Untimely Rule 59(e) Does Not Toll Appeal Time: Tenth Circuit Dismisses Late Appeals and Affirms Denial of Post‑Judgment Relief in Vanbuskirk v. State of Oklahoma

Untimely Rule 59(e) Does Not Toll Appeal Time: Tenth Circuit Dismisses Late Appeals and Affirms Denial of Post‑Judgment Relief in Vanbuskirk v. State of Oklahoma

Introduction

In Vanbuskirk v. State of Oklahoma, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit issued a nonprecedential order and judgment that rigorously applies core appellate and civil-procedure rules to a sprawling, pro se challenge arising out of a child-custody dispute. The appellants—Melissa Gunter (paternal grandmother), Austin Gunter (father), and Aaron VanBuskirk (uncle) of minor A.K.G.—sued a wide array of state and federal entities and officials over perceived wrongs during state child-custody proceedings. After the district court dismissed their 425-page amended complaint for Rule 8 deficiencies and denied several post-judgment motions, the appellants pursued multiple appeals.

The Tenth Circuit:

  • Dismissed three appeals for lack of jurisdiction because the notices of appeal were filed after the jurisdictional deadline and were not tolled by any timely post-judgment motion; and
  • Affirmed the district court’s denial of Rule 60(b) relief, its striking of a post-judgment class-certification motion, and its denial of a motion to reopen and extend the appeal deadline.

Although the decision is not binding precedent, it crisply synthesizes several settled principles: the jurisdictional nature of appellate deadlines, the strict 28-day limit for Rule 59(e) motions, the limits of Rule 60(b) relief (particularly for pro se litigants), the prohibition against pro se representation of others (including minors), and the consequences of inadequate appellate briefing.

Summary of the Opinion

The panel (Judges Phillips, Carson, and Federico; authored by Judge Carson) resolved six consolidated appeals as follows:

  • Nos. 24-6049, 24-6069, 24-6070 (Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction): The district court entered final judgment on December 19, 2023. Because federal agencies were defendants, the appellants had 60 days to notice an appeal (through February 20, 2024, accounting for weekend/holiday rules). Their notices (March 18 and April 9) were late, and an untimely Rule 59(e) motion filed on day 31 did not toll the appeal time. The court therefore lacked jurisdiction.
  • Nos. 24-6078, 24-6079, 24-6080 (Affirmed): The court affirmed an April 11, 2024 order denying Rule 60(b) relief (no abuse of discretion; no developed appellate argument), striking a post-judgment motion for class certification as procedurally improper, and denying a motion to reopen/extend the appeal deadline (challenge waived by silence on appeal).

The court also denied a motion to consolidate the child’s state guardianship case with the federal appeal and reiterated that unrepresented minors cannot be parties, and pro se litigants cannot represent others.

Detailed Analysis

I. Procedural Posture and Key Timeline

  • Initial filings: The district court dismissed the original complaint as to Austin Gunter and Aaron VanBuskirk because they had not signed it (Rule 11(a)) and dismissed minor A.K.G. because she lacked counsel. The court allowed amendment by the remaining plaintiff, Melissa Gunter, but found the resulting 425-page amended complaint noncompliant with Rule 8 (unclear claims, defendants, facts, and remedies) and entered judgment on December 19, 2023.
  • Post-judgment filings: On January 19, 2024 (day 31), Ms. Gunter filed a Rule 59(e) motion and a second amended complaint. The district court denied the Rule 59(e) motion as untimely and struck the proposed second amended complaint because the case had already been dismissed.
  • Notices of appeal from final judgment: Ms. Gunter filed on March 18, 2024; Mr. Gunter and Mr. VanBuskirk filed on April 9, 2024—both after the 60-day deadline of February 20, 2024.
  • Additional motions: Ms. Gunter moved for Rule 60(b) relief and for class certification; all appellants moved to reopen and extend the appeal deadline. On April 11, 2024, the district court denied Rule 60(b) relief, struck the class-certification motion as procedurally improper post-judgment, and denied the request to reopen/extend the appeal deadline as untimely.
  • Appeals from the April 11 order: All three appellants noticed appeals on April 25, 2024. The Tenth Circuit affirmed.

II. Precedents and Authorities Cited and Their Role

  • Fymbo v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 213 F.3d 1320 (10th Cir. 2000): A pro se litigant may bring only his or her own claims, not the claims of others. This supported the district court’s early dismissal of parties whom Ms. Gunter attempted to represent and contextualized later rulings that pro se status cannot cure structural defects.
  • Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a): Every pleading must be signed by counsel or the unrepresented party. The absence of signatures justified the initial dismissal of Mr. Gunter and Mr. VanBuskirk until a properly signed amended complaint was filed.
  • Mann v. Boatright, 477 F.3d 1140 (10th Cir. 2007): Even if a pro se litigant is a minor’s guardian, she cannot litigate on the minor’s behalf without counsel. This sustained the exclusion of minor A.K.G. as a party and underscored the denial of later efforts to draw the state guardianship matter into the federal appeal.
  • Havens v. Colorado Department of Corrections, 897 F.3d 1250 (10th Cir. 2018): The appellate court has an independent obligation to ensure jurisdiction. This anchored the jurisdictional analysis regarding late notices of appeal.
  • Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007): Timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is jurisdictional. This foreclosed any equitable rescue of the late notices.
  • 28 U.S.C. § 2107(b); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B): When the United States, a federal agency, or a federal officer is a party, the notice-of-appeal deadline is 60 days from entry of judgment. Because the Department of the Treasury and the Department of the Interior were defendants, the 60‑day clock applied.
  • Fed. R. App. P. 26(a)(1)(C): Time computation rules (weekend/holiday carryover) extended the deadline from February 17 to February 20, 2024.
  • Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e): A motion to alter or amend judgment must be filed within 28 days; an untimely Rule 59(e) motion does not toll appeal time under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A). The court affirmed the district court’s denial as untimely and its non-tolling effect.
  • Eaton v. Pacheco, 931 F.3d 1009 (10th Cir. 2019): Abuse-of-discretion review for Rule 59(e) rulings. The district court did not abuse its discretion in finding the Rule 59(e) motion untimely.
  • Lebahn v. Owens, 813 F.3d 1300 (10th Cir. 2016): Rule 60(b) relief is extraordinary and reserved for exceptional circumstances; reviewed for abuse of discretion. This supported affirmance of the Rule 60(b) denial.
  • United States v. Cooper, 654 F.3d 1104 (10th Cir. 2011): Arguments inadequately briefed in an opening brief are waived. This principle disposed of the appellants’ undeveloped challenges to the Rule 60(b) ruling and other issues.
  • Nixon v. City & County of Denver, 784 F.3d 1364 (10th Cir. 2015): The appellant must explain why the district court’s decision was wrong. This reinforced the waiver analysis.
  • Kelley v. City of Albuquerque, 542 F.3d 802 (10th Cir. 2008): Perfunctory allegations that fail to frame and develop an issue do not invoke appellate review. This further justified declining to consider sparse arguments.

III. The Court’s Legal Reasoning

A. Jurisdictional Dismissal of Late Appeals (Nos. 24-6049, 24-6069, 24-6070)

The court first confirmed its jurisdictional obligation. Because federal agencies were defendants, the appellants had 60 days to file notices of appeal after the December 19, 2023 judgment. Using Rule 26’s computation rules, the deadline fell on February 20, 2024. No appellant met that date. The panel emphasized:

  • Untimely Rule 59(e): Ms. Gunter’s Rule 59(e) motion, filed 31 days after entry of judgment, was untimely and did not toll the appeal deadline under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A).
  • Jurisdictional nature of the deadline: Under Bowles, missing the deadline deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction. The late notices of appeal required dismissal.

B. Affirmance of Post-Judgment Orders (Nos. 24-6078, 24-6079, 24-6080)

  • Rule 60(b) relief: The district court treated Ms. Gunter’s filings as invoking Rule 60(b)(1) (excusable neglect) and 60(b)(2) (newly discovered evidence). It rejected excusable neglect premised on pro se status, reiterating that self-representation does not excuse failure to comply with pleading standards. It further found no genuinely new evidence and, in any event, no materiality to the Rule 8 deficiencies that prompted dismissal. On appeal, appellants did not develop any argument showing an abuse of discretion—an independent ground to affirm via waiver.
  • Class certification: The district court struck a class-certification motion filed roughly three months after final judgment as procedurally improper. The Tenth Circuit affirmed, observing that the appellants failed to explain why that decision was wrong and, earlier, the district court had already explained why class treatment did not fit the allegations.
  • Motion to reopen/extend appeal deadline: The appellants did not brief any challenge to the district court’s denial. Under Cooper, that omission waived the issue, and affirmance followed.

C. Rule 8 and “Shotgun” Pleading Concerns

The district court’s merits dismissal (not reviewable due to the untimely notices) turned on Rule 8. It found the amended complaint “exorbitantly long” (425 pages), replete with irrelevant matter, and unclear as to which plaintiff asserted which claim against which defendant and what relief was sought. The Tenth Circuit did not revisit that ruling but the background underscores that sheer volume and diffuse allegations can violate Rule 8’s short-and-plain-statement requirement, independently justifying dismissal.

D. Pro Se Representation Limits and Minor Participation

The panel reaffirmed two bedrock principles:

  • Every unrepresented plaintiff must sign pleadings: Rule 11(a) warranted the initial dismissal of two plaintiffs who had not signed the complaint.
  • Minors require counsel: A minor cannot appear pro se, even via a pro se guardian. The opinion reiterates Mann v. Boatright and underscores why minor A.K.G. could not be a party to the appeal, and why consolidation with a state guardianship matter was untenable.

E. Standards of Review and Waiver by Inadequate Briefing

The panel repeatedly applied abuse-of-discretion review to Rule 59(e)/60(b) issues and enforced the rule that arguments not meaningfully developed in opening briefs are waived. The combined effect is a strong signal that:

  • Post-judgment relief demands precise, supported arguments; and
  • On appeal, the burden rests squarely on the appellant to explain legal error and marshal record support.

IV. Impact and Practical Implications

While nonprecedential, the decision is a useful procedural compass in the Tenth Circuit for litigants—especially pro se parties—bringing sprawling civil-rights challenges that touch on state family-court matters.

  • Appellate deadlines are unforgiving: Bowles governs. If a notice of appeal is late, jurisdiction is lost. An untimely Rule 59(e) motion cannot save it, and even Rule 60(b) motions do not toll appeal time unless filed within 28 days per Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A).
  • Rule 8 remains a gatekeeper: Overlong, undifferentiated “shotgun” pleadings risk dismissal. Plaintiffs should tie each claim to specific defendants and remedies in a concise statement.
  • Limits of pro se status: Self-representation neither excuses noncompliance with the rules nor constitutes “excusable neglect” under Rule 60(b)(1). Each unrepresented plaintiff must sign pleadings, and minors must have counsel.
  • Post-judgment practice is narrow: Once final judgment enters, motions like class certification are generally moot or procedurally improper unless judgment is first vacated.
  • Issue preservation on appeal: Appellants must present cogent, supported arguments in their opening brief. Perfunctory references or silence equals waiver.
  • Presence of federal defendants affects deadlines: Naming a federal agency or officer triggers the 60-day appeal period (not 30). But the deadline, even at 60 days, remains rigid.

V. Complex Concepts Simplified

  • Jurisdictional deadline for appeal: A due date set by law for filing a notice of appeal. If you miss it, the appellate court has no power to hear your case.
  • Rule 59(e) motion (28-day limit): A request asking the trial court to alter or amend its judgment. Must be filed within 28 days—no exceptions. If timely, it pauses (tolls) the appeal deadline; if late, it does not.
  • Rule 60(b) motion: An extraordinary request to set aside a final judgment for specific reasons (e.g., mistake, newly discovered evidence). It rarely succeeds and does not usually extend appeal deadlines unless filed within 28 days.
  • Rule 8 pleading standard: Complaints must be short and plain, showing entitlement to relief and telling each defendant what they did wrong. Extreme length, confusion, or lack of clarity can violate Rule 8.
  • Pro se representation limits: You can represent yourself, but not other people (including your children or relatives). Minors must have licensed counsel to appear in court.
  • Waiver by inadequate briefing: On appeal, if you fail to clearly explain why the trial court erred with legal and record support, the appellate court will treat the issue as waived and will not address it.
  • Post-judgment class certification: After a case is dismissed and final judgment is entered, class motions are generally improper unless the judgment is first set aside.

VI. What the Court Did Not Decide

The Tenth Circuit did not reach the merits of any substantive claims about the child-custody proceedings, constitutional violations, or immunity defenses. Its rulings were purely procedural: jurisdictional timeliness, the propriety of post-judgment relief, and appellate waiver.

Conclusion

Vanbuskirk v. State of Oklahoma is a clear reminder that civil procedure and appellate rules are not mere technicalities. The Tenth Circuit dismissed untimely appeals for lack of jurisdiction, enforced the 28-day deadline for Rule 59(e) motions, applied the high bar for Rule 60(b) relief, and affirmed the district court’s striking of a post-judgment class motion. It also reiterated that pro se status does not permit representing others and that inadequate briefing leads to waiver on appeal.

For future litigants—especially those proceeding without counsel—the case underscores practical imperatives: file timely, concise, rule-compliant pleadings; ensure every unrepresented party signs; obtain counsel for minors; adhere to post-judgment motion deadlines; and, on appeal, present fully developed arguments explaining why the lower court erred. While nonprecedential, the decision provides a persuasive, procedural roadmap in the Tenth Circuit and beyond.

Case details: Vanbuskirk v. State of Oklahoma, Nos. 24-6049, 24-6069, 24-6070, 24-6078, 24-6079, 24-6080 (10th Cir. Mar. 25, 2025) (Carson, J.) (nonprecedential; citable for persuasive value under Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1).

Case Details

Year: 2025
Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Comments