Pima County Jail Inmate Sues Sheriff Nanos for $1.35M Over Alleged COVID-19 Safety Failures

Pima County jail inmate Christopher Michael Marx filed a $1.35 million lawsuit on March 5, 2026, against Pima County Sheriff Chris Nanos and the Pima County Sheriff’s Department in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. Marx alleges that a deputy’s failure to follow COVID-19 sanitation protocols between jail units placed his life in danger. No settlement has been reached and the case is in its opening stage.

Quick Case Snapshot

What Actually Happened?

Pima County Jail houses an average of 2,800 inmates daily, with approximately 15% in quarantine as of early 2026. Marx, who is currently serving time after a shoplifting conviction in late 2024, alleges that the jail’s COVID-19 protocols broke down in a way that directly threatened his health.

The lawsuit alleges that a deputy traveled back and forth between Marx’s unit and another unit where an inmate was quarantined with COVID-19, and that the deputy did not use proper sanitation between visits. Marx claims this exposed him to a potentially life-threatening virus without his knowledge or consent.

Marx filed the lawsuit himself — without an attorney — in federal court on March 5, 2026. He stated that he “could have died” as a result of the alleged lapse, describing the situation as a “threat to my safety because this put my life in jeopardy with their action, constantly.”

What Does the Lawsuit Allege?

The complaint alleges that Sheriff Nanos failed to supervise his deputies in a way that ensured COVID-19 containment measures were followed inside the jail. Marx claims a sheriff’s deputy was moving between a quarantined unit and a non-quarantined unit at the Pima County Jail without properly disinfecting, which he says put his life in jeopardy.

According to the complaint, this was not an isolated oversight but a systemic failure. The lawsuit alleges Nanos was not ensuring his deputies were taking proper precautions to contain the virus within the jail. Marx contends that the sheriff’s supervisory responsibility makes Nanos directly accountable for the alleged protocol violations.

Marx is also seeking a formal apology from the sheriff and requesting that the department ensure “that they properly disinfect their bodies when the deputies are working two units at a time and one of these units is quarantined.” Notably, he states he intends to donate the $1.35 million, if awarded, to provide six months of rent-free housing for unhoused individuals.

What Laws Were Allegedly Violated?

The complaint centers on a state constitutional claim rather than a federal statute:

• Arizona Declaration of Rights (Article 2, Arizona Constitution) — The foundational charter of individual rights in Arizona, comparable in function to the Bill of Rights at the federal level. Marx alleges the failure to protect him from foreseeable health harm violated his constitutional protections as a person in state custody.
• Common Law Duty of Care (Negligence) — Jail administrators have a recognized legal duty to maintain reasonable conditions of safety for inmates in their custody. The complaint alleges that duty was breached when deputies moved between quarantined and non-quarantined units without disinfecting.

Who Does This Lawsuit Affect?

This is an individual lawsuit, not a class action. However, the case has broader implications:

• Current and former Pima County Jail inmates who believe they were exposed to COVID-19 due to inadequate inter-unit sanitation protocols may find the case relevant to their own potential claims.
• Pima County taxpayers bear potential financial exposure if the court rules against the sheriff’s department.
• Law enforcement agencies nationally face increasing scrutiny over jail health conditions — sheriff departments nationally faced over 1,200 civil rights suits in 2025, up 12% from 2024, frequently over health-related measures.

What Is Sheriff Nanos Saying?

A spokesperson for the sheriff’s office told People that Nanos could not comment on pending litigation. No formal public denial or statement addressing the specific allegations in the complaint has been issued by the PCSD as of March 14, 2026.

AllAboutLawyer.com will update this article when an official response or motion filing is available from the sheriff’s department.

Legal Context

Inmates retain constitutional rights while incarcerated. Under the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, prisoners cannot be subjected to “cruel and unusual punishment,” which courts have interpreted to include deliberate indifference to serious medical needs (Estelle v. Gamble, 1976). Marx’s complaint relies on the Arizona state Constitution rather than the federal Eighth Amendment, which is a less common litigation path but not unprecedented in Arizona state and federal courts.

Arizona facilities reported over 500 COVID-related incidents since 2024, though specifics on the Pima County facility remain under review. This broader context lends the lawsuit potential relevance beyond its individual claim.

The case also arrives at a delicate moment for Sheriff Nanos. He is simultaneously leading the high-profile investigation into the disappearance of Nancy Guthrie, mother of NBC’s Today co-anchor Savannah Guthrie, and his department has faced separate scrutiny from the ACLU. The ACLU of Arizona filed a lawsuit in Pima County Superior Court on July 21, 2025, accusing the PCSD of violating the state’s public records laws relating to immigration enforcement contacts — a separate matter entirely, but one that adds to the institutional pressure surrounding the department.

Current Status & What Happens Next

• The lawsuit was filed March 5, 2026, and is currently at the pre-answer stage. The PCSD has not yet formally responded in court.
• The defendants must file a formal answer or motion to dismiss, typically within 21 days of service for federal civil cases.
• If the case survives an early motion to dismiss, both sides will enter a discovery phase in which the court may compel the PCSD to produce internal sanitation policies, deputy schedules, and COVID-19 incident records for the relevant units.
• Because Marx filed the lawsuit without an attorney (pro se), the court may issue additional instructions or allow him to amend his complaint if it finds technical deficiencies in the filing.
• Civil rights lawsuits against government agencies frequently take 12 to 24 months to resolve, either through settlement, summary judgment, or trial.

This page will be updated as the case develops.

Important Case Dates

Frequently Asked Questions

Is the Christopher Marx lawsuit against Sheriff Nanos legitimate?

 Yes. The lawsuit is a matter of public record filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona on March 5, 2026. It can be verified through the federal PACER court records system. Filing a lawsuit does not prove the allegations — the case has not been adjudicated.

Can I file a similar claim against Pima County Jail right now? 

This lawsuit is specific to Marx’s individual experience. If you believe you were personally harmed by COVID-19 protocol failures at the Pima County Jail, you should consult a civil rights attorney to evaluate your specific situation and any applicable filing deadlines.

Do I need a lawyer to sue a sheriff’s department? 

You can file pro se (without a lawyer), as Marx did here, but legal representation significantly improves your chances in complex civil rights cases involving government defendants. Most civil rights attorneys work on a contingency fee basis and offer free initial consultations.

What happens if the case settles? 

Settlements between plaintiffs and government agencies are often confidential. If the PCSD agrees to a settlement with Marx, any policy changes ordered as part of that agreement may become public through court filings.

Will I get notified if there is a broader outcome from this case? 

Unless a class action is later certified — which is not the case here — there is no formal notification process for other Pima County Jail inmates. You can monitor AllAboutLawyer.com for updates or search the case on PACER directly.

What does it mean to sue under the Arizona Constitution rather than federal law?

 Most jail condition lawsuits invoke the federal Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual punishment) or Section 1983 of the federal Civil Rights Act. Marx’s choice to rely on Article 2 of the Arizona Constitution is less common but legally viable. State constitutional claims may be heard in federal court when combined with other federal questions, or may be remanded to state court depending on how the court evaluates jurisdiction.

What could Marx receive if he wins?

 Marx is seeking $1.35 million in damages. He states he plans to donate the full amount to housing for unhoused individuals. Courts calculate actual damages based on proven harm — including medical costs, pain and suffering, and any demonstrable injury. Punitive damages may also apply if the court finds the conduct was particularly egregious.

Related Reading on AllAboutLawyer.com: For related coverage on civil rights lawsuits filed against law enforcement officers, see our report on the Micah Washington $20M federal civil rights case against Alabama officers — a case also involving allegations of constitutional violations by sheriff’s deputies. You can also review our coverage of the James Hodges lawsuit — a settled civil rights case against a county sheriff involving wrongful arrest and disability rights.

Last Updated: March 14, 2026

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Allegations in a complaint are not findings of fact. All parties are presumed innocent unless and until proven otherwise in court.

About the Author

Sarah Klein, JD, is a licensed attorney and legal content strategist with over 12 years of experience across civil, criminal, family, and regulatory law. At All About Lawyer, she covers a wide range of legal topics — from high-profile lawsuits and courtroom stories to state traffic laws and everyday legal questions — all with a focus on accuracy, clarity, and public understanding.
Her writing blends real legal insight with plain-English explanations, helping readers stay informed and legally aware.
Read more about Sarah