Opinion
Opinion By: Albert B. Chandler III,Attorney General;Amye L. Bensenhaver,Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
The question presented in this appeal is whether the Jefferson County Corrections Department violated the Open Records Act in the disposition of Joseph Mucker's October 10, 2002, request for certified copies of "all documents pertaining to incarceration of black male . . . name Joseph Mucker." 1 For the reasons that follow, we affirm the Department's disposition of Mr. Mucker's request.
In a letter directed to this office following commencement of Mr. Mucker's request, Suzanne D. Cordery, General Counsel for the Jefferson County Corrections Department, advised that the Department "has no record of Joseph Mucker's Open Records Request dated October 10, 2002," but acknowledged the October 29, 2002, receipt of a nearly identical request for records relating to Mr. Mucker dated October 24, 2002. Ms. Cordery furnished this office with a copy of that request, signed by an individual identified as Tommy L. Jones, and the Department's October 30 response to Mr. Mucker requesting clarification, specifically for what time period [he was] seeking records . . . ." She explained that unlike the Kentucky Department of Corrections, the Jefferson County Corrections Department "does not keep 'all records relating to an inmate' in one file." Ms. Cordery observed:
Even with respect to a single incarceration, "all records relating to an inmate" are not kept in one central file. Therefore, the Department of Corrections does attempt to work with the inmate by letter as needed in order to understand the specific records the inmate is seeking.
In closing, Ms. Cordery indicated that Mr. Mucker would be mailed a copy of his Corrections Inmate Management System incarceration history "in the interim." This record, along with the retention schedule for local correctional facilities enclosed herewith, should aid Mr. Mucker in narrowing the scope of his request by both time frame and document identification.
The Attorney General is not equipped to resolve a factual dispute concerning the actual delivery and receipt of Mr. Mucker's October 10 open records request. Although he maintains that the request was mailed to the Department, Mr. Mucker offers no proof of receipt, such as a return receipt following delivery of a certified letter. 2 Ms. Cordery, on the other hand, asserts that the request did not reach the Department and that there is no record of receipt. If Mr. Mucker's request did not reach the Department, for whatever reason, that agency should not be faulted for its failure to respond. KRS 61.880(1) and 02-ORD-109.
Further, we find no error in the Department's attempt to narrow the scope of Mr. Mucker's request which it received on October 29. In OAG 85-88, this office expressly recognized that the failure of an inmate to identify specific documents in his institutional file precluded release of the documents in the file. At page 3 of that opinion, we analogized an inmate's institutional file to a personnel file, insofar as both contain exempt and nonexempt documents, holding that a request to inspect an institutional file, like a request to inspect personnel files, "must specify the particular documents within such file to be inspected." See also, OAG 91-58; 93-ORD-116; 02-ORD-106.
In 93-ORD-116, this office concluded that an inmate request for institutional write-ups for a period of time extending from April 1981 to the date of the request was "couched in sufficiently specific terms to permit the records custodian to determine what records it encompass[ed] and whether those records were exempt. " 93-ORD-116, p. 3. Mr. Mucker's request was not couched in specific terms. Our review of the record on appeal therefore confirms that the Department's actions were consistent with the Open Records Act. Using his incarceration history and the records retention schedule, Mr. Mucker should attempt to frame his renewed request with the same degree of specificity as to dates and records identification as the requester in 93-ORD-116.
A party aggrieved by this decision may appeal it by initiating action in the appropriate circuit court pursuant to KRS 61.880(5) and KRS 61.882. Pursuant to KRS 61.880(3), the Attorney General should be notified of any action in circuit court, but should not be named as a party in that action or in any subsequent proceeding.
Joseph Mucker # 120410Northpoint Training CenterP.O. Box 479 - Dorm FourBurgin, KY 40310
Debbie MetzLitigation CoordinatorJefferson County Corrections400 South Sixth StreetLouisville, KY 40202
Suzanne Cordery, General CounselJefferson County Corrections400 South Sixth StreetLouisville, KY 40202
Footnotes
Footnotes
1 Mr. Mucker provided the Department with his date of birth and social security number, but this information is omitted in deference to his privacy interest.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
2 The Open Records Act does not require a requester to submit his request by certified mail, return receipt requested. Regular mail delivery is sufficient under the Act. KRS 61.872(2). A return receipt for certified mail would, however, provide proof of actual delivery of the request.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -