23-ORD-121
June 5, 2023
In re: Jamie Green/Green River Correctional Complex
Summary: The Green River Correctional Complex (“the Complex”)
violated the Open Records Act (“the Act”) when it relied on an
inapplicable exemption, and failed to explain how it applied, to deny the
Appellant’s request to view his medical file alongside another inmate.
Open Records Decision
Inmate Jamie Green (“Appellant”) submitted a request to the Complex to
inspect his “institutional medical file from March 3, 2023 to April 18, 2023,” while
accompanied by another inmate. The Complex denied the request under
KRS 197.025(2) and KRS 61.878(1)(l) because the records do not contain a specific
reference to the inmate with whom the Appellant wanted to view the records. This
appeal followed.
A correctional facility such as the Complex “shall not be required to comply
with a request for any record from any inmate confined in . . . any facility . . . unless
the request is for a record which contains a specific reference to that individual.”
KRS 197.025(2) (emphasis added). KRS 197.025(2) is incorporated into the Act
through KRS 61.878(1)(l), which exempts from inspection public records “the
disclosure of which is prohibited or restricted or otherwise made confidential by
enactment of the General Assembly.”
On appeal, the Appellant argues that KRS 197.025(2) does not support the
Complex’s denial. He is correct. KRS 197.025(2) allows an agency to deny a request
by an inmate for a record that does not specifically reference the requesting inmate.
Here, the Complex does not claim the records the Appellant requested do not
specifically reference him. It claims the medical files do not reference the other
inmate with whom the Appellant wanted to inspect the records. Because that otherinmate was not the requestor, KRS 197.025(2) does not support the Complex’s denial.
Accordingly, the Complex violated the Act when it failed to cite an applicable
exemption or explain how the exemption applied to the record withheld.1
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 within 30 days
from the date of this decision. 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 proceedings. The Attorney General will accept notice of
the complaint emailed to OAGAppeals@ky.gov.
Daniel Cameron
Attorney General
s/ Zachary M. Zimmerer
Zachary M. Zimmerer
Assistant Attorney General
#176
Distributed to:
Jamie Green #271157
Amy V. Barker
Lydia C. Kendrick
Ann Smith
Mark Bizzell
1
On appeal, the Complex claims the Act does not require it to allow the Appellant to view his
medical file alongside another inmate. The Complex cites 19-ORD-131 for the proposition that inmates
must accept the nature of their confinement when seeking to inspect records, and that correctional
facilities should be given latitude to address safety concerns unique to those institutions. While the
Complex correctly addresses the substance of 19-ORD-131, it does not cite to any specific policy stating
inmates jointly inspecting records may constitute a safety risk, or that either the Appellant or the
other inmate poses a unique safety risk if they inspect the records together. Nor does the Complex
state that either the Appellant or the other inmate are currently in segregated housing, or have
otherwise had their movements restricted beyond normal confinement. Regardless, the Complex is
nevertheless correct that an inmate does not have a statutory right to inspect records with any
particular person, and therefore, the Office cannot find it violated the Act by denying the Appellant’s
request to inspect records with another inmate. Rather, such a request is more akin to an inmate
asking the Complex for a privilege after responsive records are provided, and is therefore not subject
to this Office’s review.