23-ORD-027
February 7, 2023
In re: Glenn Odom/Kentucky State Penitentiary
Summary: This Office cannot find the Kentucky State Penitentiary
(“the Penitentiary”) violated the Open Records Act (“the Act”) when it
provided what the requester considers to be an incomplete record.
Open Records Decision
On December 14, 2022, inmate Glenn Odom (“Appellant”) submitted five
requests to the Penitentiary to inspect a variety of records.1 Having received no
response by January 5, 2023, the Appellant initiated this appeal.2
After the Appellant initiated this appeal, he informed this Office that the
Penitentiary had provided records responsive to most of his requests. Now, he “only
ha[s] an issue with one particular request.”3 Specifically, the Appellant states he
“received absolutely no mental health notes” that he alleges a specific doctor created.
1
The requested records included all medical notes related to specified individuals, suicide watch log
entries from specific dates, medical notes from specific individuals on specific dates, all grievances he
filed since July 2022, all letters written to specific employees from January 1, 2022 to the date of the
request, a specific “facility canteen receipt,” a specific vendor receipt, all property inventory forms from
2022, a segregation intake property form from a specific date, camera footage from two specific dates,
and a specific letter written by the inmate.
2
The Appellant also submitted five additional requests to the Penitentiary on December 28, 2022
and December 29, 2022. However, the Penitentiary’s response to those additional requests is not
properly before the Office because the Appellant initiated his appeal before the Penitentiary’s deadline
to respond to those requests had expired. See, e.g., 20-ORD-175 (holding that, because
KRS 61.880(2)(a) requires a person to provide a copy of her request and the agency’s response, or a
copy of the request and an assertion that the agency failed to timely respond, the Office lacks
jurisdiction to adjudicate appeals brought before the statutory deadline for the agency to respond).
Accordingly, the Office can only consider the dispute regarding the Appellant’s requests submitted on
December 14, 2022.
3
Accordingly, any former dispute regarding these four requests is moot. See 40 KAR 1:030 § 6.In its response, the Penitentiary claims to have provided 412 pages of records
responsive to the Appellant’s request for medical notes entered by four individuals.
The Appellant admits he received 412 pages of records, but he claims they are “blank
pages that have little to nothing on them and they were duplicates.” This Office has
long held that it cannot resolve factual disputes about whether all records responsive
to a request have been provided, or whether requested records should contain
additional content. See, e.g., 22-ORD-010; 19-ORD-083; 03-ORD-061; OAG 89-81.
Consequently, this Office is unable to find the Penitentiary violated the Act when it
provided what it considered to be all records responsive to the Appellant’s request.
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 e-mailed to OAGAppeals@ky.gov.
Daniel Cameron
Attorney General
s/ Zachary M. Zimmerer
Zachary M. Zimmerer
Assistant Attorney General
#011
Distributed to:
Glenn Odom #219489
Amy V. Barker
Lydia Kendrick
Ann Smith