24-ORD-082
March 20, 2024
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”) because the Office is unable to resolve the factual dispute between
the parties about whether the Penitentiary received a request for
records.
Open Records Decision
Inmate Glenn Odom (“Appellant”) claims that on February 12, 2024, he
submitted a request to the Penitentiary for a copy of “grievance appeal” number 23-
06-045-G. On February 22, 2024, claiming to have received no response from the
Penitentiary to his request, the Appellant imitated 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 a request to the Penitentiary on February 12, 2024, and that it
“is refusing to acknowledge” his request.1
On appeal, the Penitentiary explains it did not receive the Appellant’s request.
Rather, the Penitentiary asserts that on February 15, 2024, it received a similar
request for a copy of “grievance report” number 23-06-045-G and two other
grievances. The Penitentiary further asserts it issued a timely response to that
request on February 21, 2024. As proof, the Penitentiary provides a copy of the
1
The Appellant makes an allegation against the Penitentiary that is unrelated to the Act. The Office
is unable to adjudicate such an allegation in the context of an appeal brought under KRS 61.880(2)(a)
because the Office only has jurisdiction to determine whether the agency has complied with the Act.
See, e.g., 23-ORD-218.request it received from the Appellant, which is stamped received on February 15,
2024, and its response to that request dated February 21, 2024.2 To the extent the
Appellant claims he never received the Penitentiary’s response, this Office has found
it cannot resolve factual disputes between the parties to an open records appeal, such
as whether the requester actually received the agency’s response. See, e.g., 23-ORD-
062; 22-ORD-024; 21-ORD-233; 21-ORD-163. Thus, the Office is unable to find that
the Penitentiary violated the Act when it did not issue a response to a request that it
never received.
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.
Russell Coleman
Attorney General
/s/ Matthew Ray
Matthew Ray
Assistant Attorney General
#153
Distributed to:
Glenn Odom #219489
Michelle Harrison
Stephanie L. DeFrancesco
Ann Smith
2
The Penitentiary partially denied that request because the Appellant lacked the funds required
for copies of those records. The Penitentiary also partially denied his request under KRS 61.878(1)(i)
and (j) because one of the requested grievances “is still in a preliminary phase.” Nevertheless, because
the Appellant’s other request is not the subject of this appeal, the Office lacks jurisdiction to determine
whether the Penitentiary’s partial denial complied with the Act.