Request By:
Gregory Valentine, # 163775 F-21
Betty Shepperd
Cole Carter
Leigh K. Meredith
Opinion
Opinion By: Jack Conway, Attorney General; Amye L. Bensenhaver, Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
The question presented in this appeal is whether Lee Adjustment Center subverted the intent of the Open Records Act, short of denial of inspection and within the meaning of KRS 61.880(4), 1 when inmate Gregory Valentine's April 20, 2008, request for copies of "computer sign-in sheets was misplaced. " For the reasons that follow, we find that the record on appeal is entirely devoid of evidence that LAC subverted the intent of the Act by misplacing his request, and that all other issues Mr. Valentine attempts to raise are not justiciable in an open records appeal to the Attorney General.
By letter dated May 6, 2008, Corrections Corporation of America 2 Assistant General Counsel Cole Carter notified this office that although Mr. Valentine's request was misplaced, LAC staff swiftly moved to obtain a "replacement request" from Mr. Valentine, and that Mr. Valentine received the records identified in that request within the time period mandated by the Act. Under these circumstances, we cannot discern how the Act's intent was subverted. As Mr. Carter correctly observes, "Inmate Valentine received access and that access was timely ." (Emphasis in original.)
In his letter of appeal, Mr. Valentine catalogues a series of offenses against his person which he characterizes as "a continuing campaign of obstructions and retaliations undertaken by [the Kentucky Department of Corrections] and parties acting in concert . . ." resulting from his ongoing litigation with the Department. We concur with Mr. Carter in the view that these allegations "reach beyond the domain of the open records request [and appeal]." We urge Mr. Valentine to pursue the remedies available to him through the ethics and compliance department which Mr. Carter discusses in his response, a copy of which was mailed to Mr. Valentine. The Open Records Act, and the mechanism for appeal available thereunder, affords him no relief.
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 should be notified of any action in circuit court, but should not be named as a party in that action or in any subsequent proceeding.
Footnotes
Footnotes
1 KRS 61.880(4) provides:
If a person feels the intent of KRS 61.870 to 61.884 is being subverted by an agency short of denial of inspection, including but not limited to the imposition of excessive fees or the misdirection of the applicant, the person may complain in writing to the Attorney General, and the complaint shall be subject to the same adjudicatory process as if the record had been denied.
2 LAC is owned and operated by CCA.