Challenge to Revised DO 902 "Legal Access to the Courts" Policy:  The newly revised policy, effective July 13, 2026, limits the definition of legal mail to that which comes from lawyers, judges or courts.  It also may include legal practitioners authorized by the Arizona Supreme Court.  It requires lawyers to be pre-approved and each time a lawyer sends a piece of mail to a prisoner, they must first go onto the state bar website and obtain a special barcode for the mail which is connected to the ADCRR.   Pro per inmates will be greatly impacted by the policy because private investigators, paralegals, expert witnesses and process servers will no longer be allowed confidential legal mail with pro per clients who may have retained them.  We intend to collect "actual harm" evidence after the policy is implemented and we have a law firm willing to litigate the matter should it become necessary in the future.

David Arner v. Charles Ryan (our litigation which challenged the legality/constitutionality of the 1% fee deducted from deposits to inmate spendable accounts, which became effective on July 20, 2011.)  The Court of Appeals denied our petition.   The 1 percent banking fee will remain in place for all monies deposited to an inmates' bank account.

James J. Hamm and Donna Leone Hamm v. Charles Ryan:   We are sorry to announce that on January 7, 2014, the Arizona Supreme Court issued an Order refusing to consider our case.  This is the litigation which challenges the legality of the $25 background fee check that is imposed on all adult visitor applicants, which became effective on July 20, 2011.  There are no other appeals available on this case; the case is considerated settled in Arizona.

All of the imposed fees against prisoners and visitor applicants is placed in a Building Renewal Fund that is operated by the ADOC to maintain buildings owned by the DOC -- not just visitation buildings, but ALL buildings.  None of the fees are actually used to defray the cost of visitor background checks.  That's why these are not "fees" at all.  They are unconstitutional "special taxes" imposed on a select group of people with no specialized benefit or gain to the group who pay the fees.

The ruling on this case is especially dismaying because it demonstrates the Legislature's propensity to view prisoner's families as "cash cows" to bolster declining revenues (with the Court's support).  You can voice your objection at the polls when retention elections are held for the Judges and Justices who sit on the Appeals and Supreme Courts, as well as discussing your own concerns with your elected state representatives and senator.

Parsons et al v. Charles Ryan: (now Jensen v. Thornell) a lengthy trial and many opportunities for ADCRR to comply with the court order, in February 2026, a Receiver was appointed to assume a takeover of all decisions and operation of the delivery of healthcare services to inmates within state operated prisons in Arizona.  The Receiver, Annette Chambers-Smith, is a former warden of the Ohio Penitentiary.  She was nominated by the ADCRR, agreed upon by both the Plaintiffs and the Defendants, and was formally appointed by the Court.  The case is currently on appeal to the Ninth Circuit, which may delay implementation of the receiver's duties, but that remains to be seen.