A federal judge ruled last week that claims could proceed against five federal prison employees who allegedly attacked their colleagues during a training exercise turned violent.

While carrying out a 2019 hostage training at the Federal Correctional Complex in Florence, prison employees punched, shot simulated bullets at and used chemical munitions on their coworkers who had barricaded themselves in an enclosed space. The victims repeatedly yelled the phrase indicating they wanted to halt the simulation, to no avail.

In a June 16 order, U.S. District Court Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney permitted a pair of state law claims — for intentional infliction of emotional distress and civil conspiracy — to move forward against five defendants who allegedly were directly involved in assaulting their coworkers. She noted the plaintiffs had to show the conduct was “outrageous,” and they had done so.

“Plaintiffs made it clear they feared for their physical safety,” she wrote. The defendants “knew of Plaintiffs’ fear, and persisted anyway in conducting the training exercise that would — and did — cause Plaintiffs severe emotional distress.”

As alleged, the plaintiffs were in the Florence prison’s business office on June 20, 2019 for the hostage simulation. They sheltered in place according to Federal Bureau of Prisons policy. In response to banging on the door, the plaintiffs decided to move into a locked cashier’s cage in case the hostage-takers gained access to the office. One person reported to “main control” that multiple people were sheltering in the cage.

As the exercise played out, the plaintiffs came to think the special operations response team was compromised and working with the pretend hostage-taker. Consequently, they did not respond to entreaties to get them to come out of the cage, and instead barricaded themselves.

The defendants grew increasingly irate and did not indicate the simulation was over, so the plaintiffs refused to open the door. The defendants then breached the door, deployed chemicals and used simulated ammunition on their coworkers. The defendants even punched two employees in the face. One pregnant plaintiff had her leg pinned against a safe she had been sitting on.

All the while, the plaintiffs repeatedly shouted they were “out of role” to stop the exercise, but the attack did not cease.

Earlier in the legal proceedings, Sweeney called the defendants’ actions “stunning” and said they “engage(d) in combat with staff members, two of whom were injured and/or medically compromised.”

In March, Sweeney dismissed the plaintiffs’ excessive force claim against Derek Myers, the emergency preparedness officer who was allegedly responsible for the exercise. Sweeney relied on the U.S. Supreme Court’s precedent that prevents almost any claim from moving forward that seeks money damages against federal officials for constitutional violations.

In her latest order, involving six additional defendants, she agreed the excessive force claim under the U.S. Constitution was similarly a non-starter.

She also dismissed the state law claims entirely against one defendant, Andrew Privett, who the complaint described as an “observer” and responsible for facilitating the exercise. Although the plaintiffs alleged Privett was present at the time of the attack, Sweeney found the allegations were insufficient to show Privett, himself, behaved outrageously.

Meanwhile, lawyers for the five other defendants argued the plaintiffs had not shown how their alleged actions were outrageous for the claims under Colorado law to succeed.

“Nothing in the Complaint supports an allegation that the conduct by any Defendant was atrocious and utterly intolerable in civilized society. At most, what the Complaint shows is that a misunderstanding took place during live training exercise,” wrote attorneys for Timothy Holcomb, Dustin Ross and Chad Weise.

The plaintiffs countered that the defendants allegedly attacked pregnant or injured people despite repeated pleas to stop.

“It is intolerable in a civilized society to terrorize or assault anyone in this manner, let alone office workers who are just doing their jobs and following company policy,” wrote the plaintiffs’ lawyers.

Sweeney agreed the remaining claims against Holcomb, Ross and Weise, along with defendants Joshua Moore and Alexander Hall, could proceed.

“These are not mere insults,” she wrote, calling the defendants’ characterization of events “borderline disingenuous.”

“This alleged conduct — which includes physical assaults — is sufficient to constitute outrageous conduct for purposes of Plaintiffs’ claim,” she concluded.

The case is Arroyo et al. v. Hall et al.