Pulaski County Detention Center: What We Know, What Has Been Filed, and What Questions Remain
SPA has received a number of questions from the community in recent weeks regarding activity surrounding the Pulaski County Detention Center. This includes a recent open records ruling, active civil cases, and public discussion surrounding the reported hospitalization of an inmate.
This article is intended to present verified information from official records, filings, and public statements, and to clarify what is known, what is alleged, and what remains unclear.
Attorney General Ruling and Appeal Regarding “In-Custody Deaths” Open Records Request
As we published earlier in April, the Kentucky Attorney General recently issued a decision related to an open records request involving the release of information on in-custody deaths at the Pulaski County Detention Center.
The detention center has appealed that decision in Pulaski County Circuit Court (Pulaski County Detention Center v. Bobby Gumm, Case No. 26-CI-00402). A hearing is scheduled for April 30, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. before the Honorable Judge Teresa Whitaker.
We will continue to provide details as they emerge.
In response to community questions, SPA reviewed publicly available court records. The following cases are currently on file in Pulaski County Circuit Court:
-
Wilmouth Bray et al. v. Anthony McCullom et al. (23-CI-00501)
-
David Fender v. Anthony McCullom et al. (25-CI-01231)
-
Kimberly Bray v. Anthony McCullom et al. (26-CI-00408)
-
Caleb Martin v. Anthony McCullom et al. (26-CI-00464)
These cases represent allegations filed in civil court and have not been proven. All parties are entitled to due process.
One of the active civil cases involving the Pulaski County Detention Center is Wilmouth L. Bray as the Administratrix of the Estate of Rondal Scott Bray, Deceased and Wilmouth Bray, Individually v. Anthony McCullom et al. (23-CI-00501).
According to the complaint filed in Pulaski County Circuit Court, the lawsuit alleges that a 64-year-old detainee with documented medical and cognitive conditions, including dementia, was taken into custody and later experienced a medical and behavioral episode while detained.
The complaint further alleges that detention center staff used force during the incident and failed to provide appropriate medical care. The complaint also alleges that staff training related to inmates with mental illness was “woefully inadequate.” The filing claims that these actions contributed to the detainee’s death and asserts violations of federal constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, along with state law claims including negligence, wrongful death, and violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
In his response, McCullom raises multiple defenses, including an argument that the complaint does not establish a legally sufficient basis for liability against him. All defendants have the opportunity to respond, and the case will be decided through the judicial process.
These claims are allegations presented by the plaintiffs in civil court and have not been proven in a court of law.
Social Media Claims Regarding Recent Inmate Hospitalization
In addition to official statements released by the Pulaski County Detention Center, a family member of an inmate has made a public social media post describing a serious medical condition requiring extended hospitalization, including a reported partial amputation. These claims raise concerns about possible mistreatment while in custody; however, they have not been independently verified through records, official reports, direct interviews, or court filings. *Screenshot attached
At the same time, the Pulaski County Detention Center has issued two public statements addressing an inmate-related incident. According to those statements, an inmate housed at the jail “experienced a medical condition requiring immediate evaluation and treatment” and "due to the severity/specialized nature of the condition, was transferred to an out-of-town medical facility for further care." The statements do not specify which incident or inmate is being referenced.
When the statements were released, public attention—along with social media posts from a self-identified investigative journalist and podcaster using the moniker “The Expendable” (the.expendable7 on TikTok)—was focused on reports of an alleged inmate assault and hospitalization. It appears from the attached social media post, and the name given by The Expendable, the inmate being referenced very well may be one and the same. However, no direct connection between those reports and the incident referenced in the detention center’s statements has been confirmed.
***All information from social media sources should be treated as unsubstantiated until evidence is provided.
The detention center's press releases indicate that the Kentucky State Police reviewed the matter and determined the allegations to be unfounded. The detention center also states that the Kentucky Department of Corrections conducted a review. *Press releases attached.
According to the detention center’s statement:
“The Kentucky Department of Corrections stated that their office received a complaint/concern regarding a possible assault on an inmate while in the custody of Pulaski County Detention Center. As such a follow up was completed. Jail inspectors made a visit to the Pulaski County Detention Center on April 13, 2026, to review all documents and relevant information to the said complaint. A thorough review by jail inspectors indicated that there was no validity to the allegations made regarding an assault on the inmate. Additionally, there were no jail standard violations noted.” Again, the inmate the detention center is referring to is not referenced in the official statements.
This raised a broader question from a reader about the scope of jail inspections under Kentucky law.
Under KRS 441.064, the Department of Corrections is responsible for inspecting jails, reviewing records, and identifying deficiencies related to jail standards and conditions.
The statute outlines inspection authority and reporting requirements but does not explicitly define the role of inspectors in investigating specific allegations of misconduct. Furthermore, KRS states that following an inspection, the inspection any deficiencies which are discovered and documents. *KRS Attached
These records and closed investigations/cases conducted by KSP are subject to open records.
***We have been informed that ORRs may be in process or forthcoming concerning the alleged incident referenced by the podcaster and family member.
Staying Informed and Engaged
As with any issue involving multiple public agencies and ongoing legal processes, residents may find it helpful to stay engaged by asking general questions such as:
-
How do different public offices communicate findings and decisions to the public?
-
What information is available through public records, and how can it be accessed?
-
What are the roles and responsibilities of the agencies involved in oversight, review, and enforcement?
-
How are decisions documented, and where can those records be reviewed?
-
What processes are in place to ensure accountability and transparency across agencies?
-
How do timelines for investigations, reviews, and court proceedings typically work?
-
What opportunities exist for the public to stay informed as cases and reviews progress?
Staying informed through official records, public statements, and court proceedings can help residents better understand how these systems operate over time.
SPA will continue to monitor official filings, court proceedings, and verified updates as they become available.
As always, we encourage readers to review publicly available records and follow developments through official channels and let us know of any errors - with evidence so we can make the appropriate corrections.
