Prison Class-Action Plaintiffs Seek Court-Appointed Receiver

After a protracted legal battle exceeding a decade, the plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit against the Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation and Reentry are requesting the court to appoint a receiver to oversee the state’s carceral health care system. This decision comes in light of multiple reports highlighting inadequate care and preventable deaths within the prison health system, raising concerns about the department’s capacity to reform.

Advocates for corrections reform regard receivership as a last resort. However, they argue that the department’s failure to comply with previous court orders necessitates this drastic measure. “We have tried over a decade basically every other potential remedy, and we find ourselves in the same place,” Rita Lomio, an attorney representing the plaintiffs, remarked. The lack of progress is alarming, especially considering the ongoing fatalities within the system.

The department’s formal response to the motion is anticipated by March 4. However, it has already dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims regarding the quality of care, asserting significant improvements have been made in recent years. “While the Plaintiffs may not be interested in drawing attention to the significant progress being made… they focus on the reputation and circumstances of the past,” the department stated.

In a motion filed on February 12, Lomio expressed frustration over the department’s incapacity to effect meaningful reform even after extensive judicial oversight. She criticized the status quo, labeling the care provided as “horrible” with persistent legal violations by nursing staff, leading to unnecessary suffering and death.

The plaintiffs’ motion cited interim reports from Marc Stern, the court-appointed monitor, which consistently identified systemic inadequacies. The findings indicated a notable lack of improvement in care standards, perpetuating risks to inmate health. Furthermore, a staffing report revealed significant shortages and systemic weaknesses in recruitment and management.

Lomio referenced the precedents set in Plata v. Newsom, where a receiver was appointed to manage the California corrections health system. The implications of such a move in Arizona would mirror this approach but include provisions for amending state laws that hinder compliance with court orders.

The motion highlights persistent financial constraints affecting staffing, particularly due to state-mandated caps on compensation for health care professionals within corrections. Lomio emphasized that without immediate intervention, the continuing risk of harm and ineffective resource allocation could jeopardize inmate lives further.

The plaintiffs assert that the appointment of a receiver is essential to mitigate the current threats and ensure proper allocation of resources toward meaningful improvements in inmate health care. This request is rooted in prior court rulings and recent evaluations that indicate a significant gap between operational needs and actual outcomes.

In stark contrast, the Department of Corrections maintains a confident stance regarding current health care standards, asserting that a “receiver is not the answer.” It pointed out ongoing efforts to enhance service delivery, including the establishment of new medical housing and mental health facilities.

The department’s statement criticized the plaintiffs for creating unnecessary legal expenses amidst substantial improvements in health care access and services, quantifying costs at $2.2 million in court and monitoring fees. The overarching concern remains whether the state has the capacity to accommodate both its legal obligations and the welfare of its incarcerated population without external oversight.

As the legal process continues, the plaintiffs expect a response from the Department of Corrections by March 4, followed by their own rejoinder on March 18.