Jensen et al v. Thornell et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Shawn Jensen, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Ryan Thornell, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-12-00601-PHX-ROS
ORDER
On October 14, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Enforce §§ 19.3, 29.2, 29.3, and
30 of the Injunction. (Doc. 5032). The Motion is fully briefed, (Docs. 5049, 5062). Monitor
Scott Frakes also submitted his Report offering his opinion on the relief sought, see Doc.
5203; both Plaintiffs and Defendants responded to his Report. (Docs. 5225, 5227). For the
reasons below, the Motion will be granted.
I. Background
The 2023 Permanent Injunction includes provisions regarding both medical and
mental health care and the conditions of confinement for “[a]ll prisoners who are now, or
will in the future be, subjected . . . to isolation, defined as confinement in a cell for 22 hours
or more each day.” (Doc. 4335 at 123). The motion alleges Defendants are noncompliant
with certain provisions regarding the conditions of confinement for the subclass. (Doc.
5032). Specifically, Plaintiffs identify violations of §§ 19.3, 29.2, 29.3, and 30 of the
Permanent Injunction. Section 19.3 of the April 7, 2023 Permanent Injunction provides,
“No prisoner shall be confined in a cell for 22 hours or more each day for more than two
Case 2:12-cv-00601-ROS Document 5319 Filed 07/24/26 Page 1 of 4

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
months unless there are extraordinary documented legitimate penological interests.
Defendants shall implement a system to facilitate the return to lower levels of custody for
those prisoners who have been in the subclass for longer than two months, and document
their efforts.” (Doc. 4410 at 52-53). Section 29.2 requires the creation of “individualized
case plan[s]” for members of the sub-class, “that describes the actions needed, as well as
associated timeframes, to progress in their steps in maximum custody and generally to gain
more privileges and lower classification levels (less restrictive housing).” Defendants are
then required to conduct evaluations and reviews of each prisoner’s progress according to
their case plan at regular intervals. (Id. at 64-66). Finally, §§ 29.3 and 30 require prisoners
be re-housed within 10 days of achieving a higher or lower classification level. (Id. at 66).
The essence of Plaintiffs’ claim is that Defendants do not have an effective and
functioning system to facilitate prisoners’ return to lower levels of custody as required by
the Permanent Injunction. (Doc. 5032 at 4). Defendants’ system involves individualized
case plans, monthly case plan meetings, 60-day reviews, and semi-annual (180 day)
reviews for those in isolation 180 days or more. However, Plaintiffs allege that none of
these steps adequately facilitate movement of prisoners to less restrictive housing as (1)
case plans do not describe the actions needed to progress to less restrictive housing; (2)
Defendants do not measure behavior against the case plans at monthly case plan meetings;
(3) the 60-day review process does not effectively facilitate movement; (4) there is no
system at all to facilitate movement of people who have been in isolation between 2 and 6
months; and (5) the semi-annual classifications—ultimately determined by the Central
Office—are frequently untimely and fail to consider progress under the case plans.
Additionally, some prisoners may be kept in isolation conditions with no path to lower
levels of custody at all. In Response, Defendants argue they “have overhauled subclass
conditions and established systems to monitor and maintain constitutional standards,”
rendering each of Plaintiffs’ allegations moot or incorrect, and Defendants are compliant
with the Permanent Injunction’s requirements. (Doc. 5049 at 1-3).
II. Discussion
Case 2:12-cv-00601-ROS Document 5319 Filed 07/24/26 Page 2 of 4

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Monitor Scott Frakes conducted a thorough analysis of subclass members’ housing
placement and case plans and concluded Defendants are in violation of the listed sections
of the Permanent Injunction. He found (1) the case plan tools currently in place are not
being properly used; (2) final decisions about maximum custody assignments and removals
at 180 day classification reviews are made by Central Office; (3) prisoners are confined in
subclass conditions for longer than 10 days after being approved to move to a lower level
of custody; and (4) some prisoners are kept in maximum custody solely due to “lack of
housing options at a lower custody level.” (Doc. 5203 at 3.)
Although, in theory, the case plan tools currently in use could meet the requirements
of the Injunction, they are not being used properly to do so. Mr. Frakes notes “[t]he quality
of the information documented by the defendants continues to be inadequate to provide
prisoners with clear guidance on their pathway out of the Subclass.” (Doc. 5203 at 2).
Plaintiffs and Mr. Frakes identified the role of Central Office as a final decision-maker in
180-day classification reviews, and that these decisions are often based on the reasons for
initial classification rather than evidence of ongoing conduct or evaluation of the prisoner’s
case plan progress. (Docs. 5203 at 2 and 5032 at 23). This is inconsistent with the
Permanent Injunction, which requires that such decisions be made by the classification
committee based upon consideration of the prisoner’s progress toward compliance with the
individual case plan and other circumstances. Prisoners regularly remain in subclass
conditions for longer than 10 days after being approved to move to a lower custody level.
(See Doc. 5203 at 4 (analysis of 15 random 180-classifications showed 6 prisoners were
not moved within 10 days of approval)). Finally, prisoners are often confined in subclass
conditions due solely to “lack of housing options at a lower custody level.” For prisoners
who need a safe housing location but do not need ongoing confinement in subclass
conditions, this does not satisfy the Permanent Injunction’s “legitimate penological
interest” requirement.
Mr. Frakes noted, and the Court notes as well, Defendants have “developed the tools
and framework for a classification system specific to the subclass” (Doc. 5203 at 3), and
Case 2:12-cv-00601-ROS Document 5319 Filed 07/24/26 Page 3 of 4

- 4 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
“have made significant progress in many areas of the Injunction related to the subclass.”
(Id. at 4) Nevertheless, Defendants have not achieved substantial compliance with the
provisions of §§ 19.3, 29.2, 29.3, and 30. Accordingly, Defendants will be ordered to
develop a remedial plan detailing how they will come into compliance with §§ 19.3, 29.2,
29.3, and 30 of the Permanent Injunction.
IT IS ORDERED Defendants shall develop and submit a proposed remedial plan
within 30 days of this Order detailing how they will come into and remain in compliance
with §§ 19.3, 29.2, 29.3, and 30 of the Permanent Injunction, including an anticipated
timeline for compliance, intermediate benchmarks, and detailing how data on such progress
and compliance will be accurately documented.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Plaintiffs and the Court Monitors shall respond to
the proposed plan no later than 30 days after its submission.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED after final approval of the remedial plan, Defendants
shall report monthly to the Court, the Monitors and Plaintiffs on their progress toward
intermediate benchmarks and full compliance.
Dated this 24th day of July, 2026.
Honorable Roslyn O. Silver
Senior United States District Judge
Case 2:12-cv-00601-ROS Document 5319 Filed 07/24/26 Page 4 of 4