23-ORD-186
July 26, 2023
In re: Glenn Odom/Kentucky State Penitentiary
Summary: The Office is unable to find that the Kentucky State
Penitentiary (the “Penitentiary”) violated the Open Records Act (“the
Act”) when it did not respond to a request for records that it did not
receive.
Open Records Decision
On June 2, 2023, inmate Glenn Odom (“Appellant”) submitted a request to the
Penitentiary containing three subparts.1 On June 16, 2023, having received no
response from the Penitentiary, the Appellant initiated this appeal.
If an agency receives a request under the Act, it “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 Appellant
claims he submitted the request on June 2, 2023, but the Penitentiary never
responded to it. However, on appeal, the Penitentiary explains that it did not respond
to the Appellant’s request because it never received the request.2 The Office has
1
Specifically, the Appellant requested: (1) “copies of the medical notes by [an employee] proving
that she gave [the Appellant] five (5) stitches and a couple of days later she gave [him] four (4) stitches
on or around Sep. 1, 2022”; (2) “copies of medical notes entered by [a specific] nurse” on the same dates;
and (3) “photos of both incidents taken by” the nurse and officers.
2
The Penitentiary asserts it received a completely different request from the Appellant dated June
2, 2023. As proof, the Penitentiary provides a copy of that request, which requested copies of reports
for “both incidents where [the Appellant] had to receive stitches by [a specific nurse] for” two separate
events he experienced on or about a specific date he listed. The Penitentiary further asserts it granted
the Appellant’s request and provided both of the requested incident reports to the Appellant.previously found it is unable to resolve factual disputes between parties, such as
whether an agency received a request to inspect records. See, e.g., 22-ORD-216; 22-
ORD-148; 22-ORD-125; 22-ORD-100; 22-ORD-051; 21-ORD-163. Accordingly, the
Office is unable to find that the Penitentiary violated the Act.
A party aggrieved by this decision may appeal it by initiating an 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
#275
Distributed to:
Glenn D. Odom #219489
Amy V. Barker
Lydia C. Kendrick
Ann Smith