Jonathan Russo, a pro se plaintiff held at Adams County Adult Correctional Complex in Pennsylvania, sued five prison officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging a sustained pattern of abuse. The complaint describes two incidents in which a correctional officer allegedly slammed a cell door into his back, a food-tray slot allegedly forced shut on his arm leaving a two-inch scar, pepper spray allegedly deployed against him while he was seated and handcuffed, a forcible cell extraction, sixteen days in a strip cell without writing materials, phone calls, or other basic necessities, and a hospitalization after he remained in a restraint chair for sixteen hours.
Judge Keli M. Neary of the Middle District of Pennsylvania held on March 9, 2026, that the claims against defendants Raylock and Bectle survive. The excessive-force, assault, and battery claims against Bectle rest on the allegation that he slammed the meal-tray slot onto Russo's arm while Russo was retrieving his tray, causing a two-inch scar. The court reasoned that because there was no allegation Russo had provoked the contact or that any threat justified it, even minimal force could be objectively unreasonable under the Fourteenth Amendment standard applicable to pretrial detainees. Defendants had not sought dismissal of the parallel claims against Raylock, who is alleged to have pepper-sprayed Russo three times during the cell extraction and again while Russo was handcuffed in January 2024.
The court dismissed all civil rights claims against warden Katy Hileman for lack of personal involvement. Although the misconduct charge stated that Hileman authorized the cell extraction, the complaint contained no allegation that she authorized or was aware of the pepper spray or any other specific use of force. Claims against officer Sellman also failed: the conduct attributed to him — feeding Russo last, restricting tablet access, smashing a styrofoam cup against a cell window, and making threatening remarks — did not rise to a constitutional violation because harassing and threatening language alone does not violate the Eighth Amendment.
The excessive-force, assault, and battery claims against officer Lawyer were dismissed as well. The two incidents in which Lawyer allegedly slammed a cell door into Russo's back while Russo was walking into his cell produced no allegation of physical injury, and the court characterized that contact as de minimis force — to the extent it could even be characterized as force — insufficient to state a claim.
The court also dismissed failure-to-intervene, retaliation, and negligence claims against all defendants, finding that Russo offered only general, unsupported assertions to support those theories. On the state-law tort claims, the court held that Lawyer and Bectle were not shielded by the Pennsylvania Subdivision Tort Claims Act because the allegations were sufficient to allege willful misconduct — though the claims against Lawyer were dismissed on other grounds. Hileman and Sellman retained immunity because their conduct did not fall within the Act's exceptions and they could not be held liable for subordinates' alleged willful misconduct on a respondeat superior theory.
Judge Neary denied leave to amend the dismissed claims as futile, noting that Russo's opposition brief simply restated the conclusory assertions of liability in the complaint without identifying any additional facts that could cure the deficiencies.