Introduction

In this nonprecedential order and judgment, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit dismissed three consolidated appeals for lack of appellate jurisdiction and affirmed the denial of several post-judgment motions. The case stems from a high-conflict dispute surrounding the custody of A.K.G., a minor child, and a sprawling federal civil action brought by members of the child’s paternal family: Melissa Gunter (grandmother), Austin Gunter (father), and Aaron VanBuskirk (uncle).

After the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma dismissed the amended complaint for serious Rule 8 deficiencies and entered judgment, the plaintiffs attempted to revive the action through late-filed post-judgment motions and belated notices of appeal. Because the notices of appeal were filed after the jurisdictional deadline, the Tenth Circuit dismissed the merits appeals. It then affirmed the district court’s post-judgment rulings (denying Rule 60(b) relief, striking a post-judgment class certification motion, and denying a motion to reopen/extend the appeal deadline), largely on waiver and procedural grounds.

Panel: Judges Phillips, Carson, and Federico. Decision Date: March 25, 2025. Docket Nos.: 24-6049, 24-6069, 24-6070, 24-6078, 24-6079, 24-6080.

Summary of the Opinion

• The court dismissed the merits appeals (Nos. 24-6049, 24-6069, and 24-6070) for lack of appellate jurisdiction because the notices of appeal were filed outside the 60-day deadline applicable when federal agencies are parties. An untimely Rule 59(e) motion did not toll the deadline.
• The court affirmed the district court’s April 11, 2024 order (Nos. 24-6078, 24-6079, 24-6080), which:
  • Denied Rule 60(b) relief. On appeal, the appellants did not develop any argument showing abuse of discretion, resulting in waiver.
  • Struck a post-judgment motion for class certification as procedurally improper because the case had already been dismissed; the appellate briefing again was perfunctory and waived.
  • Denied a motion to reopen and extend the appeal deadline; appellants did not brief any challenge to that ruling on appeal, resulting in waiver.
• The court denied a motion to consolidate the minor’s state-court guardianship matter with the federal appeal.
• Notably, the panel reiterated: (i) timeliness of a notice of appeal in civil cases is jurisdictional; (ii) pro se status does not excuse noncompliance with rules; and (iii) unrepresented minors cannot litigate without counsel.
• Precedential effect: The order “is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel,” but may be cited for persuasive value.

Procedural Background

The district court initially dismissed Austin Gunter and Aaron VanBuskirk because they did not sign the complaint and Ms. Gunter appeared to be asserting claims on their behalf, contrary to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(a) and Tenth Circuit precedent limiting pro se representation to one’s own claims. The court also dismissed the minor, A.K.G., as a party because she lacked counsel.

The court then directed Ms. Gunter (as sole plaintiff) to replead to satisfy Rule 8. Plaintiffs filed a 425-page amended complaint, this time signed by all three adults. The district court found the amended pleading noncompliant with Rule 8, characterizing it as excessively long and replete with allegations and citations bearing no discernible relation to the claims or defendants, and entered judgment on December 19, 2023.

Ms. Gunter filed a Rule 59(e) motion and another proposed amended complaint on January 19, 2024. The court denied the Rule 59(e) motion as untimely (filed 31 days after judgment) and struck the proposed complaint. The plaintiffs then filed:

• Notices of appeal from the December 19 judgment (Ms. Gunter on March 18, 2024; the others on April 9, 2024);
• A Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment;
• A post-judgment motion for class certification; and
• A motion to reopen the case and extend the appeal deadline.

On April 11, 2024, the district court denied Rule 60(b) relief, struck the class certification motion, and denied reopening/extension. Plaintiffs appealed that order on April 25, 2024.

Analysis

Precedents and Authorities Cited and Their Role

• Fymbo v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 213 F.3d 1320 (10th Cir. 2000). Cited to reiterate that a pro se litigant may represent only their own interests; they cannot litigate on behalf of others. This supported the district court’s initial dismissal of the father and uncle when they had not personally signed, and Ms. Gunter appeared to be asserting others’ rights.
• Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a). Requires pro se parties to personally sign their pleadings. Noncompliance justified dismissal of non-signing parties until corrected.
• Mann v. Boatright, 477 F.3d 1140 (10th Cir. 2007). Unrepresented persons—even guardians—cannot litigate on behalf of a minor without counsel. This underwrote the dismissal of the minor, A.K.G., as a party.
• Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Though not a cited case, the district court’s dismissal of the amended complaint turned on Rule 8’s clarity and brevity requirements: claims must be stated plainly, with facts tied to elements and defendants.
• Havens v. Colo. Dep’t of Corr., 897 F.3d 1250 (10th Cir. 2018). Emphasizes the appellate court’s independent obligation to ensure jurisdiction—laying the foundation for the Tenth Circuit to examine timeliness before anything else.
• Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007). The Supreme Court’s cornerstone holding that civil appeal deadlines are jurisdictional. Once expired, they cannot be forfeited or equitably extended by the courts. This drives the dismissal of the merits appeals.
• 28 U.S.C. § 2107(b); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B). Establish the 60-day time to appeal when the United States or its agency/actor is a party—applicable here because federal agencies (Treasury and Interior) were named defendants.
• Fed. R. App. P. 26(a)(1)(C). Clarifies computation of time when deadlines fall on weekends/holidays. This produced a February 20, 2024 deadline.
• Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836 (10th Cir. 2005). Even pro se litigants must comply with procedural rules—a theme repeated throughout.
• Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). A motion to alter or amend judgment must be filed within 28 days; it cannot be extended. An untimely Rule 59(e) motion neither tolls nor resets the appeal clock.
• Eaton v. Pacheco, 931 F.3d 1009 (10th Cir. 2019). Confirms abuse-of-discretion review for Rule 59(e) rulings. The panel noted the district court correctly found the motion untimely.
• Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Provides extraordinary, exceptional relief from judgment on specific grounds (e.g., excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence).
• Lebahn v. Owens, 813 F.3d 1300 (10th Cir. 2016). Reinforces that Rule 60(b) relief is extraordinary and granted only in exceptional circumstances; applied to uphold denial of relief.
• United States v. Cooper, 654 F.3d 1104 (10th Cir. 2011). Arguments not adequately developed in the opening brief are waived. This controlled the disposition of the Rule 60(b) appeal and the motion to reopen/extend.
• Nixon v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 784 F.3d 1364 (10th Cir. 2015). The appellant’s first task is to explain why the district court erred—used to underscore the inadequacy of briefing on class certification.
• Kelley v. City of Albuquerque, 542 F.3d 802 (10th Cir. 2008). “Perfunctory” assertions that fail to frame and develop an issue do not preserve it for appellate review—again supporting waiver/forfeiture holdings.

Legal Reasoning

1) Appellate Jurisdiction and Timeliness

The court began with jurisdiction, as it must. Because federal agencies were defendants, the applicable deadline to file notices of appeal was 60 days from the December 19, 2023 judgment. Applying the federal weekend/holiday rule, the deadline was February 20, 2024. Ms. Gunter filed her notice March 18, and Mr. Gunter and Mr. VanBuskirk filed on April 9—all untimely.

The panel then addressed whether a post-judgment motion tolled the deadline under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4)(A). It did not. Ms. Gunter’s Rule 59(e) motion was filed 31 days after judgment; Rule 59(e) imposes a strict 28-day limit. Because the motion was untimely, it did not toll the appeal period. Under Bowles, this jurisdictional defect required dismissal of the merits appeals, with no room for equitable extension.

2) Post-Judgment Orders (Affirmed)

The court then turned to the appeals from the district court’s April 11, 2024 order.

• Rule 60(b) relief. Reviewed for abuse of discretion, Rule 60(b) relief is “extraordinary.” The district court had identified two asserted bases: excusable neglect (Rule 60(b)(1)) and newly discovered evidence (Rule 60(b)(2)). It rejected excusable neglect because pro se status does not excuse noncompliance with procedural and pleading rules; it rejected the “new evidence” theory because none was identified and, in any event, it would not cure the Rule 8 defects that led to dismissal. On appeal, the appellants did not meaningfully challenge these determinations, waiving any argument. Affirmed.
• Class certification motion (struck). Plaintiffs filed a class certification motion three months after final judgment. Because the case was already dismissed, the motion was procedurally improper and was struck. The district court had previously explained that class certification did not fit the case as pleaded. On appeal, the appellants offered no developed argument as to error; the issue was therefore waived. Affirmed.
• Motion to reopen and extend the appeal deadline. The appellants did not brief any challenge to the denial of this motion. The Tenth Circuit deemed the issue waived and affirmed.

Practical and Doctrinal Impact

• Jurisdictional rigidity of appeal deadlines. Gunter reinforces that the timeliness of a notice of appeal is a jurisdictional prerequisite. If the United States or a federal agency is a party, the 60-day deadline applies; if it expires, the appellate court cannot reach the merits. Untimely Rule 59(e) motions do not toll the deadline.
• No leeway for pro se litigants on core deadlines and rules. The decision underscores that leniency in construing filings does not relax signature requirements, representation rules (especially for minors), pleading standards, or jurisdictional time limits.
• Rule 59(e) versus Rule 60(b). The opinion illustrates the distinct roles of these post-judgment mechanisms. Rule 59(e) is tightly time-limited; if late, it has no tolling effect. Rule 60(b) is extraordinary and cannot be used to make an end-run around Rule 8 failures or to resurrect lapsed appeal rights absent narrow, established grounds.
• Post-judgment motions that presuppose a live case are improper. Class certification presumes a case remains active. Once final judgment has entered and remains in place, such motions are typically struck or denied unless and until the judgment is altered.
• Appellate waiver for inadequate briefing is routine and outcome-determinative. Failure to substantively engage the district court’s reasoning or develop legal argument on appeal results in waiver and affirmance.
• Child-custody cases in federal court. Although the panel did not reach abstention or jurisdictional doctrines sometimes implicated by domestic-relations disputes, Gunter highlights a threshold lesson: even before such doctrines are considered, failure to meet procedural and jurisdictional requirements will end the case.
• Persuasive, not binding, authority. While nonprecedential, the order provides a practical roadmap of how the Tenth Circuit addresses late appeals, post-judgment maneuvering, and pro se compliance issues.

Practice Pointers and Timing Checklist

• Identify whether any federal agency or officer is a party. If so, the notice-of-appeal deadline is 60 days; otherwise, 30 days (subject to any applicable rule-based variations).
• Calendar the Rule 59(e) deadline (28 days from judgment). It cannot be extended. An untimely Rule 59(e) motion neither tolls nor resets the appeal deadline.
• Understand that only timely motions listed in Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A) toll the appeal time, and only if they are filed within the time allowed by the rules.
• Consider Rule 60(b) sparingly. Prepare to show exceptional circumstances and how the identified ground maps onto Rule 60(b)(1)-(6).
• After final judgment, do not file motions that presuppose an ongoing case (e.g., class certification) unless and until judgment is altered or vacated.
• Preserve issues on appeal by clearly explaining why the district court erred, citing authority, and applying law to facts. Perfunctory assertions are waived.
• For pro se litigants:
  • Each self-represented adult plaintiff must personally sign all filings.
  • Do not attempt to represent other adults or minors; minors must be represented by licensed counsel.
  • Conform to Rule 8: identify each claim, supporting facts, and which defendant did what, when, and under what legal theory.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Jurisdictional deadline versus claims-processing rule. A “jurisdictional” rule means the court has no power to act if the rule is not complied with. In civil appeals, the notice-of-appeal deadline is jurisdictional. If you miss it, the appellate court cannot hear your case.
• Tolling the appeal deadline. Certain timely post-judgment motions (e.g., a timely Rule 59(e) motion) pause the countdown for filing an appeal. But the motion must itself be filed within the specified time. An untimely Rule 59(e) motion has no tolling effect.
• Rule 59(e) versus Rule 60(b).
  • Rule 59(e): Ask the district court to alter or amend the judgment within 28 days. It is strict and cannot be extended.
  • Rule 60(b): A safety valve for extraordinary situations after judgment, such as excusable neglect or newly discovered evidence. It is not a substitute for appeal or a way to fix inadequate pleadings after the fact.
• Excusable neglect (Rule 60(b)(1)). Not every mistake qualifies. Being pro se or unaware of the rules is usually not “excusable neglect.” Courts look for circumstances beyond a party’s control that justify relief.
• Newly discovered evidence (Rule 60(b)(2)). The evidence must truly be new, could not have been found earlier with reasonable diligence, and must be material enough to likely change the outcome. Evidence unrelated to the reason for dismissal (here, Rule 8 pleading failures) will not warrant relief.
• Waiver/forfeiture on appeal. Appellants must explain why the lower court erred. If they fail to develop an argument with citations and analysis, the appellate court treats the issue as waived and will not consider it.
• Rule 8 pleading standards. Complaints must be concise and clear, stating (1) what each defendant did, (2) when they did it, (3) how the plaintiff was harmed, and (4) what legal right was violated. Vast, unfocused filings risk dismissal.
• Representation of minors. A minor cannot appear in federal court without an attorney. Even a parent or guardian must retain counsel to litigate on a minor’s behalf.

Conclusion

Gunter v. State of Oklahoma is a clear, if routine, reaffirmation of several bedrock principles: the strict jurisdictional character of appellate deadlines; the non-tolling effect of untimely Rule 59(e) motions; the exceptional nature of Rule 60(b) relief; the impropriety of post-judgment motions that presuppose a live case; and the unwavering requirement that even pro se litigants comply with procedural rules, including signature, representation, and pleading standards.

While the order is nonprecedential, it serves as a practical guide for litigants and counsel in the Tenth Circuit. The court will not reach the merits if the notice of appeal is late, and it will enforce waiver rules against inadequately briefed issues. For litigants challenging child-custody-related actions in federal court, Gunter is a cautionary tale: threshold procedural and jurisdictional compliance is indispensable, and post-judgment shortcuts cannot rescue a case dismissed for fundamental pleading deficiencies.