23-ORD-287
October 25, 2023
In re: Bobby Inman/Roederer Correctional Complex
Summary: The Roederer Correctional Complex (“the Complex”)
violated the Open Records Act (“the Act”) when it failed to issue a timely
response to a request. The Complex did not violate the Act when it did
not provide records that do not exist.
Open Records Decision
On July 25, 2023, inmate Bobby Inman (“Appellant”) requested “a copy of [his]
National Registry Certificate” as an Emergency Medical Technician, including “the
National Registry Number and the expiration date of the current license,” along with
“documentation that outlines Name [sic] of training institution where course was
taken; course number; including the month, date, year and completion date of the
course.” After receiving no response from the Complex, the Appellant initiated this
appeal on September 27, 2023.1
Under KRS 61.880(1) and KRS 197.025(7), a correctional facility must respond
to a request to inspect records within five business days after receiving it. On appeal,
the Complex admits it did not respond to the Appellant’s request. By failing to issue
a timely response, the Complex violated the Act.
On October 4, 2023, the Complex advised the Appellant that the records he
requested do not exist because “[i]nmates in the EMT program do not receive a
National Registry Certificate.” Rather, inmates receive only a restricted license “valid
1
Prior to initiating this appeal, the Appellant made a written complaint to the Deputy Warden of
Programs at the Kentucky State Reformatory, under the apparent belief that he was required to do so
under KRS 61.846. However, KRS 61.846 is a provision of the Open Meetings Act, which does not
apply to appeals brought under the Open Records Act.for use within the Department of Corrections.” The Complex offered to provide the
Appellant an additional copy of his transcript and restricted license upon request.
Once a public agency states affirmatively that a record does not exist, the
burden shifts to the requester to present a prima facie case that the requested record
does exist. See Bowling v. Lexington–Fayette Urb. Cnty. Gov’t, 172 S.W.3d 333, 341
(Ky. 2005). Here, the Appellant has not established a prima facie case that a National
Registry Certificate or any related documentation exists. Rather, his belief that such
a certificate exists is apparently the result of a misunderstanding. Accordingly, the
Complex did not violate the Act when it did not provide records that do not exist.
A party aggrieved by this decision may appeal it by initiating an 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 emailed to OAGAppeals@ky.gov.
Daniel Cameron
Attorney General
s/ James M. Herrick
James M. Herrick
Assistant Attorney General
#432
Distribution:
Bobby Inman, #283564
Edward Baylous, Esq.
Ms. Sara M. Pittman
Ms. Ann Smith