Request By:
Mark Crossland, # 206442
Ms. Heather McManis
Catherine M. Stevens, Esq.
Opinion
Opinion By: Andy Beshear,Attorney General;James M. Herrick,Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
At issue in this appeal is whether the Luther Luckett Correctional Complex ("LLCC") violated the Kentucky Open Records Act in denying inmate Mark Crossland's April 6, 2017, requests for copies of two grievances initiated by him, identified as 17-038 and 17-072, with attachments. Because the Open Records Act does not exempt indigent requesters from the requirement for payment of copying fees codified at KRS 61.874(1), this office affirms the disposition of Mr. Crossland's request in accordance with governing authorities.
Mr. Crossland's appeal to this office was received on April 13, 2017. In the responses to both requests, LLCC indicated that Mr. Crossland had only 11 cents in his inmate account, and therefore the requests were denied due to insufficient funds to cover the copying fees. Mr. Crossland argues that he should still receive the copies because there will be sufficient funds in his account in the future.
In our view, the reasoning contained in 08-ORD-044, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference, is equally applicable on the facts presented. The courts and this office have recognized the propriety of a Department of Corrections policy requiring advance payment of copying fees. In Friend v. Rees, Ky. App., 696 S.W.2d 325 (1985), the Kentucky Court of Appeals held that an inmate is entitled to receive a copy of a record only after "complying with the reasonable charge of reproduction. " Accordingly, the Attorney General subsequently determined that it is "entirely proper for [a correctional] facility to require prepayment, and to enforce its standard policy relative to assessment of charges to inmate accounts ...." 95-ORD-105. While acknowledging that "this prepayment policy might work a hardship on inmates, " this office has nevertheless upheld the policy as "entirely consistent with the Open Records Act and the rule announced in Friend v. Rees ." 97-ORD-131 (quoting 95-ORD-90). In accordance with these precedents, LLCC did not violate the Open Records Act by denying Mr. Crossland's request despite his inability to pay for the requested copies.
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 must be notified of any action in circuit court, but should not be named as a party in that action or in any subsequent proceeding.