Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation & Reentry

Arizona's state prison system: its director and staff, the ten state prisons and private contract facilities, deaths in custody, staffing, heat, healthcare, escapes and incidents — and the long fight in federal court over the care of incarcerated people.

Parsons v. Ryan → Jensen v. Shinn → Jensen v. Thornell: the class action over healthcare and isolation in Arizona prisons, Judge Roslyn Silver's 2022 ruling, the injunction, the court's experts and monitoring, and talk of receivership.

Key moments

March 22, 2012Litigation
Parsons v. Ryan filed
The ACLU, ACLU of Arizona, Prison Law Office and partners sued the Arizona Department of Corrections in federal court over inadequate medical, mental health and dental care and the use of solitary confinement.
Sources: ACLU of Arizona – Parsons v. Ryan
October 2014Litigation
Parsons settlement reached
Just before trial, the state agreed to meet more than 100 health care performance measures and to give people with serious mental illness in solitary confinement at least 19 hours a week out of cell. The class covered more than 33,000 incarcerated people.
Sources: ACLU press release · ACLU of Arizona
February 18, 2015Litigation
Court approves the Parsons settlement
A federal court approved the stipulation requiring the department to fix a health care system the plaintiffs said caused preventable deaths and injuries.
Sources: ACLU press release
June 2018Litigation
First contempt fine: $1.4 million
The court fined the department about $1.4 million for failing to comply with the settlement's health care measures.
Sources: ACLU press release (2021, recounting the June 2018 fine)
2021Litigation
Second contempt finding: $1.1 million
Judge Roslyn Silver held the department in contempt a second time, fining it more than $1.1 million, and said she would use the fines to hire an independent expert to review prison health care.
Note: The ACLU release does not state the exact date; it describes the order as issued 'last night.'
Sources: ACLU press release
June 2022Litigation
Judge Silver rules prison health care unconstitutional
After the settlement was set aside and the case went to trial (now Jensen v. Shinn), Judge Silver found the department failed to provide constitutionally adequate medical and mental health care and conditions in isolation units.
Sources: ACLU press release (July 2026, recounting the ruling) · ACLU – Jensen v. Thornell
January 2023Leadership
Ryan Thornell named ADCRR director
Gov. Katie Hobbs appointed Ryan Thornell, then deputy commissioner of the Maine Department of Corrections, to lead ADCRR. The case caption became Jensen v. Thornell.
Sources: Office of the Governor · ADCRR – Office of the Director
April 2023Litigation
Court issues detailed injunction
Judge Silver issued an injunction requiring substantial improvements to health care and isolation conditions. Court-appointed experts later reported repeated failures to comply.
Sources: ACLU press release
February 11, 2025Litigation
Plaintiffs ask for a receiver
Plaintiffs moved for a court-appointed receiver to take over prison health care.
Note: The court's order lists the motion as filed Feb. 12, 2025 (Doc. 4795); the ACLU says Feb. 11.
Sources: ACLU – Jensen v. Thornell
February 19, 2026Litigation
Receivership ordered
In a 128-page order, Judge Silver granted the motion for a receiver, writing that after nearly 14 years the state had not reached 'even a semblance of compliance.'
Sources: ACLU – Jensen v. Thornell · Court order, Doc. 5123 (PDF)
July 17, 2026Litigation
Receiver appointed: Annette Chambers-Smith
The court appointed former Ohio corrections director Annette Chambers-Smith, who ADCRR had nominated, as receiver over health care for more than 25,000 incarcerated people, with authority over staffing, contracts and the health care budget. The state is appealing.
Sources: ACLU press release · Court order, Doc. 5307 (PDF)
August 5, 2026Litigation
Court denies the state's request for a stay
Judge Silver denied the state's motion to stay the receivership while it appeals, finding that continued harm to incarcerated people outweighs the state's costs.
Sources: Court order, Doc. 5330 (PDF)