Parrish v. United States

Parrish v. United States

What’s at Stake

People who bring legal cases or appeal court decisions “pro se” (without an attorney) face arcane procedural processes that can result in their cases being dismissed on technicalities. This is especially true for people who are working on their own appeals while they are incarcerated. In this case—which was initiated by a pro se litigant who was incarcerated—Public Justice encouraged the U.S. Supreme Court to interpret a federal appellate rule in the same way that most federal courts of appeals and pro se litigants already did. The rule had to do with whether a litigant must file a second, duplicative notice of appeal if their case was reopened after filing an untimely first notice. Though it sounds technical or even trivial, procedural rules—and how courts interpret them—are the difference between a chance to appeal and a dead end.

The U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision agreeing that a second notice is not required on June 12, 2025.

Summary

Donte Parrish filed a Federal Tort Claims Act lawsuit because he was caged in “administrative” segregation for multiple years for a jailhouse offense he alleged he did not commit. The district court dismissed his case on exhaustion and statute-of-limitations grounds. When the district court issued the final judgment, Donte was transferred from federal to state custody and, as a result, he did not receive the court’s order dismissing the case until almost three months later. Within two weeks of receiving the order, Donte prepared and filed a notice of appeal. Although there is a 60-day deadline from final judgment to file a notice of appeal, a district court may reopen the time to appeal for 14 days if (1) the litigant did not receive notice of the judgment within 21 days, (2) the litigant promptly moves for reopening, and (3) no party would be prejudiced.

The Fourth Circuit remanded Dante’s notice of appeal to the district court to determine if he satisfied the three requirements for reopening. The district court concluded that he did and the time for an appeal should be reopened in the Fourth Circuit. When his case returned to the Fourth Circuit, Dante did not file a second notice of appeal, believing the now-resolved first notice was active and valid. However, this time the Fourth Circuit incorrectly concluded that Dante should have filed a second notice of appeal when the case reopened and dismissed his case.

Core Legal Issues

Dante is not alone. Pro se litigants—particularly incarcerated pro se litigants—frequently experience mail delays in receiving important court documents. While lawyers typically have quick access to court filings, people who represent themselves do not. As a result, pro se litigants frequently file “untimely” notices of appeal in circumstances that warrant and allow for reopening.

Frequently, Courts of Appeals will treat these untimely notices of appeal as motions to reopen and ask district courts rule on them accordingly, taking into consideration the three factors mentioned above. That is what the Fourth Circuit also did here. If the reopening is granted by the district court, pro se litigants usually do not file a second notice of appeal within the 14-day reopening window. Instead, they simply assume that their initial notice of appeal—now validated by the reopening ruling—is sufficient. Most circuits already agreed with this approach and, notably, the government—the defendant being sued in this case—admitted that Dante did not need to file a second notice. The Fourth Circuit’s opinion holding otherwise was an outlier. Among other things, it reasoned that because Dante’s initial notice of appeal had been treated as a “motion to reopen,” after reopening it could not still serve its original purpose as a notice of appeal, so a second, duplicative notice should’ve been filed.

In our brief, we underscored the mountain of obstacles incarcerated pro se litigants must climb for even a chance that their case will be heard. Donte Parrish saw his case through most of those obstacles, only to see it end on the Fourth Circuit’s outlier “second filing” requirement. We urged the Court to instead adopt a “straightforward, intuitive rule that can be readily applied in every case.”

We’re happy to share that on June 12, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Fourth Circuit’s decision.



C.C.P.A.
Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.