Key Points: 

• Inmate lawsuits allege systemic prison health care failures

• Class action Jensen v. Thornell underpins some individual claims

• Success in litigation mixed but complaints keep coming 

Slanted cursive or a stilted print fills the pages — scrawled in pen or pencil, scribbled on lined paper, boxes checked and lines traced. Lawsuits filed over the past 14 years, most handwritten, continue to flag failures in the state prison health care system. 

The Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation and Reentry, and its rotating vendors have been tied up in a class action lawsuit over inadequate health care since 2012 in the case now dubbed Jensen v. Thornell. 

But as the court record grows, the number of individual inmates pursuing their own relief and damages expands, too. 

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 success of these complaints is 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 in lawsuits new and old, inmates lean on findings from the class action to support their cases. Each claim illustrates the minutiae of how the health care system continues to fail inside Arizona’s prisons. 

The American Civil Liberties Union, the Prison Law Office and Disability Rights Arizona first filed the complaint against the Arizona Department of Corrections on behalf of all people incarcerated in the state prison system in 2012, claiming systemic failures had led to suffering and death. 

Federal judges have issued three orders now 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. 

Corene Kendrick, deputy director of the ACLU National Prison Project and an attorney for the plaintiffs in Jensen v. Thornell, said the interplay between the class action and individual cases typically occurs when judges weigh deliberate indifference — or whether prison staff knowingly disregarded the risk of harm. 

“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,” Kendrick said. 

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 metal. After being bandaged up, officers put Anderson in gloves and a helmet. He burned, claiming the gear was doused with pepper spray. He was then taken to the hospital for an emergency surgery to remove the shrapnel in his stomach. 

After an initial pro bono appointment was unsuccessful, Anderson secured steady counsel in August 2024 after attorneys Kaitlin Dimaggio and Allie Hakala took on his case. 

Dimaggio and Hakala noted that a judge continuing to seek pro bono counsel for Anderson stood as a feat in itself. 

“We see so many prison clients. We know how extraordinarily rare it is on the criminal side or the civil side, for an incarcerated person to get even the tiniest first step of a win,” Hakala said. 

In February, Judge Diane Humetewa denied the department and defendants’ motion for summary judgment, ruling a reasonable jury could find harm to Anderson and deliberate indifference to his condition. 

“She just wrote out exactly what our client experienced and went through,” Dimaggio said. “It went far beyond medical neglect. It was active abuse.” 

A list of cases like Anderson’s remain ongoing but many have either settled or been dismissed by a judge outright. Settlements obscure the dollar amount of damages and allow the department and its vendor to avoid admitting fault. 

The Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation and Reentry did not respond to a request for comment on the total of pending individual health care damages lawsuits, nor the associated expense incurred in past litigation. 

Still, complaints continue to appear on the federal court docket, most handwritten