Opinion
Opinion By: Jack Conway, Attorney General; Amye L. Bensenhaver, Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Decision
This matter having been presented to the Office of the Attorney General in an open records appeal, and the Attorney General being sufficiently advised, we find that Otter Creek Correctional Center did not commit the violation alleged by Juan Sanders in his June 1, 2011, correspondence, specifically that OCCC failed to respond to his open records request for "(1) documents/copies of documents that [he] was given on 4-29-11 while [he] was attending the R-DAP-SAP program." 1 Because the record on appeal does not contain a copy of Mr. Sanders' pre-June 1, 2011, open records request, we assign no error to OCCC for its alleged failure to respond.
In correspondence directed to this office after Mr. Sanders initiated an appeal, OCCC properly noted that the staff contact form and grievance which he attached to his letter of appeal "contains no evidence of a record request," and that upon inquiry, none could be located. Moreover, OCCC observed, Mr. Sanders "does not appear to intend to appeal a records access denial, but rather to use the open records appeal process to complain about his status as it relates to a treatment program . . . ." Nevertheless, OCCC indicated that efforts would be undertaken to clarify what records Mr. Sanders sought.
In 11-ORD-097, the Attorney General addressed a similar set of facts. Although the inmate requester submitted a records request which he attached to his letter of appeal, and which the Department of Corrections properly resolved, he primarily focused on DOC's alleged refusal to "ensure that sentences conform to the mandatory language of [KRS 532.030]." At page 3 of 11-ORD-097, the Attorney General recognized that he lacked "authority under KRS 61.880(2) to find DOC in violation of provisions of KRS 61.870 to 61.884" because it implemented KRS 532.030 in a manner repugnant to the requester. We concluded that the requester "state[d] no open records claim for which relief could be granted under KRS 61.880(2)." 11-ORD-097, p. 3, citing 96-ORD-120. The same holds true in the matter before us. Mr. Sanders' attempted appeal was deficient insofar as it did not contain the statutorily required open records request that prompted it and did not state a claim for which relief could be granted under KRS 61.880(2) .
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.
Distributed to:
Juan Sanders, # 131019Renee CornettCole CarterAmy V. Barker
Footnotes
Footnotes
1 This description of the records sought does not appear in an open records request submitted before June 1, 2011. Instead, it appears in Mr. Sanders June 1, 2011, letter of appeal and in supplemental correspondence dated June 16, 2011, that included a "(2nd Request)" bearing the same date. If a pre-June 1 request exists, Mr. Sanders did not provide this office with a copy.