We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

NOTICE OF APPEAL – NICE, BUT YOU DON’T HAVE TO FILE IT TWICE

The Supreme Court a week ago reinstated a suit filed by a federal inmate that alleged that he was wrongfully kept in the USP Hazleton Special Housing Unit (a 23-hour-a-day lockdown that is often solitary confinement) for nearly two years.

In an 8-1 decision, the Court ruled that when Donte Parrish missed his deadline to file a notice of appeal after the district court threw out his case, he didn’t need to file a second notice of appeal after the trial court reopened it.

It should have been obvious. Alas, it took eight Supreme Court justices to say it. Yet, as Slate put it, “In this country, law does not always extinguish a claim with force. Sometimes it does so with paperwork.”

In 2009, Donte was placed in the SHU for 23 months after being found guilty of a -100 series incident report. After an appeal, prison officials expunged the shot, conceding that he hadn’t committed the infraction. Danny then sued seeking money damages for wrongful confinement in the SHU all those months.

The district court entered an order dismissing the case on March 23, 2020. The very next day (well before he would have gotten a copy of the dismissal order in the mail), Donte got shipped. The dismissal order didn’t catch up to him for 90 days, by which time he was well past the 60-day period for filing a notice of appeal provided for by Rule 4(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

On July 8, Donte sent a letter to the district court explaining the delay and attaching a notice of appeal. The district court interpreted his letter as a motion to reopen the time to file an appeal and granted it.

However, after the reopening of the time to file, Donte – who thought his prior notice of appeal was all that was required to perfect his right to go to the 4th Circuit – did not file a new notice of appeal. The Circuit ruled that when the district court reopened the time to appeal, Donte should have filed another notice that he intended to appeal. Because he did not, the Circuit ruled, it lacked jurisdiction to review his case.

Last Thursday, the Supreme Court reversed. Writing for the Court, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the text of the statute governing appeals “makes clear” that if a litigant files a notice of appeal after the reopened period has closed, it is late. But the law does not prevent an appeals court from hearing a case where – as here – the notice of appeal is filed early.

That’s what Donte really did, Justice Sotomayor reasoned. He filed a notice of appeal late – after the first period to do so had closed – but when the district court reopened the filing period (which it may do under 28 USC § 2107 and Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(5)), what had been filed late could do double duty as a notice of appeal that was filed early.

Justice Sotomayor wrote:

This Court has long emphasized that “‘the purpose of pleading is to facilitate a proper decision on the merits.’” Accordingly, “imperfections  in noticing an appeal should not be fatal where no genuine doubt exists about who is appealing, from what judgment, to which appellate court.

Even the government conceded that “it was perfectly clear after Dan’s first notice that he intended to appeal his case’s dismissal. Sending another notice would amount to nothing more than ‘empty paper shuffling.’”

Captain Obvious, striking down needless elevation of form over substance.

Donte’s lawyer said that the ruling is important for “incarcerated pro se litigants facing mail delays and other obstacles in attempting to litigate their cases from behind bars. Thanks to the Court’s decision, those litigants won’t be penalized for filing a notice of appeal before the appeal period is reopened.”

Parrish v. United States, Case No. 24-275, 2025 U.S. LEXIS 2280, 2025 LX 193678 (June 12, 2025)

Slate, A Criminal Defendant’s Case So Messed Up It United Clarence Thomas and KBJ (June 16)

– Thomas L. Root