Summary
This Supreme Court opinion addresses whether a litigant who files a notice of appeal after the original deadline but before a district court grants reopening under 28 U.S.C. § 2107(c) must file a second notice after reopening. The Court held that no second notice is required, as the initial premature filing relates forward to the date the reopening order is entered. Relying on longstanding common-law principles and the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, the Court reversed the Fourth Circuit's dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a litigant who files a notice of appeal after the original appeal deadline but before the court grants reopening must file a second notice after reopening.
Holdings
- A litigant who files a notice of appeal after the original appeal deadline but before the court grants reopening need not file a second notice after reopening. The original notice relates forward to the date reopening is granted.
Key quotations
“A litigant who files a notice of appeal after the original appeal deadline but before the court grants reopening need not file a second notice after reopening. The original notice relates forward to the date reopening is granted.” (at 376)
“The technical defect of prematurity should not be allowed to extinguish an otherwise proper appeal.” (at 376)
Factual background
Donte Parrish, a federal inmate, was placed in restrictive segregation for 23 months after being suspected of involvement in another inmate's death. He was later cleared of wrongdoing. He sued the United States for damages arising from that confinement. The district court dismissed his suit as untimely and unexhausted. After the dismissal order reached him weeks later, Parrish filed a notice of appeal beyond the 60‑day deadline but before the court granted a reopening of the appeal period.
Procedural history
District Court dismissed Parrish's damages suit for untimeliness and unexhausted claims. The Fourth Circuit treated Parrish's late notice of appeal as a motion to reopen under 28 U.S.C. §2107(c) and held that a second notice was required, depriving the circuit of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve whether a second notice is required after reopening.
Remand instructions
The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.