Timeliness Is Jurisdictional: Tenth Circuit Dismisses Untimely Appeals and Upholds Denial of Post‑Judgment Relief in Gunter v. State of Oklahoma

Introduction

In Gunter v. State of Oklahoma, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit confronted a sprawling, pro se challenge arising out of a state child‑custody dispute involving a minor, A.K.G. The appellants—paternal grandmother Melissa Gunter, her son (the child’s father) Austin Gunter, and her other son (the child’s uncle) Aaron VanBuskirk—sued a wide range of state and federal defendants, including the State of Oklahoma, the City of Shawnee, the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the Department of the Interior, Oklahoma’s Governor, judges and court personnel, a guardian ad litem, prosecutors, and state child‑welfare officials.

The district court dismissed their 425‑page amended complaint for failure to comply with basic pleading standards and later denied post‑judgment motions. On appeal, the Tenth Circuit dismissed three appeals for lack of jurisdiction because the notices of appeal were untimely and affirmed the district court’s denial of post‑judgment relief in three related appeals. The decision underscores several procedural principles: the jurisdictional nature of civil appeal deadlines (particularly the 60‑day period when a federal agency or officer is a party), the strict 28‑day deadline for Rule 59(e) motions, the extraordinary and limited nature of Rule 60(b) relief, the impropriety of seeking class certification after final judgment, the limits of pro se representation (including the prohibition on non‑lawyers representing others or minors), and the consequences of inadequate appellate briefing.

Summary of the Opinion

The panel (Judges Phillips, Carson, and Federico) resolved six appeals as follows:

Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction the challenges to the December 19, 2023 final judgment (Nos. 24-6049, 24-6069, 24-6070). Because at least one defendant was a federal agency or actor, the appellants had 60 days to notice an appeal. They missed the February 20, 2024 deadline. Ms. Gunter’s Rule 59(e) motion filed 31 days after judgment did not toll the deadline because it was untimely; a Rule 59(e) motion must be filed within 28 days.
Affirmed the district court’s April 11, 2024 order (Nos. 24-6078, 24-6079, 24-6080), which (a) denied Ms. Gunter’s Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment (no excusable neglect or newly discovered evidence relevant to the basis of dismissal), (b) struck the post‑judgment motion for class certification as procedurally improper, and (c) denied a motion to reopen and extend the appeal deadline as untimely. On appeal, appellants failed to substantively challenge these rulings, resulting in waiver.

The court also denied the appellants’ motion to consolidate the minor’s state‑court guardianship proceedings with the federal appeal.

The order and judgment is non‑precedential but may be cited for persuasive value in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 and Tenth Circuit Rule 32.1.

Analysis

Precedents and Authorities Cited

Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007): Establishes that civil appeal time limits are jurisdictional. The Tenth Circuit applied Bowles to hold that the untimely notices of appeal deprived it of jurisdiction to review the December 19, 2023 judgment.
28 U.S.C. § 2107(b); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B): Provide a 60‑day deadline to file a notice of appeal when the United States, its agency, or officer is a party. Because the Department of the Treasury and the Department of the Interior were named defendants, the 60‑day period applied.
Fed. R. App. P. 26(a)(1)(C): Governs computation of time when a deadline falls on a weekend or federal holiday (here, extending the deadline to February 20, 2024).
Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A): Lists post‑judgment motions that can toll the notice‑of‑appeal deadline if timely filed. The panel emphasized that only a timely Rule 59(e) motion tolls the appellate clock.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e): Requires motions to alter or amend a judgment to be filed within 28 days of entry of judgment. Ms. Gunter’s filing on day 31 was untimely and thus did not toll the appeal period.
Havens v. Colo. Dep’t of Corr., 897 F.3d 1250 (10th Cir. 2018): Confirms the appellate court’s independent duty to ensure jurisdiction.
Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836 (10th Cir. 2005): Pro se litigants must comply with procedural rules; liberal construction does not excuse noncompliance.
Eaton v. Pacheco, 931 F.3d 1009 (10th Cir. 2019): Articulates abuse‑of‑discretion review for Rule 59(e) rulings (“arbitrary, capricious, whimsical, or manifestly unreasonable”).
Lebahn v. Owens, 813 F.3d 1300 (10th Cir. 2016): Rule 60(b) relief is extraordinary; denials are reviewed for abuse of discretion under the same deferential standard.
Nixon v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 784 F.3d 1364 (10th Cir. 2015): Appellants must explain why the district court erred; unsupported assertions are insufficient.
Kelley v. City of Albuquerque, 542 F.3d 802 (10th Cir. 2008): “Perfunctory” allegations that fail to develop an argument do not preserve issues for appellate review.
United States v. Cooper, 654 F.3d 1104 (10th Cir. 2011): Inadequately briefed arguments are deemed waived.
Fymbo v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 213 F.3d 1320 (10th Cir. 2000): Non‑lawyers cannot represent the interests of others in federal court; a litigant may only bring her own claims pro se.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a): Requires unrepresented parties to personally sign their filings; failure to do so may warrant dismissal.
Mann v. Boatright, 477 F.3d 1140 (10th Cir. 2007): Even a guardian cannot litigate on behalf of a minor without counsel; minors cannot appear pro se.

Legal Reasoning

1) Appellate Jurisdiction and Timeliness

The central jurisdictional holding is straightforward: the notices of appeal from the December 19, 2023 final judgment were untimely. Because federal agencies (Treasury and Interior) were defendants, the 60‑day deadline of § 2107(b) and Rule 4(a)(1)(B) applied. With the 60th day falling on a weekend and the following Monday a federal holiday, the final day to file was Tuesday, February 20, 2024. Ms. Gunter filed her notice on March 18, and the others on April 9—both well outside the jurisdictional window.

The panel rejected any notion that Ms. Gunter’s post‑judgment motion extended the deadline. Her Rule 59(e) motion was filed 31 days after entry of judgment, missing the mandatory 28‑day filing period. Only a timely Rule 59(e) motion tolls the appeal period under Rule 4(a)(4)(A). Citing Bowles, the court treated the time limit as jurisdictional, leaving no room for equitable exceptions.

2) Denial of Rule 60(b) Relief

The district court treated Ms. Gunter’s request as invoking Rule 60(b)(1) (excusable neglect) and Rule 60(b)(2) (newly discovered evidence). It denied relief because:

Pro se status does not constitute excusable neglect for failure to conform to the Federal Rules (here, the pleading rules).
Ms. Gunter identified no new evidence; and in any event, nothing she suggested bore on the specific pleading failures that led to dismissal.

On appeal, appellants did not develop any argument showing the district court abused its discretion under the “arbitrary, capricious, whimsical, or manifestly unreasonable” standard. The Tenth Circuit treated the issue as waived due to inadequate briefing and affirmed.

3) Post‑Judgment Class Certification

Ms. Gunter moved for class certification nearly three months after final judgment. The district court struck the motion as procedurally improper, noting it had already explained that class treatment did not fit the facts as pled. On appeal, appellants argued error but offered no reasoned explanation. Applying Nixon and Kelley, the court declined to consider the perfunctory claim and affirmed.

4) Motion to Reopen and Extend the Appeal Deadline

The district court denied the motion as untimely. On appeal, the appellants did not address this ruling at all. Under Cooper, failure to brief an issue results in waiver. The Tenth Circuit therefore affirmed without reaching the merits of potential avenues for extension or reopening.

5) Pleading and Party‑Representation Defects

The district court had initially dismissed Austin Gunter and Aaron VanBuskirk because they had not signed the original complaint, and dismissed the minor (A.K.G.) because a minor cannot proceed without counsel. When all three adult appellants later signed the amended complaint, the district court considered them parties but ultimately dismissed the amended complaint for violating Rule 8’s “short and plain statement” requirement. The 425‑page filing was extraordinarily long, diffuse, and littered with irrelevant material. The court deemed many requested remedies indiscernible, and those it could discern (e.g., class certification, unspecified injunctive relief) were untenable on the facts pled.

The appellants then attempted a second amended complaint after judgment, but the district court struck it because the case had already been dismissed and no post‑judgment relief had been granted to reopen the proceedings.

Impact and Practical Significance

While designated non‑precedential, the order consolidates and emphasizes several recurring procedural fundamentals with real‑world consequences:

Rigid appeal deadlines: When a federal agency or officer is in the case, the 60‑day appellate deadline is jurisdictional. Missing it forecloses appellate review of the merits, regardless of the underlying equities or the complexity of the dispute.
Rule 59(e) is unforgiving: Filing on day 31 rather than day 28 is fatal to tolling. Courts cannot enlarge the Rule 59(e) deadline, and an untimely motion does not extend the time to appeal.
Rule 60(b) is not a safety net for Rule 8 failures: Relief is “extraordinary” and demands a showing that directly addresses the reason for dismissal. Pro se status is not excusable neglect, and “new evidence” must be genuinely new and material to the dispositive issue.
No post‑judgment class certification: Once a case is dismissed and final judgment entered, motions presuming a live case (like class certification) are improper unless and until the judgment is vacated or altered.
Pro se limitations: Non‑lawyers cannot represent other adults, and minors must be represented by counsel. Filings must be signed by the party if unrepresented.
Appellate briefing matters: The Tenth Circuit will treat inadequately developed issues as waived. Appellants must grapple with the district court’s reasoning and provide legal argument showing error.

For litigants—especially those proceeding pro se—Gunter is a cautionary primer on how quickly procedural missteps can doom a case before any substantive review occurs. For district courts and practitioners, it affirms the appropriateness of enforcing Rule 8 against sprawling, incoherent pleadings and refusing to entertain post‑judgment motions that fail to meet strict standards.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Jurisdictional deadline: A time limit the court cannot waive. If you miss it, the appellate court lacks power to hear your case. Civil appeals generally must be noticed within 30 days, but if the United States, its agency, or officer is a party, the period is 60 days.
Computing the deadline: If the last day falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or federal holiday, the deadline moves to the next day that is not a weekend or holiday. In Gunter, the 60th day fell on a Saturday with the following Monday a federal holiday, so the deadline extended to Tuesday.
Rule 59(e) vs. Rule 60(b):
- Rule 59(e) lets you ask the district court to alter or amend its judgment. It must be filed within 28 days—no exceptions—and a timely filing pauses the time to appeal.
- Rule 60(b) provides limited, extraordinary relief from a final judgment for specific reasons (e.g., excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence). It does not automatically extend appeal time; only Rule 60 motions filed within 28 days can toll the appeal period under the appellate rules, and then only if they otherwise qualify.
Excusable neglect: A narrow concept that does not include simply being unrepresented by counsel. Courts expect pro se litigants to follow the rules.
Newly discovered evidence: Evidence that existed at the time of judgment but could not have been discovered earlier with reasonable diligence. It must be material to the reason for dismissal or judgment; otherwise, it cannot justify reopening the case.
Rule 8 pleading standard: Complaints must contain a “short and plain statement” of the claim showing entitlement to relief. Extremely long, disorganized “shotgun” pleadings that obscure who did what and why often fail Rule 8 and can be dismissed.
Pro se representation limits: You may represent only yourself pro se. You cannot represent another adult, and a minor must be represented by a licensed attorney—even by a parent or guardian.
Waiver by inadequate briefing: On appeal, you must explain why the district court erred with supporting legal authority and record citations. Bare assertions or passing references will be treated as waived.

Conclusion

Gunter is a textbook application of procedural rules with significant practical bite. The Tenth Circuit dismissed three appeals outright because the notices of appeal were filed after the jurisdictional deadline, and it affirmed the denial of all post‑judgment relief due to the appellants’ failure to meet exacting standards and to adequately brief their challenges. The court reinforced multiple principles:

The 60‑day appeal deadline in cases involving federal agencies or officers is jurisdictional and strictly enforced.
Rule 59(e) motions must be filed within 28 days; untimely motions do not toll the time to appeal.
Rule 60(b) relief is extraordinary and must address the reasons for dismissal; pro se status is not excusable neglect.
Post‑judgment motions that presume a live case (like class certification) are improper unless the judgment is first altered or vacated.
Minors cannot appear pro se, non‑lawyers cannot represent others, and filings must comply with Rule 8 and signature requirements.
Issues not substantively briefed on appeal are waived.

Although non‑precedential, the decision will have persuasive value in the Tenth Circuit and beyond for litigants and courts confronting similar procedural issues. Its core message is simple but decisive: timeliness and compliance with procedural rules are not mere technicalities—they are jurisdictional gateways to appellate review.