Gunter v. Oklahoma: Tenth Circuit Reaffirms Strict Appellate Deadlines, Waiver-by-Inadequate-Briefing, and the Limits of Post‑Judgment Motions

Case: Gunter v. State of Oklahoma, et al., Nos. 24‑6049, 24‑6069, 24‑6070, 24‑6078, 24‑6079, 24‑6080 (10th Cir. Mar. 25, 2025) — unpublished Order and Judgment (persuasive authority only)

Introduction

This consolidated appeal arises from a pro se challenge to state-court child-custody related proceedings involving a minor, A.K.G. The plaintiffs—grandmother Melissa Gunter, father Austin Gunter, and uncle Aaron VanBuskirk—sued a wide array of state and federal entities and officials, including the State of Oklahoma, the City of Shawnee, the U.S. Department of the Treasury, the U.S. Department of the Interior, state judges, prosecutors, child welfare workers, and others. After the district court dismissed their sprawling amended complaint and denied later post-judgment motions, the plaintiffs appealed.

The Tenth Circuit dismissed three appeals for lack of appellate jurisdiction because the notices of appeal were untimely and affirmed the district court’s denial of post‑judgment relief in the remaining appeals. Along the way, the court reinforced several bedrock civil‑procedure principles: (1) appellate deadlines are jurisdictional and are not tolled by untimely Rule 59(e) motions; (2) Rule 60(b) relief is extraordinary and requires developed, legally cognizable grounds; (3) issues not adequately briefed on appeal are waived; (4) a motion for class certification filed after final judgment is procedurally improper; and (5) pro se litigants cannot represent others (including minors) and must comply with Rule 8 pleading standards and Rule 11 signature requirements.

Summary of the Opinion

Jurisdictional defect — untimely notices of appeal: The court dismissed appeals Nos. 24‑6049, 24‑6069, and 24‑6070 because the notices of appeal were filed after the 60‑day deadline that applies when a federal agency or officer is a party. An untimely Rule 59(e) motion did not toll the appeal time.
Affirmance of post‑judgment rulings: In Nos. 24‑6078, 24‑6079, and 24‑6080, the court affirmed the district court’s denial of (a) Rule 60(b) relief (no abuse of discretion and arguments waived on appeal), (b) a post‑judgment motion for class certification (procedurally improper after final judgment and inadequately briefed on appeal), and (c) a motion to reopen and extend the appeal deadline (any challenge waived on appeal).
Other disposition: The court denied the appellants’ request to consolidate the minor’s state‑court guardianship case with the federal appeal.

Case Background and Procedural History

Initial filing and party issues: The district court dismissed Austin Gunter and Aaron VanBuskirk because they had not signed the complaint and because Melissa Gunter appeared to assert claims on their behalf. The court also dismissed the minor, A.K.G., because she was unrepresented by counsel.
Rule 8 order to amend: The court directed Ms. Gunter, then the only proper plaintiff, to file an amended complaint due to pervasive Rule 8 deficiencies (unclear claims, defendants, and facts).
Amended complaint and dismissal: Plaintiffs filed a signed, 425‑page amended complaint. On December 19, 2023, the district court dismissed the case and entered judgment, citing persistent Rule 8 failures, irrelevant allegations, and indiscernible or meritless requests (including class certification and unspecified injunctive relief).
Untimely Rule 59(e) motion and stricken second amended complaint: On January 19, 2024 (31 days after judgment), Ms. Gunter moved under Rule 59(e) and tendered a second amended complaint. The court denied Rule 59(e) relief as untimely and struck the proposed pleading.
Notices of appeal from the judgment: Ms. Gunter filed on March 18, 2024; Austin Gunter and Aaron VanBuskirk filed on April 9, 2024.
Post‑judgment motions and April 11 order: The district court denied Rule 60(b) relief (no excusable neglect; no newly discovered evidence), struck the post‑judgment class certification motion as procedurally improper, and denied a motion to reopen and extend the appeal deadline as untimely.
Notices of appeal from the April 11 order: All three appellants filed on April 25, 2024.

Detailed Analysis

Precedents and Authorities Cited

Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007): A timely notice of appeal in a civil case is jurisdictional. The Tenth Circuit’s dismissal of the untimely appeals flows directly from Bowles.
28 U.S.C. § 2107(b); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B): When the United States or a federal agency/officer is a party, the notice‑of‑appeal deadline is 60 days from entry of judgment. Federal defendants (Treasury and Interior) triggered the longer period here.
Fed. R. App. P. 26(a)(1)(C): Time computation extends deadlines falling on weekends/holidays to the next business day; thus the February 20, 2024 cutoff.
Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A): Certain timely post‑judgment motions toll the appeal period; untimely motions do not.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e): A motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed within 28 days. Ms. Gunter filed on day 31; no tolling resulted.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b): Extraordinary relief for specific, narrowly defined grounds such as excusable neglect (60(b)(1)) and newly discovered evidence (60(b)(2)); reviewed for abuse of discretion and granted only in exceptional circumstances.
Havens v. Colo. Dep’t of Corr., 897 F.3d 1250 (10th Cir. 2018): Courts have an independent duty to confirm appellate jurisdiction.
Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836 (10th Cir. 2005): Pro se litigants must follow procedural rules like everyone else.
Fymbo v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 213 F.3d 1320 (10th Cir. 2000): A pro se litigant may pursue only her own claims, not those of others.
Mann v. Boatright, 477 F.3d 1140 (10th Cir. 2007): Even a guardian cannot sue on a minor’s behalf without counsel.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a): Requires signatures on pleadings by each unrepresented party; noncompliance undermines party status.
Eaton v. Pacheco, 931 F.3d 1009 (10th Cir. 2019): Abuse‑of‑discretion standard for Rule 59(e) rulings; reversal only for decisions that are arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable.
Lebahn v. Owens, 813 F.3d 1300 (10th Cir. 2016): Rule 60(b) relief is extraordinary; abuse‑of‑discretion standard governs.
United States v. Cooper, 654 F.3d 1104 (10th Cir. 2011): Issues inadequately briefed in the opening brief are waived.
Nixon v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 784 F.3d 1364 (10th Cir. 2015): The appellant must explain why the district court erred.
Kelley v. City of Albuquerque, 542 F.3d 802 (10th Cir. 2008): Perfunctory error allegations that fail to develop an argument do not invoke appellate review.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8: Requires a short and plain statement of the claim; the district court criticized the 425‑page amended complaint as prolix and unclear.

Legal Reasoning

1) Appellate jurisdiction turns on a timely notice of appeal

Because federal agencies (Treasury and Interior) were named, the 60‑day clock applied. The district court entered final judgment on December 19, 2023. Accounting for a weekend and the Presidents’ Day federal holiday, the deadline to notice an appeal was February 20, 2024. Ms. Gunter filed on March 18, and the two other appellants filed on April 9—both after the jurisdictional cutoff. Under Bowles, the Tenth Circuit lacked authority to reach the merits and had to dismiss the three appeals from the judgment.

Although Ms. Gunter filed a Rule 59(e) motion on January 19, it was late by three days. Only timely motions listed in Rule 4(a)(4)(A) suspend the appeal clock. The district court denied the 59(e) motion as untimely; the Tenth Circuit found no abuse of discretion and held the motion did not toll the deadline. No other tolling basis applied.

2) Rule 60(b) relief is extraordinary; undeveloped appellate arguments are waived

The district court read Ms. Gunter’s Rule 60(b) motion as invoking excusable neglect (Rule 60(b)(1)) and newly discovered evidence (Rule 60(b)(2)). It rejected excusable neglect based on pro se status, reiterating that self‑representation does not excuse noncompliance with procedural rules. It also found no newly discovered evidence and no nexus between any purported new material and the Rule 8 pleading defects that caused dismissal.

On appeal, the appellants did not develop any argument attacking the Rule 60(b) ruling. The Tenth Circuit deemed the issue waived under Cooper, Nixon, and Kelley and affirmed. Even on the merits, the district court’s application of the “extraordinary circumstances” standard to these asserted grounds was well within its discretion, consistent with Lebahn.

3) Post‑judgment class certification motions are procedurally improper

Ms. Gunter filed a class certification motion three months after final judgment. The district court struck it as procedurally improper. The Tenth Circuit agreed: once a case is dismissed and judgment entered, there is no live case for class certification unless the judgment is vacated or set aside. Moreover, the court had previously explained that the plaintiffs’ allegations did not support class treatment. On appeal, Ms. Gunter offered no developed argument showing error; the issue was therefore waived and the striking was affirmed.

4) Requests to reopen or extend appeal deadlines must be timely, and challenges must be briefed

The district court denied the appellants’ motion to reopen and extend the appeal time as untimely. The appellants’ opening brief did not challenge that denial, resulting in waiver under Cooper. The Tenth Circuit affirmed without reaching the merits.

5) Pro se litigants’ structural limitations and Rule 8 compliance

The opinion underscores three recurring pro se constraints: (a) a pro se party cannot litigate the rights of others (Fymbo); (b) minors cannot proceed without licensed counsel (Mann); and (c) each unrepresented party must sign pleadings (Rule 11(a)). The district court applied these rules early in the case, dismissing non‑signing adult parties and the unrepresented minor, then insisted on an amended complaint that complied with Rule 8’s short-and-plain-statement requirement. The plaintiffs’ 425‑page amended filing, laden with immaterial matter and unclear remedies, failed those standards, warranting dismissal.

Impact and Implications

Heightened attention to jurisdictional deadlines: Gunter is a cautionary reminder that the notice‑of‑appeal deadline is jurisdictional and unforgiving. Litigants cannot rely on late Rule 59(e) motions to preserve appellate rights.
Careful selection of post‑judgment tools: Rule 60(b) cannot cure Rule 59(e) untimeliness absent exceptional, well‑supported grounds. Bare pro se status and unconnected “new evidence” will not suffice.
Briefing discipline on appeal: The Tenth Circuit will deem inadequately developed arguments waived. Appellants must squarely address how and why each challenged ruling was erroneous.
Procedure first, merits later: Courts will enforce Rule 8’s clarity requirement and Rule 11’s signature mandate even in emotionally charged cases, including family‑related disputes with sweeping defendant lists.
Class certification timing: Class motions filed after final judgment are out of sequence and subject to being struck. Plaintiffs seeking class treatment should raise and support Rule 23 issues while the case is live.
Federal–state separation of proceedings: Denying consolidation of a state guardianship case with a federal appeal underscores the jurisdictional separation between state proceedings and federal appellate processes.
Persuasive, not precedential: This unpublished Order and Judgment is not binding (except as law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel) but may be cited for its persuasive value under Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Jurisdictional notice‑of‑appeal deadline: This is a hard deadline to file a notice of appeal. If you miss it, the appellate court cannot hear your case, no matter how compelling your arguments. When the United States or its agency/officer is a party, you have 60 days from the entry of judgment.
Rule 59(e) vs. Rule 60(b): Rule 59(e) lets a party ask the district court to alter or amend the judgment within 28 days; if timely, it pauses the deadline to appeal. Rule 60(b) is a separate, extraordinary remedy for specific, limited reasons (e.g., excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence), and it does not extend the appeal deadline unless it falls into the narrow tolling rules and is timely under those rules.
Waiver by inadequate briefing: On appeal, you must explain why the lower court erred. If you don’t develop an argument (with record citations and legal authority), the appellate court treats the issue as waived.
Rule 8 pleading standard: Complaints must be clear and concise: who did what, when, and why that violates the law. Lengthy, unfocused filings with irrelevant material risk dismissal.
Pro se limits and representation of minors: Individuals may represent themselves but not others. A child must appear through licensed counsel. Each self‑represented party must personally sign court papers.
Class certification timing: Class status is considered while the case is ongoing. After final judgment, a class motion is ordinarily moot or procedurally improper unless the judgment is set aside.
Holiday/weekend time computation: If a filing deadline lands on a weekend or federal holiday, it rolls to the next business day.

Conclusion

The Tenth Circuit’s decision in Gunter delivers a procedural roadmap rather than a merits ruling. It reinforces that appellate time limits are jurisdictional, that untimely Rule 59(e) motions do not toll the appeal clock, and that Rule 60(b) is no substitute for punctuality and properly presented arguments. It also reiterates three familiar, but often misunderstood, points: pro se status confers no license to disregard procedural rules; post‑judgment class certification motions are out of sequence; and appellate courts will not consider issues that are inadequately briefed.

For litigants—especially those proceeding without counsel—the message is clear: comply scrupulously with deadlines, ensure each party’s proper representation and signatures, plead with clarity under Rule 8, and brief appellate issues with precision. Substantive grievances cannot be heard until procedural gateways are satisfied. Although unpublished and non‑precedential, Gunter will likely be cited for its crisp application of these bedrock principles in the Tenth Circuit.

Note: This commentary is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.