145 S.Ct. 1664
U.S.2025Background
- Donte Parrish, a federal inmate, was placed in restrictive confinement for 23 months after being suspected (but later cleared) of involvement in another inmate’s death.
- Parrish’s disciplinary record was eventually expunged; he then filed suit seeking damages for wrongful confinement.
- The District Court dismissed Parrish’s claims, some as untimely and some as unexhausted, and entered judgment on March 23, 2020.
- Parrish, having been transferred shortly before, received the dismissal order only after more than three months and promptly filed a notice of appeal, explaining the delay.
- The Court of Appeals construed his late notice as a motion to reopen under 28 U.S.C. §2107(c); the District Court granted a 14-day reopened appeal period, but Parrish did not file a new (second) notice.
- The Fourth Circuit held that his failure to file a new notice after reopening deprived it of jurisdiction, creating a circuit split on the issue.
Issues
| Issue | Parrish’s Argument | U.S. Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a notice of appeal filed before a reopening order must be refiled after reopening to confer appellate jurisdiction | Notice of appeal should relate forward; no second notice needed | Original notice sufficient; procedural nicety unnecessary | No second notice necessary; original notice relates forward |
Key Cases Cited
- Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007) (timely notice of appeal is jurisdictional)
- Astoria Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v. Solimino, 501 U.S. 104 (1991) (statutes operate against background of common law)
- Becker v. Montgomery, 532 U.S. 757 (2001) (no technical dismissal if intent to appeal is clear)
- Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244 (1992) (documents may serve as both brief and notice of appeal)
- FirsTier Mortgage Co. v. Investors Mortgage Ins. Co., 498 U.S. 269 (1991) (premature notices of appeal may relate forward)
- Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962) (decisions should be based on merits, not technicalities)