Carbajal v. Swan, 665 F. App'x 652

Dean Carbajal, a Colorado state prisoner, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming excessive force and related constitutional violations after a 2010 arrest and hospital treatment. Most claims were dismissed; three excessive-force claims proceeded to trial.
Jury verdicts in favor of the defendants were returned on August 18, 2015; judgment entered August 20, 2015.
The deadline to file a notice of appeal was September 21, 2015 (30 days after judgment, extended to the next business day because Sept. 19 fell on a Saturday).
Carbajal deposited his notice in the facility’s regular mail on September 18, 2015; it was docketed as filed on September 24, 2015.
AVCF (the prison) had a legal-mail system; Rule 4(c)(1) (prison mailbox rule) requires use of that system to obtain the date-of-deposit benefit when one exists. Carbajal did not use the legal-mail system and did not present adequate proof the system was unavailable.
District court fees notation was vacated by the panel’s order, and Carbajal’s appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because his notice of appeal was untimely.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Carbajal's notice of appeal was timely under the prison mailbox rule	Carbajal says he deposited the notice in prison regular mail on Sept. 18 and that the legal-mail system was effectively unavailable that day (guards denied access; materials arrived after mailroom closed)	Defendants show AVCF had an adequate legal-mail system available that day, other inmates used it, no lockdown occurred, and Carbajal did not use the legal-mail system	Notice was untimely; Carbajal failed to prove legal-mail system was unavailable, so mailbox rule did not apply; appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction

Price v. Philpot, 420 F.3d 1158 (10th Cir. 2005) (interpreting Rule 4(c)(1) and requiring use of legal-mail system when available)
Parker v. Board of Public Utilities, 77 F.3d 1289 (10th Cir. 1996) (timely filing of notice of appeal is jurisdictional)