Opinion
Opinion By: Andy Beshear, Attorney General; Sarah Ellen Eads Adkins, Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
The issue presented in this appeal is whether Little Sandy Correctional Complex (LSCC) violated the Open Records Act when it refused to provide a copy of the protocol manual and related publications for Kentucky Corrections Health Care Service upon request of inmate James Harrison. For the reasons stated below, this office finds that LSCC properly refused to provide the requested records pursuant to KRS 197.025(2).
On January 19, 2019, Appellant requested that LSCC provide him with provide a copy of the protocol manual for Kentucky Corrections Health Care Service, regulations, and/or policies, including the index and glossary to any such manuals, regulations, or policies. In LSCC's response to Appellant, dated January 23, 2019, it denied his request pursuant to KRS 197.025(2) because the requested documents did not contain a specific reference to Appellant.
KRS 197.025(2) provides, in part, that DOC "shall not be required to comply with a request for any record from an inmate confined in a jail or any facility or any individual on active supervision under the jurisdiction of [DOC], unless the request is for a record which contains a specific reference to that individual ." (emphasis added). KRS 197.025(2) is incorporated into the Open Records Act through KRS 61.878(1).
In LSCC's response to this appeal, it again denied Appellant's request by citing KRS 197.025(2), stating that there was no specific reference to Appellant, and he was therefore not entitled to the requested records. LSCC confirmed that "[a] health care manual in a prison is not the type of record in which a reference is made to a specific inmate. " LSCC is not required to provide Appellant with copies of records which contain no inmate-specific information pursuant to KRS 197.025(2). Accordingly, LSCC did not violate the Open Records Act by denying Appellant's request.
Finally, Appellant argues that this office certify whether "KRS 197.025 is constitutional." However, that request is outside the purview of the Attorney General's determination. See KRS 61.880(2)(a) (defining the Attorney General's responsibility as deciding "whether the agency violated provisions of KRS 61.870 to 61.884"). See 01-ORD-129 (declaring that an "open records appeal to the Attorney General is not an appropriate forum in which to challenge the constitutionality of a statute"); 08-ORD-149 (concluding that "the Office of the Attorney General is not the appropriate forum for resolution of non-open records related issues"); 15-ORD-205.
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 shall be notified of any action in circuit court, but shall not be named as a party in that action or in any subsequent proceeding.