Jensen v. Thornell TNC Response
Some context…
After 14 years in court, a major case, Jensen v. Thornell, has finally brought some accountability to Arizona’s prison system.
For years, about 30,000 people held in nine Arizona state prisons were denied basic medical care. Advocates from the Prison Law Office, the ACLU’s National Prison Project, the ACLU of Arizona, and Disability Rights Arizona fought in court to prove it.
Now, after more than a decade of delays and resistance from the Arizona Department of Corrections, a judge has finally ordered action to address the harm.
A federal judge has taken the rare step of removing control of prison healthcare from the Arizona Department of Corrections.
Judge Roslyn O. Silver ordered the system placed into receivership, which means an independent expert will now take over the day-to-day management of healthcare in the prisons. Pg 23. Courts use this kind of intervention only when a government agency repeatedly fails to remedy serious constitutional violations.
In this case, the judge found that people in Arizona prisons were still being denied adequate medical care despite seven years of court oversight and orders requiring reforms. Because those efforts produced little change, the court concluded that stronger action was necessary.
Receivership was the remedy the plaintiffs had been seeking for years, and with this ruling, the court has finally granted it.
This victory came with a terrible cost. In its opinion, the court described at least eight deaths that could have been prevented, just a few examples among many, caused by the Arizona Department of Corrections’ neglect and mismanagement.
People died because of basic, avoidable failures. In one case, prison staff stopped a person’s seizure medication without explanation. In another case, a patient who had surgery was scheduled for a follow-up appointment six weeks later instead of one week later. By the time that appointment came around, the patient had already been dead for a month.
Independent monitors reviewing the system described some medical diagnoses as “nonsensical” and the state’s plans to fix the problems as little more than “wishful thinking.”
In one particularly troubling case, a patient in extreme pain was denied palliative care as he was dying simply because he had a Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) order, even though, as the court noted, that has nothing to do with providing comfort care at the end of life.
What these stories reveal is stark. People in state custody were left to die from neglect and indifference. They were not sentenced to death by a court, yet the conditions they endured led to the same result.
What we have to say about it….
At The National Council for Incarcerated and Formerly Incarcerated Women and Girls, we recognize and commend the extraordinary work of the Prison Law Office, the ACLU National Prison Project, the ACLU of Arizona, and Disability Rights Arizona. For fourteen years, they pursued a difficult and deeply contested legal battle, and because of their persistence, a court has once again acknowledged the serious harm being inflicted on people in Arizona’s prison system.
At the same time, this ruling raises serious questions about what comes next. The order does not clearly define the court-appointed receiver's authority or how their directives will be enforced. The Arizona Department of Corrections has already demonstrated a willingness to delay or resist reform, and further legal briefing is still required before qualified medical professionals can assume meaningful control of the system.
This moment echoes what many of us witnessed at Federal Correctional Institution Dublin, often referred to by survivors as the “Rape Club,” where widespread sexual abuse led a federal court to appoint a Special Monitor. When faced with genuine oversight and accountability, the Federal Bureau of Prisons chose to close the prison within days. The women held there were transferred across the country, many reporting retaliation for speaking out about the abuse they endured.
Experiences like these point to a deeper truth. No oversight structure can fully resolve the harm created by systems that isolate people from medical care, family, and community support. The most reliable way to prevent abuse within prison healthcare systems is to reduce the number of people confined in them. People deserve access to doctors bound by medical ethics, the support of their families, and the stability of their communities.
If the state cannot safely care for the people it confines, it should not continue to expand that power.
This ruling shines a light on suffering that too often remains hidden. Once the public can see it clearly, the question becomes what we choose to do next.
Organizations led by formerly incarcerated women have spent decades working toward a different future, one where women and girls are supported in their communities rather than confined in prisons and jails. If you believe in that vision, we invite you to stand with us and support the work of The National Council as we continue to fight for the safety, dignity, and freedom of women and girls.
— The sisterhood of The National Council
