Opinion ID: 780379
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Lieutenant Thomas Moroney

Text: 50 Lieutenant Moroney commanded the SRT that entered DR-4 and developed the tactical plan to retake the unit. Plaintiffs allege that Moroney was present during the extraction of inmates and did not intervene to prevent the use of excessive force. However, plaintiffs offer no evidence that Moroney personally witnessed the use of excessive force against plaintiffs or any other inmate. 51 The use of force committee found that Moroney inadequately briefed the SRT members prior to their entry into DR-4. Only a portion of the SRT members involved in the incident received a briefing, and no instructions were given concerning the extraction of inmates from their cells. The committee determined that [t]his led to SRT members `free lancing' as they encountered a situation, and the onsite supervisors losing control of the SRT members['] actions. 52 The committee further found that at least four explosive distraction devices, 113 explosive gas devices, and six canisters of pepper mace were used to quell the disturbance. The committee stated that [b]ased on the documented use of gas and the physical investigative interviews, it is believed that the air concentration level could have reached a lethal level. The committee found that Lieutenant Moroney, the on-site SRT commander, failed to maintain fundamental control of the operation and that the SRT's use of gas, mace, and distraction control devices was excessive, uncontrolled, and clearly compromised the safety of staff and inmates. 53 Finally, the use of force committee found that SRT members used questionable force in restraining the inmates, extracting them from their cells, and escorting them from DR-4. The committee concluded that [a] general loss of control existed in the manner in which inmates were controlled, restrained, and escorted from the cell block and that [t]he on-site Commander of all of the Teams [Moroney] and/or the specific Commander of each Team failed to control the conduct of the assault force. 54 The Use of Force Committee Report, if admissible, creates genuine issues of material fact as to Moroney's liability. Based on the committee's findings that he inadequately briefed the SRT members, failed to control the use of chemical agents, and failed to control the SRT members in the extraction of inmates, a reasonable jury could find that Moroney implicitly authorized, approved, or knowingly acquiesced in the use of excessive force against plaintiffs and other inmates. As such, the district court erred in granting summary judgment in his favor. 55