SCOTUS Stops Fourth Circuit from Tossing Federal Prisoner’s Appeal on Technicality
by Chuck Sharman
A federal prisoner filed a Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) complaint against the federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), which the district court dismissed. Before he got notice of the dismissal, the prisoner was transferred. By the time the notice caught up with him, his appeal window had closed. He filed a notice of appeal with an explanation, which the Circuit Court of Appeals construed as a motion to reopen the case and remanded. But after the district court reopened the case, the Circuit Court cited the prisoner’s failure to file another notice of appeal within 14 days; since he didn’t, the appellate court said it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed his appeal.
Sounds ridiculous, right? On June 12, 2025, the Supreme Court of the U.S. (SCOTUS) agreed. In an 8-1 decision, the high Court said that a prisoner filing a late notice of appeal need not refile the notice after the district court reopens his case. The applicable statute, 28 U.S.C.S. § 2107(c), “makes clear” that the notice of appeal cannot be accepted until the case is reopened, but it “says nothing about whether such prematurity should be given jurisdictional consequences.”
The prisoner in this case, Donte Parrish, was incarcerated in 2009 at the U.S. Penitentiary (USP) in Hazelton, West Virginia, when he was accused in the murder of a fellow prisoner. At the time, USP-Hazelton was freshly inaugurated as the BOP’s first prison entirely operated as a Special Management Unit (SMU) for holding the highest-security prisoners. Parrish was thrown into isolation.
There he remained for 23 hours a day for almost two years before the investigation into his involvement in the murder was closed with no charges, and he was released from isolation. At no point did he get a hearing on the disciplinary charges that put him there. In fact, it was 2015 before a hearing finally was held. It took a second hearing and an appeal, but eventually the disciplinary confinement was expunged from his prison record, and a hearing officer agreed that he had committed “no prohibited act.”
2017: Legal Saga Begins
Parrish filed his complaint pro se in 2017, accusing BOP officials of false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence and abuse. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia dismissed all the claims on March 23, 2020. The next day, the BOP transferred Parrish to state custody for separate matter, and the notice of dismissal from the federal court didn’t reach him until June 25—well after the 60-day window to file an appeal had closed.
Parrish then filed a notice of appeal on July 8, attaching a letter explaining the circumstances. Quoting Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit said that “the district court may reopen the time to file an appeal for a 14-day period if: (1) the movant did not receive proper notice of the entry of the judgment within 21 days after entry; (2) the motion to reopen the appeal period is filed within 180 days after the judgment is entered … or within 14 days after the movant receives proper notice of the entry, whichever is earlier; and (3) no party would be prejudiced.” It then remanded the case.
Back at the district court, Parrish’s notice was construed as a motion to reopen the case and granted on January 8, 2021. Citing the same Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure, the district court reopened the time for Parrish to file his appeal for 14 days. But his next filing was not docketed until January 28, “five days after the 14-day period had closed,” the Fourth Circuit noted. Since he had not filed a new notice of appeal within that window, the appellate Court said that it lacked jurisdiction to hear his appeal and closed the case on July 17, 2023.
2025: Saga Continues
Parrish asked SCOTUS for a writ of certiorari to hear the case, which was granted. It then vacated the Fourth Circuit’s decision, finding that the notice of appeal “related forward to the date of the district court’s reopening order”—meaning it was merely early. Quoting Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962), Justice Sonya Sotomayor wrote for the majority that “the purpose of pleading is to facilitate a proper decision on the merits”; therefore “imperfections … in noticing an appeal should not be fatal where no genuine doubt exists about who is appealing, from what judgment, to which appellate court,” Sotomayor continued, quoting Becker v. Montgomery, 532 U. S. 757 (2001).
“Consistent with that core principle,” the Court added, “the technical defect of prematurity … should not be allowed to extinguish an otherwise proper appeal,” as quoted from FirsTier Mortgage Co. v. Investors Mortgage Ins. Co., 498 U. S. 269 (1991). Rather, “an adequate but premature notice of appeal ‘relates forward to the entry of the document that renders an appeal possible,’” the Court continued, quoting Federal Practice and Procedure §3950.5, p. 453 (5th ed. 2019).
Parrish’s “single notice of appeal” was sufficient to convey jurisdiction to the Fourth Circuit because, though it came too late “with respect to the original appeal window,” it was “merely premature” regarding the 14-day “reopening period.” Moreover, the filing “otherwise provided ample notice to all involved.” The case was therefore remanded for the Fourth Circuit to consider Parrish’s appeal.
The case remains open, and PLN will continue to monitor and report developments. Before SCOTUS, Virginia attorney Amanda G. Rice argued the case for Parrish. See: Parrish v. United States, 605 U.S. 376 (2025).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Parrish v. United States
| Year | 2025 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 605 U.S. 376 (2025) |
| Level | Supreme Court |