The Supreme Court agreed on Friday to hear a case regarding the proper procedure for appealing a suit after the initial window for filing a notice closes and then is reopened, an issue largely affecting pro se litigants.

The justices said Friday they would hear the case of Donte Parrish, an inmate who did not immediately receive notice that his pro se lawsuit had been dismissed because he was being transferred.

Parrish alleges he was kept in a segregated area of the prison in which he was housed after a 2009 riot when the Federal Bureau of Prisons claimed he killed another inmate. Parrish denies the killing, and said he was kept in inhumane conditions for years as a result, but said the BOP vindicated him after almost eight years.

According to Parrish's Supreme Court petition, he sued in 2017, seeking compensation for that time, and his suit was dismissed by a federal judge in March 2020. Unbeknownst to the court, Parrish was being transferred from federal to state custody and did not receive notice of the dismissal until more than 90 days later, the petition says.

He filed a notice of appeal to the Fourth Circuit that explained the reason for the delay, which the court construed as a motion to reopen the appeal period, according to the petition. A district judge then reopened an appeal period for 14 days.

Both the government and Parrish agreed that his original notice of appeal had become effective, but the Fourth Circuit disagreed, and a divided panel tossed the case since he had not filed a new notice of appeal during the two-week window.

"Parrish is far from the only litigant affected by this issue," the petition said. "At least five appellate courts have addressed this issue in the last five years alone. And that count dramatically understates the number of cases affected."

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, conflicting with the Fourth Circuit's interpretation, according to the petition.

Pro se litigants are much more likely to receive untimely notices of judgment than those with attorneys, the petition also noted.

The Fourth Circuit's approach is wrong, according to the petition, since courts recognize notices of appeal that are filed before the appeal period opens as "ripening" once that period opens. There is also no functional reason to require that a second notice be filed, Parrish said, since once the initial notice is lodged, there is no doubt about who is appealing what.

Counsel for Parrish didn't immediately respond to requests for comment Friday.

Parrish is represented by Amanda Rice, Amanda Parker and Daniel Loesing of Jones Day.

Counsel information for the government wasn't immediately available Friday.

The case is Parrish v. United States, case number 24-275, in the Supreme Court of the United States.

--Editing by Melissa Treolo.