Riley v. Clark, 4:20-cv-00325

Plaintiffs, including Carmen Riley, filed civil rights and tort claims related to the death of an individual detained at Dauphin County Prison in Pennsylvania.
Multiple defendants were named, including county and township officials, prison staff, and a medical contractor (PrimeCare Medical, Inc.).
The claims involved allegations of excessive force, failures to intervene, inadequate medical care, and failures in training and supervision, as well as state law claims of negligence, assault, battery, wrongful death, and survivor action.
After extensive discovery, various defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims.
The District Court reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (R&R), adopting some recommendations and rejecting others, resulting in the dismissal of some claims against certain defendants and denial of summary judgment for others.
Several defendants were terminated from the case, but specific claims (notably on excessive force and related state law torts against a subset of individual defendants) survived summary judgment, proceeding toward trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Conspiracy under § 1983	Defendants conspired to violate decedent's rights	No evidence of conspiracy	Summary judgment for all defendants
Excessive Force under § 1983	Use of force was unreasonable and caused death	Force was reasonable or justified	Most defendants granted summary judgment; some denied
Failure to Intervene under § 1983	Officers failed to prevent unconstitutional acts	Officers had no realistic opportunity	Mixed; some defendants denied summary judgment
Medical Negligence	PrimeCare failed to provide adequate care	Compliance with standard of care	Summary judgment for PrimeCare
Assault and Battery	Use of force constituted assault and battery	Force used was lawful	Mixed; some defendants denied summary judgment
Wrongful Death / Survival Act	Defendants' actions caused death	No causation or immunity	Most defendants granted summary judgment; some denied
IIED	Conduct was extreme and outrageous	Conduct not legally sufficient	Summary judgment for all defendants