Opinion
Opinion By: Gregory D. Stumbo, Attorney General; James M. Ringo, Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
The question presented in this appeal is whether the actions of the Roederer Correctional Complex (RCC) relative to the open records request of Bryan L. Reinhardt for certain institutional records violated the Open Records Act. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that, with the exception of a procedural deficiency, the RCC's actions were proper and did not violate the Act.
In his request submitted to RCC, Mr. Reinhardt requested the following records:
1. A copy of my incoming and outgoing legal mail logs from February 6, 2004 to April 21, 2004.
2. A copy of my inmate account statements for the months of February, March, and April 2004.
3. A copy of any request or documents or records in relation to Sharon Perkins, Offender records requesting a (sic) Amended Final Judgment with a breakdown of charges and to list the number of years to serve on each charge to correct a (sic) improper sentence and Final Judgment on Logan Circuit Court Ind. No. 03-CR-00162, dated February 4, 2004 and "Final Judgment" became "final" on February 17, 2004. This request for an Amended Final Judgment was requested by Sharon Perkins on March 8, 2004. The second Amended Final Judgment was entered on April 6, 2004 by Logan Circuit Court and became "final" on April 12, 2004. Any documentation in relation to this Amended Final Judgment would be requested; a copy of any and all final judgments, fax transmissions to Logan Circuit Court, requesting to Amend this final judgment; any return fax transmissions or responses from Logan Circuit Court.
By letter dated October 18, 2005, Sharon Perkins, AC Records, RCC, responded to Mr. Reinhardt's request.
In response to item # 1 of the request, Ms. Perkins advised Mr. Reinhardt that RCC does not keep logs of outgoing mail, but does keep logs of incoming legal mail. She explained that the 2004 logs he requested are considered historical; are archived; that additional time would be needed to obtain the records; and that a final response would be issued on or before October 25, 2005. By letter dated October 25, 2005, RCC provided Mr. Reinhardt with copies of incoming legal mail logs from February 6, 2004 to April 21, 2004.
With respect to item # 2 of the request, Mr. Reinhardt was advised that his inmate account records had also been placed in storage, but would be mailed to him on October 25, 2005. On that date, RCC provided Mr. Reinhardt with a copy of his inmate account statement from March 1, 2004, through September 30, 2004.
With respect to item # 3 of the request, Mr. Reinhardt was informed that these records were kept in his inmate institutional of which RCC no longer had possession and that he would have to request these documents from the Deputy Warden Nancy Doom, Open Records Coordinator at the Kentucky State Penitentiary, where he is currently housed.
We conclude that, with the exception of a procedural deficiency, the RCC's response to Mr. Reinhardt's request did not violate the Open Records Act.
We address first the procedural deficiency. The record before us indicates that Mr. Reinhardt's request, dated September 30, 2005, was received by the RCC on October 10, 2005, and responded to on October 18, 2005. With respect to the procedural requirements of the Open Records Act and KRS 197.025(7), as they pertain to correctional facilities, the Department acknowledged that it had failed to timely respond to Mr. Reinhardt's request within the 5-day time frame, and we will not belabor this issue. To ensure that future responses to open records requests conform to the Open Records Act, the Department advised that RCC records custodians had been reminded of the importance of making a timely response to open records requests.
As noted above, Mr. Reinhardt was provided copies of records responsive to his requested items # 1 and # 2. 40 KAR 1:030, Section 6, provides: "If the requested documents are made available to the complaining party after a complaint is made, the Attorney General shall decline to issue a decision in the matter." Accordingly, since Mr. Reinhardt has been provided copies of the records he requested in request items # 1 and # 2, the records access issue as to these records is moot and no decision will be rendered on this issue.
As to request item # 3, Mr. Reinhart was advised that these records are kept in an inmate's institutional file and that RCC no longer had his file and to obtain these records he needed to write the Open Records Coordinator at the Kentucky State Penitentiary (KSP) where he is presently housed and provided him with the name and location of the KSP's official custodian of records. Under the Open Records Act, this was a proper response in that an agency cannot provide copies of documents which it does not have and affirmatively so advised. 99-ORD-98; 99-ORD-150. Moreover, the RCC's response was in compliance with KRS 61.872(4), which provides:
If the person to whom the application is directed does not have custody or control of the public record requested, that person shall notify the applicant and shall furnish the name and location of the official custodian of the agency's public records.
Accordingly, we conclude that RCC's response, in this regard, was in compliance with KRS 61.872(4) and the Open Records Act.
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.
Bryan Lee Reinhardt, # 173109Kentucky State Penitentiary3CELL-12-R-7P.O. Box 5128Eddyville, KY 42038
April ThorpeInstitution CoordinatorRoederer Correctional ComplexP. O. Box 69LaGrange, KY 40031
Emily DennisOffice of Legal ServicesJustice Cabinet and Public Safety Cabinet125 Holmes Street, 2nd FloorFrankfort, KY 40601