Arizona Prisoners Suing Over Healthcare Failures as Class Action Unfolds for 14 Years

Handwritten lawsuits filed over the past 14 years continue to flag failures in the state prison health care system. Inmate complaints date back to 2012, when the class action lawsuit Jensen v. Thornell was first filed against the Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation and Reentry.

As of April 9, more than 250 cases in Arizona District Court named the department's current health care vendor, NaphCare, as a defendant. Some complaints date back to prior vendors, but the throughline comes via a long list of claims related to untreated or inadequately addressed ailments — cancer, hepatitis C, hernia, lost vision, brain bleeds, waning mental health, infected surgical wounds, seizures, chronic pain, denied or discontinued medication.

My life will end long before I might receive medical treatment, one inmate wrote.

The core class action was first filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, the Prison Law Office and Disability Rights Arizona on behalf of all people incarcerated in the state prison system. They claimed systemic failures had led to suffering and death.

Federal judges have issued three orders finding unconstitutional care and levied three contempt sanctions against the department, totaling $2.5 million. Over the past 14 years, the class action has sought changes to the policies and practices of the Department of Corrections. But attorneys for the plaintiffs do not seek any monetary damages on behalf of its class, leaving inmates to pursue it for themselves.

Donna Hamm, executive director of Middle Ground Prison Reform, assists and advocates for inmates' health care needs. And though she works to refer cases to pro bono attorneys, she acknowledged many inmates go to court on their own behalf.

Though it's rare, some judges do seek out and appoint pro bono attorneys, but inmates are not entitled to court-appointed counsel in civil matters. And, while securing a judgment on one's own isn't impossible, it isn't easy, Hamm said.

It's difficult to get depositions, to get evidence. Sometimes the evidence miraculously disappears, or it's never produced, Hamm said. The department is very, very skilled at making life difficult for a civil litigant.

Individual cases appear against the backdrop of Jensen v. Thornell, which provides ample case law for inmates to rely on. Coreene Kendrick, deputy director of the ACLU National Prison Project and an attorney for the plaintiffs in Jensen v. Thornell, explained the interplay between the class action and individual cases.

One of the big defenses that the department can make in these individual cases is, we weren't aware of the problems, Kendrick said. Kendrick noted cases are often brought to the department's attention either through plaintiffs' counsel or through court monitors in the class action. It's hard for them to say in an individual case later on, we didn't realize that this person had a problem, because there's evidence of it.

Gary Jerome Harper sued the department in 2018 claiming treatment, or lack thereof, for his bladder dysfunction, thyroid disorder and history of Hodgkin's lymphoma. In 2020, a federal judge rejected an attempt to dismiss the case by the Arizona Department of Corrections and Corizon, the health care vendor at the time.

Judge David Campbell found deliberate indifference by the department and its health care provider. He cited Harper's own requests for help, unfulfilled follow-ups and referrals from medical staff and letters from Rita Lomio, an attorney on the health care class action, who raised the issue of Harper's continued inadequate treatment in multiple letters to then-ADCRR Director Charles Ryan's counsel.

A similar sequence played out in a later case filed by David Shores, an inmate, who claimed inadequate treatment by the department and its new vendor, Centurion, for excessive prostate pain. As in Harper's case, an attorney for the Prison Law Office Thomas Nosewicz wrote multiple letters to the department's counsel flagging the need for medical care.

Campbell denied the department's motion for summary judgment.

As of 2026, individual damage cases remain at various stages.

Tyson Anderson started his lawsuit alone, but the court has since appointed pro bono counsel to represent him. Anderson was first incarcerated in 2018. He was designated as seriously mentally ill given a schizoaffective disorder diagnosis and a history of self harm and suicide risk. He also has a seizure disorder.

Over the course of his incarceration, Anderson was primarily housed in a unit where he was required to use the stairs to get to his cell. He requested a transfer, claiming a threat to his physical safety — a threat that actualized when Anderson had a seizure and fell down the stairs. Anderson lost his job due to lack of disability accommodations and spent more and more time in isolation.

Then, a nurse discontinued his seizure medication after claiming he was faking. He had two more seizures. In one instance, he woke up face down in a pool of blood from a head injury. His mental state continued to worsen, he was still in solitary confinement when he raised concerns with court monitors in Jensen v. Thornell.

In July 2021, Anderson attempted suicide by cutting his arm and ingesting sharp objects.

The success of these individual complaints has been mixed. Many are dismissed early on for technical failures in filing or for falling short in arguments and evidence, especially as those incarcerated represent themselves. Some end in sealed settlements.

But each claim illustrates the minutiae of how the health care system continues to fail inside Arizona's prisons, and each relies on findings from the class action to support the argument that the department has knowingly disregarded risks to inmate health and safety.