605 U.S. 376 (2025) · 2025
Parrish v. United States
access to courtscivil procedureprison litigationappealspro se litigantsLandmark
Summary
Parrish held that a notice of appeal filed after the original deadline but before the district court grants reopening can relate forward to the reopened appeal period. The Court reversed the Fourth Circuit, which had required Parrish to file a second notice within the reopened 14-day window.
Background & Context
Parrish did not receive the district court's dismissal order until after the ordinary appeal deadline because he had been transferred between correctional facilities. He filed promptly when he received the order. The dispute became a technical but important question about appellate jurisdiction and the effect of reopening the time to appeal.
The Question Before the Court
When a litigant files a notice of appeal after the original deadline but before a district court reopens the appeal period, must the litigant file a second notice after reopening?
Petitioner
Donte Parrish
Party asking the Court to review or reverse
Argued
- The original notice should relate forward.
Respondent
United States
Party defending the judgment below
Argued
- The statute required a notice within the reopened period.
The Holding
A litigant who files a notice of appeal after the original appeal deadline but before a court grants reopening under 28 U.S.C. § 2107(c) does not need to file a second notice after reopening. The original notice relates forward to the date reopening is granted.
The Court
How the justices lined up in this decision.
8-1
Vote
Joined decision
6 justicesAC
Amy Barrett
Majority
BK
Brett Kavanaugh
Majority
EK
Elena Kagan
Majority
JR
John Roberts
Majority
SA
Samuel Alito
Majority
SS
Sonia Sotomayor
Majority
Concurred
2 justicesCT
Clarence Thomas
Concurred
KB
Ketanji Jackson
Concurred
Dissented
1 justiceNG
Neil Gorsuch
Dissent
What this means for you
The ruling matters for incarcerated people, pro se litigants, and anyone who receives court orders late. It prevents a technically early notice from destroying appellate review when everyone knows who is appealing, from what judgment, and to which court. The decision does not loosen jurisdictional deadlines generally; it applies to notices filed before the reopened window formally begins.
Key Takeaways
- A pre-reopening notice of appeal can relate forward after reopening is granted.
- A second notice is not required when the first notice is otherwise adequate.
- The decision protects litigants who receive judgments late.
- The case arose from a prisoner's civil damages suit over restrictive segregation.
- The ruling reverses a Fourth Circuit rule that created a trap for pro se litigants.
Decision
8-1 majority opinion
- Citation
- 605 U.S. 376 (2025)
- Vote
- 8-1
- Decision type
- Majority opinion
- Argued
- April 21, 2025
- Decided
- June 12, 2025
- Term
- 2024
- Opinion author
- Sonia Sotomayor
Justice Sotomayor wrote the Court's opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Kagan, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Justice Jackson concurred in the judgment, joined by Justice Thomas. Justice Gorsuch dissented.