23-ORD-109
May 15, 2023
In re: Taquan Neblett/Kentucky State Reformatory
Summary: This Office cannot find that the Kentucky State
Reformatory (the “Reformatory”) violated the Open Records Act (“the
Act”) when it did not respond to a request it claims it did not receive.
Open Records Decision
Inmate Taquan Neblett (“Appellant”) claims to have submitted a request to the
Reformatory on March 16, 2023, seeking “[a]ll incident reports filed pursuant to
CPP 8.6 and [a]ll critical incident reports filed pursuant to CPP 8.7” for an incident
that occurred on a specific date. On April 5, 2023, having received no response from
the Reformatory, the Appellant initiated this appeal.
On appeal, the Reformatory claims to have never received the Appellant’s
request.1 Under the Act, a public agency “shall determine within five (5) [business]
days . . . after the receipt of any such request whether to comply with the request and
shall notify in writing the person making the request, within the five (5) day period,
of its decision.” KRS 61.880(1) (emphasis added). Here, the Reformatory claims it did
not receive the Appellant’s request and, therefore, could not issue a response to that
request. This Office cannot resolve factual disputes, such as whether a public agency
actually received a request. See, e.g., 23-ORD-071; 23-ORD-005; 22-ORD-216; 22-
ORD-148; 22-ORD-125; 22-ORD-100; 22-ORD-051; 21-ORD-163. Thus, this Office
1
After the Reformatory received the notice of appeal it located the requested incident report and
provided a copy of it to the Appellant that was redacted according to KRS 197.025(1) and
KRS 61.878(1)(l). The Appellant has not challenged these redactions or claimed that any additional
records do or should exist. The Office has historically deferred to the judgment of correctional facilities
as to what records would constitute a security threat under KRS 197.025(1) and KRS 61.878(1)(l) if
released. See, e.g., 22-ORD-052; 22-ORD-038.cannot find the Reformatory violated the Act when it did not issue a response to a
request that it claims it did not receive.
A party aggrieved by this decision may appeal it by initiating action in the
appropriate circuit court under KRS 61.880(5) and KRS 61.882 within 30 days from
the date of this decision. Under 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 proceedings. The Attorney General will accept notice of the complaint
emailed to OAGAppeals@ky.gov.
Daniel Cameron
Attorney General
s/ Matthew Ray
Matthew Ray
Assistant Attorney General
#157
Distributed to:
Taquan Neblett #119028
Amy V. Barker
Mark F. Bizzell
Lydia C. Kendrick
Ann Smith