Parrish v. United States, Docket No. 24-275

Listen to the episode on Spotify

When a door closes only to be cracked open again, does your first knock still count? In Parrish v. United States, the Court said it does. A man filed his notice of appeal after the official deadline but before a judge agreed to reopen the time limit. He never filed a second notice. The Fourth Circuit said that meant his case was off the table. But the Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, held that the original notice reaches forward to the moment the court reopens the clock, so no new filing is needed. Chief Justice Roberts and four others agreed, while Justice Neil Gorsuch disagreed in dissent. This subtle shift in timing rules shows how a small wrinkle in court procedures can make all the difference.

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Inmate's Appeal Rights

Donte Parrish, a federal inmate, spent 23 months in segregated confinement based on suspicions of involvement in another prisoner's death. After administrative hearings cleared him of misconduct, Parrish sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act for wrongful disciplinary confinement. The District Court dismissed portions of his suit on March 23, 2020. Parrish, by then transferred to state custody, did not receive that judgment until June 25, 2020, and filed a notice of appeal immediately upon receipt—well after the standard 60-day deadline. The Fourth Circuit recharacterized his late filing as a motion to reopen the appeal window, which the District Court granted for 14 days. However, Parrish did not file a new notice during this reopened period. The Fourth Circuit held it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed his appeal.

Opinion of the Court

Justice Sotomayor, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Kagan, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, reversed the Fourth Circuit's decision. The Court held that a notice of appeal filed after the original window but before a reopening order is not "late" with respect to the reopened period but merely "premature." Under long-standing legal precedent dating back to the 1800s, a premature but adequate notice "relates forward" to the date the court makes the appeal possible. The Court observed that the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure codify this principle and that nothing in the rules or their purpose of ensuring "just, speedy, and inexpensive determination" suggests otherwise. Accordingly, Parrish's single filing was sufficient to establish jurisdiction for his appeal.

Separate Opinions

Justice Jackson, joined by Justice Thomas, concurred only in the judgment. They agreed that Parrish's appeal should proceed but based their reasoning on different grounds. In their view, Parrish's original submission functioned simultaneously as a reopening motion and as the proposed notice of appeal. Once the District Court granted reopening, that filing should simply have been docketed as a timely notice, eliminating the need for any second filing.

Dissenting Opinions

Justice Gorsuch dissented, arguing that the Supreme Court should not have decided the case at all. He would have dismissed the petition, noting that the Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules has already begun studying potential amendments to the relevant rule. In his view, resolving this question through the rulemaking process—rather than judicial decision—would better respect the separation of powers and avoid interfering with the Committee's work.

When Early Appeal Notices Can Still Be Valid

At the heart of this case is whether an appeal notice filed too early can automatically become valid when a court reopens the appeal window. The Court ruled that when someone files an appeal notice before a court officially reopens the appeal period, that early filing isn't invalid—it simply "ripens" once the court grants the extension. This builds on a well-established legal tradition that premature notices can "relate forward" to the moment they become proper, as long as no party is harmed by this approach. The Court found that federal rules support this principle and that requiring a duplicate filing would create unnecessary procedural hurdles, particularly for those without legal representation. This ruling ensures that technical timing issues won't prevent people from having their appeals heard, especially when delays in receiving court decisions are beyond their control.