26-ORD-145 – Michael Padgett/Kentucky State Penitentiary

Opinion Content:

April 2, 2026

In re: Michael Padgett/Kentucky State Penitentiary

Summary: The Kentucky State Penitentiary (“the Penitentiary”) did
not violate the Open Records Act (“the Act”) by denying an inmate
request because the request failed to comply with the institution’s
corresponding internal policy, which is consistent with relevant
provisions of the Act.

Open Records Decision

By undated request, which the Penitentiary received on February 25, 2026,
inmate Michael Padgett (“the Appellant”) requested copies of the following records:
(1) the Emergency Occurrence Report (“EOR”) filed on July 6, 2025, “over the Staff
medical emergency called to 7 cellhouse [m]edical room dur[ing] surgery on my back”;
(2) “all incident reports filed by all Correctional employees involved” in the July 6,
2025, medical incident in 7 cellhouse; and (3) the video footage of 7 cellhouse medical
room on July 6, 2025, “depicting the surgical operation on me by APRN Heather
Madahar and Amy Mitchell.”

In a response dated February 25, 2026, the Penitentiary denied the request
because the Appellant had not complied with CPP 6.1 § II.B.6 1 by submitting a

1 CPP 6.1 was previously incorporated by reference into 501 KAR 6:020. However, that
administrative regulation has been repealed, and it appears the Department has yet to promulgate
another administrative regulation that incorporates CPP 6.1 by reference. The Department’s policies
and procedures must be prescribed by administrative regulation. KRS 13A.100(1). Thus, CPP 6.1 is no
longer effective and may not be enforced directly against an inmate. This is not the first time recently
when the Department or other agencies within the Justice and Public Safety Cabinet have purported
to apply policies and procedures at variance with those properly adopted in administrative regulations
under KRS Chapter 13A. See, e.g., OAG 24-13, 2024 WL 5236632, at *1 n.4 (holding the Department’s
policies and procedures related to transgender inmate medical procedures were not effective because
they were not incorporated into administrative regulations); Sholler v. Ky. Parole Bd., No. 21-CI-00889
(Franklin Cir. Ct. Oct. 2, 2024), appeal pending, No. 2024-SC-0517-TG (Ky.) (holding a unilateral
directive of the Parole Board’s Chair violated KRS 13A.130 and KRS 13A.100, and therefore did not
amend the Parole Board’s administrative regulations).The Office notes that 501 KAR 6:350 § 3(6),

“properly signed Cash Paid Out (CPO)” form with his request. In further support of
its denial, the Penitentiary cited Kentucky State Penitentiary Policy and Procedure
(“KSP”) 02-12-02, 2 pursuant to which “the inmate’s signature on the CPO must be
verified by a staff member.” By letter dated February 27, 2026, the Appellant
initiated this appeal, challenging the Penitentiary’s reliance on the omitted signature
of his caseworker as the sole basis for denying his request and noting that he
submitted the appropriate forms to his caseworker with the Unit Administrator
“witnessing [him] sign his [CPO] form and hand both the CPO and the” request to his
caseworker, who delivered the forms to the Penitentiary’s Records Custodian.

Even assuming the accuracy of his assertion that a member of the Penitentiary
staff delivered his request to its Records Custodian, however, that fact does not
relieve him of the responsibility to comply with KSP 12-12-02 and the Act.

On appeal, the Penitentiary relies on 08-ORD-242. There, as in this instance,
the inmate’s appeal resulted from the denial by the Penitentiary of his request due
to his failure to include a properly signed and verified CPO. In denying the inmate’s
request, the Penitentiary cited the relevant section of KSP 02-12-02, just as it does
here. Given the considerations unique to a correctional setting, the Office determined
that requiring verification of the inmate’s signature is “merely incidental to
application of KRS 61.874(1) and exists for entirely legitimate reasons.” 3 08-ORD-
242; see also 16-ORD-277. This appeal presents no basis to depart from 08-ORD-242
or the authorities referenced therein. See 23-ORD-045 (holding the institution did not
violate the Act by denying an inmate request that did not include a completed money
authorization form).

The Office has long recognized that inmates in correctional facilities are
uniquely situated with respect to exercising their rights under the Act. 19-ORD-129;
08-ORD-242; 95-ORD-105; 92-ORD-11236; OAG 82-394; OAG 79-546. Likewise, the
Office has consistently held that “an inmate must accept the necessary consequences
of his confinement, including policies relative to application for, and receipt of, public
records.” Id. And the Office has also found the requirement of submitting a completed
and verified CPO “does not interfere with an inmate’s statutory right to obtain copies
of nonexempt public records and corresponds to [the Penitentiary’s] authority under
KRS 61.874(1) to require advance payment and [its] discretion to create policies with
respect to advance payments that maintain order and security in the institutional
setting.” 16-ORD-277. Here, as before, the Office finds that KSP 02-12-02

though not relied on or cited by the Department in this appeal, is substantively equivalent to CPP 6.1
§ II.B.6. Thus, the Department’s failure to incorporate CPP 6.1 into an administrative regulation does
not affect the outcome of this appeal.
2 KSP 02-12-02 is incorporated by reference into 501 KAR 6:040.
3 When copies of public records are requested, “the custodian may require a written request and
advance payment of the prescribed fee, including postage where appropriate.” KRS 61.874(1).

“corresponds to a statutory enactment, rather than purporting to impermissibly add
a requirement, and . . . provides a legitimate basis for denying” the Appellant’s
request. 08-ORD-242. As such, the Penitentiary’s denial did not violate the Act.

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 [email protected].

Russell Coleman
Attorney General

/s/ Michelle D. Harrison
Michelle D. Harrison
Assistant Attorney General

Michael Padgett, #257283
Charles B. Bates, Staff Attorney III, JPSC
Nathan Goens, Assistant General Counsel, JPSC
Sara Talarigo, Paralegal, JPSC
Ann Smith, Executive Staff Advisor, JPSC