Opinion
Opinion By: Gregory D. Sumbo, Attorney General; James M. Ringo, Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
The question presented in this appeal is whether the actions of the Bell County Forestry Camp (BCFC) relative to the request of Raymond Hurt to review his inmate file violated the Open Records Act. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that (1) Mr. Hurt's request to inspect his institutional inmate file was sufficiently specific to require BCFC to respond to the request and to identify and withhold those documents for which statutory protection exists from the file and (2) BCFC properly denied Mr. Hurt's duplicative request to inspect that portion of the institutional file that he had previously inspected.
On December 16, 2003, BCFC received an open request from Mr. Hurt, an inmate at the institution, to:
Review institutional record/inmate file including: Transfer, classification, paperwork, incident reports, indictment, final judgements (sic), ETC.
By memorandum response, dated December 16, 2003, Glenda Gambrel, Records Office, BCFC, partially denied Mr. Hurt's request, advising, in relevant part:
Open records law does not obligate a public agency to honor repeated requests to inspect public records, if these requests are disruptive to agency functions.
Our records show that you were permitted to inspect the institutional record folder maintained in Correctional institutional record folder maintained by the Dept. of Corrections at Northpoint Training Center on 7/17/2002.
Therefore, in response to your current request, you will only be allowed to view those documents contained in Corrections institutional record folder from 7/17/2002 to date, related to (1) classification, (2) incident/disciplinary reports and related documents, and (3) indictments, final judgments.
To view your institutional file as stated above report to BCFC Records Office Wednesday, December, 2003 at 1:00 p.m.
In his letter of appeal to this office, Mr. Hurt states that BCFC's action limiting his review of his institutional file from 7/17 2003 forward was a violation of the Open Records Act.
After receipt of notification of the appeal and a copy of the letter of appeal, Emily Dennis, Staff Attorney, Department of Corrections, provided this office with a response to the issues raised in the appeal. In her response, Ms. Dennis advised, in relevant part:
For purposes of responding to this appeal, Corrections assumes that Mr. Hurt appeals the denial of access to the entire institutional record.
?
Ms. Gambrel properly granted Mr. Hurt's request to inspect specifically identified documents to the extent that he had not already inspected the records while in state custody. On 7/17/02. Offender Information Specialist Mary Pulliam, Northpoint Training Center (NTC) had allowed Mr. Hurt to review all documents not otherwise exempt from disclosure contained in his institutional record folder in response to his request to inspect ". . . institutional records including classification, disciplinary reports, general information" (See Exhibit 3 - Affidavit of Mary Pulliam and attached open records request from Raymond Hurt). Corrections submits that Ms. Pulliam's response went beyond what the Open Records Act and CPP 6.1 require.
?
Mr. Hurt's expectation that each institution under the authority of the Department of Corrections must provide him a distinct right to inspect the entire institutional record folder that follows him during his confinement as a state inmate is unreasonable and disruptive to agency function pursuant to KRS 61.87[2](6). First and foremost, a state inmate receives copies of many of the nonexempt public records contained in the institutional record folder at the time an action is taken. For example, when classification or disciplinary action is taken, an inmate receives a copy of all documents related to these elements of his incarceration. Regarding duplicative requests for access to public records, your office has held that the Open Records Act does not require an agency ". . . to satisfy the identical request a second time in the absence of some justification for resubmitting the request." As reasoned by your office, "(c)ommon sense dictates . . . that repeated requests for the same records may become unreasonably burdensome or disrupt the agency's essential functions." 95-ORD-47, p.6 see also 01-ORD-74 and 95-ORD-105. "To produce . . . records once entails some inconvenience to the agency; to produce them three and four times requires a level of 'patience and long-suffering' that the legislature could not have intended. OAG 92-91, p.6 citing OAG 77-151, p.3.
. . . There is no reason why an inmate should not be able to keep up with copies of records provided to him that document actions taken during his incarceration. 501 KAR 6:020, CPP 17.1 provides that an inmate may possess up to two cubic feet of documents in his living space. An inmate property form, including the inmate's name and all documentation related to the inventory, movement and registration of his personal property, accompanies an inmate upon his transfer.
We are asked to determine whether the BCFC's actions and partial denial of Mr. Hurt's request to inspect his institutional inmate file violated the Open Records Act.
We find that this appeal presents two issues necessary for our determination: (1) non-specificity of request, i.e., the failure of Mr. Hurt to describe with particularity the records in his institutional file that he wished to inspect, and (2) duplicate requests.
We address first the non-specificity of the request issue. In 03-ORD-117, we held that an inmate's request for an "entire copy of my inmate file excluding any documents that would be considered confidential," was sufficiently specific to require Western Kentucky Correctional Complex to respond to the inmate's request. O3-ORD-117 overturned a long line of prior Attorney General decisions that affirmed denials of nonspecific requests for records from an inmate file, holding that an agency was not obligated to honor a nonspecific request from an inmate file or to make a determine as to which documents contained in the file are exempt and nonexempt. In 03-ORD-117, we followed our decision in 03-ORD-012, in which we departed from a long line of Attorney General decisions that held that public agencies are not obligated to honor a nonspecific request for a personnel file or to determine as to which documents contained in the file are exempt and nonexempt, and held that a request for inspection of the complete personnel records of two school district employees was sufficiently specific and the school district was obligated to review the requested personnel files and disclose all nonexempt records contained in the files. In explaining our rationale for this departure, we stated:
As noted above, the Attorney General has consistently held that as a precondition to inspection, a requesting party must identify the records to be inspected with sufficient specificity to enable the agency's custodian of records to identify and retrieve the records. Thus, "where the records sought are of an identified, limited class, the requester satisfied this condition". 92-ORD-1261, p. 3. The records to which Ms. Deatrick requested access consisted of a limited class, to wit personnel records, and were identified by name, to wit Billie Buell and Vincent Savatgy. It cannot be persuasively argued that the District's custodian could not identify and retrieve these records based on this description. This being the case, we find that it was incumbent on the District to "separate the excepted and made the nonexcepted material available for examination." KRS 61.878(4). To suggest that discharge of this statutory duty was more difficult because the records sought were located in employees' personnel files, as opposed to the wide range of files and possible file locations implicated in our example above, defies logic. We therefore find that a request for access to a personnel file requires no greater degree of specificity than any other open records requests, and that the agency must therefore "determine what is and is not subject to Open Records." Pursuant to KRS 61.878(4) , the agency must disclose the nonexcepted records and identify, in writing, any responsive records withheld, cite the statute(s) authorizing the withholding, and briefly explain how the statute applies to the record withheld.
03-ORD-012, p. 7. In 03-ORD-117, we extended the holding in 03-ORD-012, to inmate files.
In the instant appeal, Mr. Hurt requested to inspect:
Review institutional record/inmate file including: Transfer, classification, paperwork, incident reports, indictment, final judgements (sic), ETC.
Based on our holding in 03-ORD-117, this request was sufficiently specific to require BCFC to respond to Mr. Hurt's request. In addition, it was obligated to identify and withhold those documents for which statutory protection exists from the requested inmate file and to provide him with a written explanation including citation to the statute authorizing nondisclosure. KRS 61.880(1); 03-ORD-117; 03-ORD-012. Mr. Hurt should be allowed to inspect nonexempt records in his institutional file not previously inspected.
Our understanding is that this issue in 03-ORD-117 is on appeal, pursuant KRS 61.882 , in the Franklin Circuit Court, case number 03-CI-00706, filed June 12, 2003. Until the Court directs otherwise, we continue to ascribe to the view that an inmate request to inspect his institutional file is sufficiently specific. 03-ORD-117.
Addressing the duplicative requests issue, the question is: does the correctional institution have to permit reentry of that portion of the institutional file that the inmate has already inspected. We believe under the facts of this appeal the answer is no. The inmate would have the opportunity to obtain copies at the original inspection. He could later request copies based on his original inspection, without reentry into the entire file.
With respect to duplicative requests for documents, the Attorney General has stated that an agency is not "required to satisfy the identical request a second time in the absence of some justification for resubmitting the request." 95-ORD-47, p. 6. We reasoned:
We do not believe, however, that [an agency] is required to satisfy the identical request a second time in the absence of some justification for resubmitting that request. KRS 61.872(2) provides that "[a]ny person shall have the right to inspect public records" during regular office hours or by receiving copies through the mail. Common sense dictates, however, that repeated requests for the same records may become unreasonably burdensome or disrupt the agency's essential functions. Thus, at page 6 of OAG 92-91 this office observed:
To produce . . . records once entails some inconvenience to the agency; to produce them three and four times requires a level of "patience and long-suffering" that the legislature could not have intended. Citing OAG 77-151, p. 3.
Here, as in our earlier decisions, unless Mr. Hurt can explain the necessity of reproducing the same records which either already have been provided or have been inspected by him, such as loss or destruction of the records, we can see no reason why BCFC must satisfy the same request a second time. 95-ORD-47. In its response, the Department indicated that state inmates receive copies of nonexempt records contained in the institutional file folder at the time an action is taken against them, such as in a classification or a disciplinary action. Accordingly, we find the agency could properly deny reentry of that portion of Mr. Hurt's institutional file that he has already inspected. As noted above, Mr. Hurt's request was sufficiently specific to require BCFC to respond to his request. In addition, it is obligated to identify and withhold those documents for which statutory protection exists from the file and to provide him with a written explanation including citation to the statute authorizing nondisclosure. KRS 61.880(1); 03-ORD-117; 03-ORD-012.
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.
Raymond Hurt, # 124897Bell County Forestry CampRt. # 2, P.O. Box 75Pineville, KY 40977
Glenda GambrelRecords CustodianBell County Forestry CampRt. # 2, P.O. Box 75Pineville, KY 40977
Emily DennisStaff AttorneyDepartment of CorrectionsP.O. Box 2400Frankfort, KY 40602