The Supreme Court is currently considering a procedural question that could significantly affect how appeals are handled when litigants miss filing deadlines due to delayed notice of judgment. In Parrish v. United States (No. 24-275), the Justices will decide whether a litigant who timely files a notice of appeal after the ordinary deadline—but before a district court formally reopens the appeal period—must later file a second, duplicative notice once the period is officially reopened.

The petitioner, Donte Parrish, is an incarcerated person who brought a civil suit against the federal government, alleging that he was unlawfully held in administrative segregation for three years. The district court dismissed his case in March 2020. However, Parrish did not receive notice of the dismissal until June 2020, at which point he promptly filed a notice of appeal.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2107(c), a district court may reopen the appeal period if a party did not receive notice of the judgment within 21 days of its entry. Non-governmental litigants ordinarily must file a notice of appeal within 30 days. Although Parrish’s initial filing was outside that window, the district court construed his filing as both a notice of appeal and an implicit motion to reopen the appeal period. The court granted the motion and afforded him 14 days to file a new notice of appeal. Rather than filing a second notice of appeal, Parrish submitted a supplemental brief. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed his appeal, holding that the failure to file a new notice within the reopened 14-day window was fatal. Now, before the Supreme Court is the question: when a litigant files a notice of appeal before the appeal period is formally reopened, must that litigant file another notice of appeal after the court grants the motion to reopen the appeal period?

During oral argument, several Justices expressed concerns about both statutory interpretation and the practical burdens imposed on litigants—particularly self-represented and incarcerated parties. Justice Thomas questioned whether Parrish’s original notice of appeal was untimely. Justice Jackson focused on the potential for courts to treat a motion to reopen and a premature notice of appeal as a single, valid filing. Justice Gorsuch raised the question of whether doctrines like “ripening” apply equally to judgments and reopened appeal periods. Justice Alito echoed those concerns, probing whether existing principles could be flexibly interpreted to accommodate the procedural posture of this case.

Justice Kavanaugh and Chief Justice Roberts addressed the interplay between procedural rules and the statute governing appeal timing, questioning whether the Court needed to interpret only 28 U.S.C. § 2107 or also the relevant Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Justice Kagan explored whether the solution lies with the Rules Committee, suggesting that a formal mechanism—such as allowing litigants to file a conditional or proposed notice of appeal alongside a motion to reopen—could streamline the process.

Justice Sotomayor raised a crucial access-to-justice issue, questioning the fairness of expecting incarcerated, unrepresented litigants to navigate complex procedural timelines, especially when they may not receive timely notice of court rulings. Although the advent of electronic filings and notification systems has mitigated this issue in many contexts, the outcome in Parrish may carry significant implications for unrepresented and prisoner litigants, who may not receive immediate notice of court judgments. The Court’s decision could clarify procedural expectations and potentially alleviate traps for the unwary in reopened appeal scenarios.

A decision is expected later this term. Dykema will continue to monitor the case and provide analysis of the Court’s forthcoming opinion.

For more information, please contact Chantel Febus, James Azadian, Kyle Asher, or Monika Harris.