James Harrison v. Fulton County Detention Center ( 2022 )

RENDERED: DECEMBER 9, 2022; 10:00 A.M.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2022-CA-0254-MR
JAMES HARRISON APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM FULTON CIRCUIT COURT
v. HONORABLE TIMOTHY A. LANGFORD, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 20-CI-00035
FULTON COUNTY
DETENTION CENTER AND
STEVEN WILLIAMS, JAILER APPELLEES
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: CLAYTON, CHIEF JUDGE; CALDWELL AND MAZE, JUDGES.
MAZE, JUDGE: James Harrison, pro se, appeals from a summary judgment of the
Fulton Circuit Court dismissing his appeal from the denial of his open-records
request made to the Fulton County Detention Center (“FCDC”). We agree with
the circuit court that the records were not subject to disclosure under KRS1
197.025(2). Hence, we affirm.
Harrison is an inmate of the Kentucky Department of Corrections
(“DOC”), currently housed at the Eastern Kentucky Correctional Complex. On
March 26, 2020, Harrison mailed an open-records request to the FCDC and Jailer
Steven Williams, which requested: (1) any logs showing an attorney’s name who
visited while he was lodged at the FCDC; and (2) a copy of that attorney’s driver’s
license provided at the time of the visit. The FCDC denied the request based upon
KRS 197.025(2) because the records did not specifically pertain to Harrison.
Harrison sought review of the FCDC’s decision by the Attorney General’s Office
pursuant to KRS 61.880. On May 28, 2020, the Attorney General’s Office issued a
decision upholding the denial. The opinion concluded that the FCDC is a
correctional institution under the jurisdiction of the DOC. Consequently, the
opinion found that Harrison’s request was subject to the provisions of KRS
197.025(2).
Harrison then filed an appeal from this decision to the Fulton Circuit
Court, as provided by KRS 61.882(3). The circuit court likewise agreed that the
FCDC is under the jurisdiction of the DOC. As a result, the court held that the
1
Kentucky Revised Statutes.
-2-
FCDC properly denied Harrison’s request as not complying with KRS 197.025(2).
Harrison now appeals to this Court.
The sole issue in this appeal concerns the application of KRS
197.025(2), which provides as follows:
KRS 61.870 to 61.884 to the contrary notwithstanding,
the department shall not be required to comply with a
request for any record from any inmate confined in a jail
or any facility or any individual on active supervision
under the jurisdiction of the department, unless the
request is for a record which contains a specific reference
to that individual.
The DOC bore the burden of proof to establish that the records were
exempt from disclosure. Commonwealth v. Chestnut, 250 S.W.3d 655, 659 (Ky.
2008). However, the construction and application of statutes is a question of law
and subject to de novo review on appeal. Pearce v. Univ. of Louisville, by &
through its Bd. of Trustees, 448 S.W.3d 746, 749 (Ky. 2014).
Harrison argues that the statute only applies to record requests made
to the DOC and not directly to a county jail like the FCDC. However, the statute
specifically applies to record requests pertaining to “any inmate confined in a jail
or any facility or any individual on active supervision under the jurisdiction of the
[DOC.]” Here, Harrison requested records pertaining to a visitor to the FCDC
while he was confined there in 2017. The record clearly establishes that he was
under the jurisdiction of the DOC at that time. Furthermore, the DOC has
-3-
authority to adopt and enforce standards for jails, KRS 196.030(1)(e), as well as
over jails in counties which elect to house state prisoners. KRS 441.055.
Therefore, we agree with the Attorney General that KRS 197.025(2) was
applicable to Harrison’s open-records request.
Under the clear language of the statute, Harrison was not entitled to
any record that did not contain a specific reference to him. The FCDC responded
that it located records responsive to Harrison’s request, but none of them contained
a specific reference to him. Therefore, we agree with the circuit court that the
FCDC properly denied the request.
Accordingly, we affirm the summary judgment of the Fulton Circuit
Court.
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT: BRIEF FOR APPELLEES:
James Harrison, pro se Stacey A. Blankenship
West Liberty, Kentucky Paducah, Kentucky
-4-