Opinion ID: 3001093
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Edmund Ingram

Text: Respondent-Appellee Jones concedes that Ingram’s notice of appeal was timely, because Ingram appeared to use Stateville’s legal mailing system.5 We agree. Rule 4(c)(1) requires a prisoner to use a legal mailing system if the prison has one. Craig, 368 F.3d at 740. Stateville has a separate legal mailing system, in which legal mail is logged on a prisoner’s legal mail card. Ingram’s legal mail log did not reflect any mailing in November 2005.6 However, his account was not charged for postage during that time, nor was he obligated to pay for postage for his legal mail.7 The notice of appeal was delivered to the district court on November 18, 2005. Thus the logical inference would be that Ingram used the legal mailing system, as he did not personally pay for his postage. We find that Ingram’s notice of appeal 5 Initially, when Ingram filed his “Supplemental Notarized Statement” on August 2, 2006, Jones filed a response, arguing that the appeal should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because first-class postage was not prepaid, as required by Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1). 6 Ingram’s declaration, notarized statement, and brief to this Court does not assert that Ingram satisfied Rule 4(c)(1) by using Stateville’s legal mailing system. 7 Pursuant to a 1981 consent decree, Stateville is obligated to provide appropriate envelopes and pay for postage for all legal mail of the inmates. Nos. 06-2766 & 06-2879 7 was deposited on November 11, 2005 in Stateville’s legal mailing system. Therefore, he satisfies the second sentence of Rule 4(c)(1) and receives the benefit of the Rule, without our consideration of the third sentence.