The court heard the appeal of Donte Parrish, who filed a notice of appeal too late because he did not receive timely notice that a judge had dismissed his suit alleging harsh treatment in prison. Parrish got the court to reopen the appeal window but didn't file a new notice, believing that his first filing sufficed.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson suggested the Fourth Circuit panel got it wrong when it tossed the appeal in a divided ruling.
"What I keep coming back to is what happens in district courts every day when people file late," Justice Jackson said. "Let's say it's a motion or a brief, and they have a motion for an extension of time attached to it, it comes in together. When the court grants the motion, the clerk dockets the brief."
She added, "These things arrived at the same time, which is sort of what's happening here."
In his underlying suit, Parrish claims he was kept in a segregated area of the prison where he was housed following a 2009 riot in which he was accused by the Federal Bureau of Prisons of having killed another inmate.
Parrish denied the killing and said he was kept for eight years in inhumane conditions before being vindicated by the BOP. He sued seeking compensation for that time, 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 the Fourth Circuit subsequently threw the case out because Parrish did not file a new notice of appeal within the two-week window.
The government has sided with Parrish, and the Supreme Court appointed Michael Huston of Perkins Coie LLP to defend the Fourth Circuit's finding.
On Monday, Justice Jackson acknowledged that Parrish "messed up" by filing a notice of appeal instead of a motion to reopen the case, but the 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?''' the justice asked Huston.
Huston replied that the rules are clear and in place for practical reasons.
"This is a situation that has played out in the real world: false-start appeals and misunderstandings about the docketing and processing of appeal," Huston said. "If you file a premature notice of appeal, it divests the district court of jurisdiction. The court of appeals has to send it back, and then we have to put the appeal back on track."
"I am not saying this is an impossible problem to solve, but it should be discouraged," Huston added.
The justices hinted that they would take up the broader question of how the rules should play out in similar cases, with Justice Brett Kavanaugh pointing out that it would "save everyone a little time."
Justice Sonia Sotomayor said inmates would be particularly at risk of losing appellate rights on technical grounds due to the fact that they often file by mail, instead of electronically, and U.S. Postal Service delays and other factors could prevent them from filing a timely notice of appeal, as was the case for Parrish.
Justice Sotomayor said the Third, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth and Tenth circuits do not require a litigant to file a new notice of appeal in a situation like Parrish's.
"It's a pretty straightforward rule. Every other circuit has it," she said. "It's pretty clear when the process starts."
Amanda Rice of Jones Day, representing Parrish, pointed out that even the government agrees that Parrish's original notice of appeal should suffice.
The U.S. Solicitor General's Office filed a brief urging the court to overturn the appellate panel and participated in oral arguments in Parrish's corner.
"I think there is a very commonsense understanding here that something that comes in too early should not be treated the same as something that comes in too late," said Aimee Brown, representing the federal government.
As Justice Sotomayor pressed Huston, she stopped at one point, recalling the circumstances under which the attorney was before the court on Monday.
"I know, you were appointed," the justice said, drawing chuckles from the courtroom.
Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. praised Huston, telling him at the argument's conclusion that he had "ably discharged" his responsibility to defend the Fourth Circuit ruling.
"For that, we are grateful," the chief justice said.
The court took the case under advisement.
Rice said in a statement following the hearing that the Fourth Circuit ruling was not "consistent with longstanding practice and Supreme Court precedent."
"By refusing to accept Mr. Parrish's notice of appeal, the Fourth Circuit adopted a rule that will unfairly prevent pro se incarcerated litigants like Mr. Parrish from pursuing their appeals," she said.
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. Editing by Janice Carter Brown.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.
