Deputies assigned to each shift are responsible for conducting inspections of their assigned
units during their security rounds to ensure the cleanliness of the facility. (Doc. No. 69 at ¶ 108;
Doc. No. 69-9 at 23). Detention Center Environmental Sanitation/General Housekeeping Policy
states:
Inmates will be responsible for cleaning their inmate living areas within the facility,
including: all cells, dayrooms, and inmate bathroom facilities… Deputies will be
responsible for providing inmates with adequate cleaning supplies to enable them
to clean areas within the facility. Deputies will be responsible for supervising
inmates at all times, while cleaning, to ensure that tasks are being completed as
assigned.

(Doc. No. 69 at ¶ 109; Doc. No. 69-9 at 24). Unsafe or unsanitary conditions or practices will be
addressed and corrective action will be taken. (Doc. No. 69 at ¶ 111; Doc. No. 69-9 at 26).
At the Detention Center, unit cleanup, which included cleaning showers and toilets, was
usually conducted around 9:30 p.m. (Doc. No. 69 at ¶ 37; Doc. No. 69-1 at 8). Every Tuesday,
cleaning supplies, including new mop-heads, rags, paper towels, DC-33 cleaning solution, etc.,
were issued to each unit to be used for the week. (Doc. No. 69 at ¶ 38; Doc. No. 69-1 at 9; Doc.
No. 69-3 at 5).
Plaintiff’s Complaint contains allegations arising from the time when he was housed in the
S and R Units at the Detention Center.
S Unit. Plaintiff was housed in S Unit Cell 416L from September 27, 2024, to November
7, 2024. (Doc. No. 69 at ¶ 5; Doc. No. 69-5). Cell 416L is located on the upper level of S-Unit.
(Doc. No. 69 at ¶ 36; Doc. No. 69-1 at ¶ 7).
On September 29, 2024, Deputy Trimble entered a “Room to Room Cleanup” note, stating:
“Room to room cleaning completed for lower level of unit.” (Doc. No. 69 at ¶ 6; Doc. No. 69-7
at 3). On October 5, 2024, Defendant Maxfield entered a “Room to Room Cleanup” note, stating:
“Completed.” (Doc. No. 69 at ¶ 9; Doc. No. 69-7 at 2). On October 19, 2024, Deputy Reynolds

entered a “Room to Room Cleanup” note stating: “complete.” (Doc. No. 69 at ¶ 10; Doc. No. 69-
7 at 3).
Plaintiff submitted a grievance on October 26, 2024, complaining of black mold in the
showers in the S Unit, among other things. (Doc. No. 69 at ¶ 11; Doc. No. 69-3 at 1).
On October 27, 2024, Deputy Standoak entered a “Room to Room Cleanup” note, stating:
“Lower level begins.” (Doc. No. 69 at ¶ 12; Doc. No. 69-7 at 4). On November 4, 2024,
Defendant Santee entered a “General Activity” note, stating: “Room to room [clean up] complete.”
(Doc. No. 69 at ¶ 15; Doc. No. 69-7 at 6).
R Unit. Between December 2, 2024, and approximately December 20, 2024, Plaintiff was
housed in the R Unit. (Doc. No. 69 at ¶ 18; Doc. No. 69-5). On December 13, 2024, Plaintiff

submitted a grievance, stating: “there is black mold in every shower in this unit n in every cell in
this unit. Its making me sick n my skin is breaking out.” (Doc. No. 69 at ¶ 19; Doc. No. 69-3 at
2-3). On December 14, 2024, Plaintiff noted that on “December 14th, 2024, 10:30 a.m. they
started cleaning the showers in S unit and in R unit and the finished @ 1:30 p.m. and/or 1:45 p.m.”
(Doc. No. 69 at ¶ 20; Doc. No. 69-3 at 3). On December 16, 2024, Plaintiff submitted a Medical
– Sick Call, stating:
this black mold in the unit , in the shower, and in my cell is making me sick, making
me cough, and making my lungs hurt extremely bad. I had surgery on both of my
feet, so whenever I'm hopping back and forth from the top rack it causes me
extremely bad pain in my feet. This water here is very unsafe to drink and I've
become very dehydrated, can you please prescribe me w/ electrolytes so I won’t die
of thirst. ? ?
(Doc. No. 69 at ¶ 21; Doc. No. 69-3 at 19).
Other Areas and Plaintiff’s transfer to the ADC. Plaintiff was housed in the Q Unit from
December 28, 2024, to April 10, 2025. (Doc. No. 69 at ¶ 21; Doc. No. 69-5). Plaintiff was
transferred to the Ouachita River Unit of the ADC on August 4, 2025. (Doc. No. 69 at ¶ 31; Doc.
No. 69-2 at 2).
B. Qualified Immunity
Defendants argue they are entitled to qualified immunity. Qualified immunity shields a
government official from liability when his conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory
or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald,

457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). Qualified immunity is a question of law, not a question of fact.
McClendon v. Story County Sheriff's Office, 403 F.3d 510, 515 (8th Cir. 2005). Thus, issues
concerning qualified immunity are appropriately resolved on summary judgment. Mitchell v.
Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985) (the privilege is “an immunity from suit rather than a mere
defense to liability; and like an absolute immunity, it is effectively lost if a case is erroneously
permitted to go to trial.”).
The district court has a threshold duty to determine whether a defendant is entitled to
qualified immunity. Simon v. Jones, 166 F.4th 1137, 1141 (8th Cir. 2026). The district court
‘“must take a careful look at the record, determine which facts are genuinely disputed, and then

view those facts in a light most favorable to the non-moving party as long as those facts are not so
blatantly contradicted by the record that no reasonable jury could believe them.’” Id. (internal
citation omitted). Next, the court determines if the facts reveal a “constitutional violation that is
clearly established.” Id.
“‘A clearly established right is one that is sufficiently clear that every reasonable official
would have understood that what he is doing violates that right.’” Thurmond v. Andrews, 972
F.3d 1007, 1012 (8th Cir. 2020) (internal citation omitted). There are various ways to show that a
constitutional right was clearly established’: “(1) ‘point to existing circuit precedent that involves

sufficiently similar facts to squarely govern the officer’s actions such that the officer had notice
that his specific use of force was unlawful’; (2) ‘present a robust consensus of cases of persuasive
authority doing the same’; or (3) ‘demonstrate that a general constitutional rule applied with
obvious clarity to the facts at issue.’” Cameron v. City of Des Moines, No. 24-3383, 2026 WL
535206, at *2 (8th Cir. Feb. 26, 2026) (internal citation omitted).
Plaintiff asserts that the conditions of his confinement at the Detention Center violated his
constitutional rights. To succeed on an Eighth Amendment claim challenging conditions of
confinement, an inmate must show the alleged violation is “‘objectively, sufficiently serious,’” to
cause the “‘denial of the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities.’” Hamner v. Burls, 937
F.3d 1171, 1178 (8th Cir. 2019), as amended (Nov. 26, 2019) (citing Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S.

825, 834 (1994)). An inmate must also show that the defendant was deliberately indifferent to the
inmate’s health or safety. Id.
1. Mold
Plaintiff complained in an October 26, 2024, grievance about black mold in the showers
in Units S and R, among other complaints. (Doc. No. 69-3 at 1). The grievance was addressed by
Michael Haggerty—not a party to this action. (Id.). Plaintiff complained on December 13, 2024,
about mold in all showers in the unit and every cell in the unit being contaminated with black
mold. (Id. at 2). Ignacio Madrigal—not a party to this action addressed Plaintiff’s December 13,
2024, grievance. (Id.). But Plaintiff noted on the following day that at 10:30 a.m. “they started
cleaning the showers in S unit and in R unit and they finished [at] 1:30 p.m. and/or 1:45 p.m.” (Id.
at 3). Hagerty responded to a January 18, 2025, grievance and a January 21, 2025, grievance in
which Plaintiff complained about black mold in the shower. (Id. at 4-5, 6). When Plaintiff claimed
again on January 22, 2025, that there was black mold in the shower, Hagerty responded to that

grievance, as well. (Doc. No. 69-3 at 7).
Plaintiff complained on January 22, 2025, that he had no chemicals for scrubbing the
shower. (Id. at 8). The grievance was not addressed by any Defendant. (Id.). Black mold was
the subject of Plaintiff’s January 31, 2025, grievance. (Id. at 9). Hagerty addressed the grievance.
(Id.).
On December 16, 2024, Plaintiff placed a sick call. (Id. at 19). He said the mold in the
shower was making him sick, making him cough, and making his lungs hurt. (Doc. No. 69-3 at
19). Erica Swan—not a party to this action—reviewed the sick call. (Id.). Swan addressed two
additional sick calls placed by Plaintiff in connection with black mold. (Id. at 22-23).
None of Plaintiff’s grievances concerning mold were addressed by a Defendant. And

Plaintiff has not otherwise come forward with evidence establishing that any Defendant knew there
was black mold in any area Plaintiff was housed or showered. On the contrary, Plaintiff has not
contested the fact that each Defendant lacked such knowledge. Without evidence that any
Defendant had knowledge of a condition that put his health or safety at risk, Plaintiff cannot
establish that any Defendant ignored the risk.
Further, Plaintiff has not provided direct or indirect evidence that any mold present at the
Detention Center was toxic and thus posed a risk to his health or safety. See Stacy v. Rice, No.
4:17-CV-153-SWW-BD, 2018 WL 1802560, at *3 (E.D. Ark. Mar. 28, 2018), report and
recommendation adopted, No. 4:17-CV-153-SWW-BD, 2018 WL 1796538 (E.D. Ark. Apr. 16,
2018) (citing Erin Masson Wirth, Toxic Mold in Residences and Other Buildings: Liability and
Other Issues, 114 A.L.R. 5th 397, § 2a (2003) (“of 100,000 species of mold, most are not
dangerous”)).
These uncontested facts considered must be considered in the light most favorable to

Plaintiff. Even so, no reasonable jury could conclude that Defendants subjected Plaintiff to
exposure to dangerous black mold.
2. Lockdown
Plaintiff complained in an October 26, 2024, grievance about being locked down five days
a week, among other complaints. (Doc. No. 69-3 at 1). Hagerty responded to Plaintiff’s
grievance. (Id.). On January 18, 2025, Plaintiff complained that he is on lockdown from 3-5 days
a week. (Id. at 5). Hagerty responded to this grievance, as well. (Id.).
Plaintiff asserted he was locked down in a cell with mold. But there is no evidence that
any mold was toxic. Moreover, there is no evidence that any Defendant had knowledge of any
condition—toxic mold—posing a risk to Plaintiff’s health or safety but ignored that risk.

Considering the uncontested facts specific to this case in the light most favorable to
Plaintiff, no reasonable jury could conclude that Defendants subjected Plaintiff to exposure to a
dangerous condition arising from the alleged 5-day-a-week lockdown.
Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s personal capacity claims.
Plaintiff has not demonstrated that any Defendant violated his constitutional rights.
C. Official Capacity Claims
The uncontested evidence shows that the Detention Center had policies and practices in
place to ensure living conditions were safe and sanitary. Plaintiff has not come forward with a
Pulaski County policy or practice that was the driving force behind the alleged violation of his
rights. And Plaintiff has not demonstrated that any Defendant violated his rights. As such,
Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiffs official capacity claims.
V. Conclusion
Where, as here, Defendants have moved for summary judgment, Plaintiff “was required
‘to discard the shielding cloak of formal allegations and meet proof with proof by showing a
genuine issue as to a material fact.’” Fatemi v. White, 775 F.3d 1022, 1046 (8th Cir. 2015)
(internal citation omitted). Plaintiff has not, however, met proof with proof to establish facts in
dispute that would preclude partial summary judgment in Defendants’ favor. Wilson v. Miller,
821 F.3d 963, 970 (8th Cir. 2016) (allegations must be substantiated with sufficient probative
evidence); Bolderson v. City of Wentzville, Missouri, 840 F.3d 982, 986-87 (8th Cir. 2016) (noting
plaintiff's duty to meet proof with proof in affirming summary judgment in defendant’s favor).
Instead, Plaintiff did not contest any material fact. As such, judgment should be entered in
Defendants’ favor and this case should be closed.
IT IS, THEREFORE, RECOMMENDED that:
1. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 67) be GRANTED; and
2. Plaintiffs claims against Defendants be DISMISSED wyth prejudice.
Dated this 27" day of May, 2026. "

JEROME T. KEARNEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11366088. Public record. Not legal advice.