Inmates in class-action lawsuit request court-appointed receiver

Prison Class-Action Plaintiffs Seek Receivership from Court

In their ongoing battle against the Department of Corrections Rehabilitation and Reentry, the plaintiffs involved in a lengthy class-action lawsuit are now looking towards the courts to appoint a receiver to oversee the failing carceral health care system. Despite over a decade of legal wrangling and multiple reports detailing inadequate care, preventable deaths, and administrative failures, the plaintiffs feel that this drastic step is necessary given the lack of progress made by the department.

According to Rita Lomio, an attorney representing the plaintiffs, the decision to request receivership stems from the stark reality of the current health care system within prisons. She emphasized the need for intervention due to ongoing unnecessary deaths and the absence of a viable plan for improvement. Despite years of attempted remedies and interventions, the situation has not improved, leading the plaintiffs to believe that receivership is the only viable option left.

A response from the Department of Corrections is expected shortly, but according to a department statement, they dispute the plaintiffs’ claims regarding the quality of care provided. The department highlighted the significant strides they have made in expanding health care services within the prison system, labeling the receivership request as unfounded. The contention between the two parties underscores the deep-rooted issues within the system that have yet to be resolved.

In a motion filed by Lomio, she reiterated the department’s failure to address the fundamental flaws within the prison health care system, despite years of court oversight and recommendations. The court-appointed monitor, Marc Stern, has repeatedly documented shortcomings in care and staffing, indicating a dangerous situation for incarcerated individuals. The inability to ensure adequate staffing levels and deliver effective care continues to pose a threat to those within the correctional system.

Drawing parallels to a similar case in California, Lomio argues for the necessity of a receiver to manage the health care system within Arizona’s prisons effectively. By waiving certain state laws that hinder compliance with court orders and granting broad authority to the receiver, significant changes can be implemented to bring the system in line with constitutional standards. The hope is that this intervention will lead to tangible improvements in care delivery and end the protracted legal battle.

Despite the plaintiffs’ call for receivership, the department remains adamant that this is not the right course of action. They point to the various improvements made in recent years, such as enhanced treatment accessibility, new medical facilities, and better communication with incarcerated individuals regarding health concerns. This conflicting narrative underscores the complexity of the situation and the challenges in finding a viable solution.

As the legal battle rages on, the fate of Arizona’s prison health care system hangs in the balance. The plaintiffs are steadfast in their belief that receivership is the only way to ensure meaningful reform and provide constitutionally adequate care to those behind bars. The Department of Corrections, on the other hand, continues to defend its position, highlighting the progress made while dismissing the receiver as an unnecessary intrusion. Ultimately, the courts will have to decide the best path forward for addressing the glaring deficiencies within the system and ensuring the well-being of all incarcerated individuals.