In an 8-1 opinion, the justices ruled in favor of Donte Parrish, who had filed a notice of appeal too late because he was not aware that a judge had dismissed his suit. Justice Neil Gorsuch dissented.
Parrish was granted a second window to file an appeal, but believed his first notice was enough and neglected to file a second. His Supreme Court appeal was backed by the federal government, which argued in his corner before the high court in April.
"It was perfectly clear after Parrish's first notice that he intended to appeal his case's dismissal," Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in the opinion. "Sending another notice would amount to nothing more than 'empty paper shuffling.'"
Justice Sotomayor pointed out that the court has repeatedly held that a single filing can serve multiple purposes, such as a brief and a notice of appeal or a notice of appeal along with an antecedent request for a certificate of appealability.
"There is no reason why Parrish's filing could not similarly serve as both a notice of appeal and a request for reopening," she wrote.
During the oral argument, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson acknowledged that Parrish "messed up" by filing the notice of appeal instead of a motion to reopen the case, but the lower court fixed that by treating it as the latter.
"Why couldn't the court also say, 'We have the notice of appeal within the window we opened, and we are done'?'' Justice Jackson asked, alluding to the common practice when attorneys file motions for an extension of time and accompany it with a brief that is docketed contemporaneously.
Justice Jackson echoed the sentiment in a concurring opinion Thursday that was joined by Justice Clarence Thomas.
"As a practical matter, litigants file motions like this one — seeking to reopen or extend a deadline — every day in federal district court. When they do so, they often attach to their motion the (late) document they hope to receive permission to file," the justice wrote. "Because Parrish's filing was effectively submitted in this manner, to me, the court that received it should have handled it in that way."
Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote a brief dissent, saying the matter would be better left to the Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules, which is already studying the issue.
"Rather than take up problems the rules committee can solve and has announced its interest in solving — and, in doing so, risk the possibility that the committee (understandably) may suspend its own activities and delay their resolution — I believe the wiser and more efficient course is to let the committee get on with its work," he wrote.
Parrish's underlying suit alleged he was kept in inhumane conditions in prison for eight years after being falsely accused by the Federal Bureau of Prisons of having killed another inmate during a 2009 riot.
He sought compensation for that time served, but the suit was tossed in March 2020. Parrish was being transferred from federal to state custody at the time, and he did not learn about the dismissal until more than 90 days later, making any appeal untimely.
Parrish filed a notice of appeal to the Fourth Circuit, explaining the reason for the delay, and the court construed that filing as a motion to reopen the appeal period for 14 days. But a divided Court of Appeals panel subsequently threw out the case because Parrish did not file a new notice of appeal within the two-week window.
Because the government sided with Parrish, the Supreme Court appointed Michael Huston of Perkins Coie LLP to defend the Fourth Circuit's finding. Huston argued that a premature notice of appeal can be problematic because it divests the district court of jurisdiction and forces the Court of Appeals to send the case back so the process can get back on track.
"I am not saying this is an impossible problem to solve, but it should be discouraged," Huston said at oral arguments.
Justice Sotomayor said during the hearing that inmates would be particularly at risk of losing appellate rights on technical grounds because they often file by mail, instead of electronically. U.S. Postal Service delays and other factors could prevent them from filing a timely notice of appeal, as was the case for Parrish.
During the arguments, the justices had hinted that they would take up the broader question of how the rules should play out in similar cases, with Justice Brett Kavanaugh remarking it would "save everyone a little time."
In a statement Thursday, Parrish's lawyer, Amanda Rice of Jones Day, took note of the wide-ranging impact of the high court's ruling, calling it "important not only for Mr. Parrish, but also for other incarcerated pro se litigants facing mail delays and other obstacles in attempting to litigate their cases from behind bars."
"Thanks to the court's decision, those litigants won't be penalized for filing a notice of appeal before the appeal period is reopened," Rice added.
Parrish is represented by Amanda Rice of Jones Day.
The federal government is represented by Aimee Brown of the U.S. Solicitor General's Office.
The Fourth Circuit judgment is represented by Michael Huston of Perkins Coie LLP.
The case is Parrish v. U.S., case number 24-275, in the Supreme Court of the United States.
--Additional reporting by Elliot Weld.
Update: This story has been updated with additional information and a statement from the petitioner's attorney.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.
