BRUCETON MILLS, W.Va. — A federal appeals court on Oct. 19 revived a lawsuit filed by Donte Parrish, who alleges that federal prison officials held him in restrictive confinement for nearly three years, including 23 hours a day in lockdown, while a disciplinary accusation involving the killing of another incarcerated person remained unresolved.
The unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit vacated the dismissal of Parrish’s Federal Tort Claims Act lawsuit and returned the case to the district court for further proceedings.
Judge Paul V. Niemeyer wrote the opinion in Parrish v. United States, joined by Judges Roger L. Gregory and J. Harvie Wilkinson III’s successor on the panel, Judge A. Marvin Quattlebaum’s colleague, Judge Julius N. Richardson.
The ruling allows consideration of Parrish’s claims but does not establish that officials confined him unlawfully or that he is entitled to damages.
According to the opinion, the dispute began after incarcerated individuals killed Jimmy Lee Wilson at United States Penitentiary Hazelton on Dec. 6, 2009. A prison official reviewed video footage and issued an incident report accusing Parrish and four other incarcerated individuals of involvement in Wilson’s death.
The Bureau of Prisons referred the matter to the FBI and the U.S. Attorney’s Office and suspended its disciplinary process while federal investigators reviewed the incident.
Parrish alleges that despite the suspended proceedings, officials kept him separated from the general prison population from December 2009 until November 2012, nearly three years, while the disciplinary accusation remained unresolved.
According to the court’s account, Parrish returned to the general population after filing a grievance and administrative appeal challenging his continued confinement.
He subsequently alleged physical and mental injuries, racial harassment, restrictions on contact with family and friends, and denial of access to the courts.
Federal investigators and prosecutors decided not to pursue criminal charges in June 2015. Prison officials subsequently resumed disciplinary proceedings and initially found Parrish responsible for the alleged offenses.
Following an administrative appeal, the disciplinary finding was returned for rehearing in June 2016.
At the rehearing on Jan. 25, 2017, a disciplinary hearing officer found insufficient evidence that Parrish had committed a prohibited act and expunged the incident report from his disciplinary record.
Parrish sought $5 million in damages through claims including false imprisonment, abuse of process, negligence, malicious prosecution and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
He filed his federal lawsuit in April or May 2017, with the precise filing date becoming a disputed procedural issue.
The district court dismissed his claims, finding that some were filed after the applicable deadline and others had not been properly presented to the Bureau of Prisons before litigation.
The case subsequently reached the U.S. Supreme Court after the Fourth Circuit initially concluded in 2023 that it lacked jurisdiction because Parrish had filed his notice of appeal too late.
In 2025, the Supreme Court reversed that decision, holding that Parrish’s notice of appeal became effective when the district court reopened the time for filing an appeal. The case returned to the Fourth Circuit for consideration of his claims.
In its October 2026 ruling, the Fourth Circuit rejected the district court’s determination that Parrish’s lawsuit was untimely, applying principles established in the Supreme Court’s decision in Heck v. Humphrey.
Under those principles, certain damages claims challenging unlawful confinement do not accrue until the underlying conviction or disciplinary finding has been invalidated.
The Fourth Circuit concluded that Parrish’s claims did not accrue until Jan. 25, 2017, at the earliest, when the disciplinary accusation was expunged.
Because Parrish filed his lawsuit within six months of that date, the court determined that his complaint was timely regardless of whether it was filed in April or May.
The appeals court also found that at least some of Parrish’s claims had satisfied administrative exhaustion requirements but directed the district court to determine whether the remaining claims had been properly exhausted.
The allegations concern Parrish’s prolonged placement in administrative detention, a classification considered nonpunitive under federal prison regulations, as opposed to disciplinary segregation imposed as punishment following a prohibited act.
Federal regulations establish periodic review requirements for administrative detention, including an initial records review within three workdays, a hearing within seven calendar days, weekly records reviews and additional hearings every 30 days.
The appellate court did not determine whether prison officials complied with those requirements during Parrish’s confinement.
The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings without deciding whether Parrish’s confinement was unlawful.
To comment please go to one of these social media platforms:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/DavisVanguard
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/peoples-vanguard-of-davis-inc/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/davisvanguard/
X: https://x.com/davisvanguard
Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/vanguardnewsgroup.bsky.social
Subscribe to the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
