Untimely Rule 59(e) Does Not Toll Appeal Time: Tenth Circuit Reaffirms Jurisdictional Deadlines and Pro Se Limits 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In VanBuskirk v. State of Oklahoma, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit issued a nonprecedential order and judgment addressing a cluster of appeals arising out of a sprawling pro se lawsuit connected to a state child-custody dispute involving a minor, A.K.G. The plaintiffs—paternal grandmother Melissa Gunter, father Austin Gunter, and uncle Aaron VanBuskirk—sued a host of state and federal entities and officials, alleging wrongdoing in relation to custody proceedings. After the district court dismissed their amended complaint and entered judgment, the plaintiffs sought post-judgment relief and later appealed.

The Tenth Circuit dismissed three appeals for lack of appellate jurisdiction because the notices of appeal were filed after the jurisdictional deadline, and affirmed the district court’s denial of post-judgment relief in three companion appeals. The opinion reiterates several bedrock procedural rules: appellate deadlines are jurisdictional; an untimely Rule 59(e) motion cannot toll the notice-of-appeal deadline; pro se status does not excuse compliance with pleading and procedural rules; minors cannot proceed without counsel; and inadequately briefed arguments are waived on appeal. It also confirms that post-judgment motions—such as class-certification requests—are procedurally improper after final judgment has been entered.

Summary of the Opinion

• Three appeals (Nos. 24-6049, 24-6069, 24-6070) were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the notices of appeal from the December 19, 2023 judgment were untimely. The presence of federal agencies (Treasury and Interior) triggered a 60-day deadline under 28 U.S.C. § 2107(b) and Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B); the last day to file was February 20, 2024, after weekend/holiday adjustments. None of the appellants met that deadline, and their Rule 59(e) motion did not toll time because it was itself untimely.
• In three post-judgment appeals (Nos. 24-6078, 24-6079, 24-6080), the court affirmed:
  • Denial of Rule 60(b) relief: Pro se status did not constitute excusable neglect; no newly discovered evidence was identified, and no appellate argument adequately challenged the district court’s Rule 60(b) ruling.
  • Striking of a post-judgment class-certification motion: It was procedurally improper after final judgment and independently unsupported by the case’s allegations.
  • Denial of a motion to reopen and extend the appeal deadline: Any challenge to that denial was waived because it was not developed in the opening brief.
• The court denied a request to consolidate the minor’s state guardianship case with the federal appeal.

Background

The litigation began when the district court dismissed two of the three adult plaintiffs (Austin Gunter and Aaron VanBuskirk) because they had not signed the complaint and the remaining signatory (Melissa Gunter) appeared to be asserting claims on their behalf—both improper under Rule 11(a) and governing pro se rules. The court also dismissed the minor, A.K.G., as a party because she was unrepresented and a nonlawyer cannot litigate on behalf of a minor.

After all three adults signed an amended complaint, the district court dismissed that filing and entered judgment on December 19, 2023. The court found pervasive Rule 8 deficiencies: the amended complaint ran 425 pages, included largely irrelevant material, and did not clearly state which claims were asserted by which plaintiff against which defendant. Requested remedies were often indecipherable and, where discernible, lacked merit (e.g., class certification and unspecified injunctive relief).

On January 19, 2024, Ms. Gunter filed an untimely Rule 59(e) motion and submitted a proposed second amended complaint. The district court denied the Rule 59(e) motion as untimely and struck the proposed second amendment because the case had already been dismissed. Notices of appeal from the judgment were filed on March 18 (Ms. Gunter) and April 9 (Mr. Gunter and Mr. VanBuskirk)—both after the 60-day deadline had run. The district court later denied Ms. Gunter’s Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment, struck a post-judgment motion for class certification, and denied a motion to reopen and extend the appeal deadline as untimely; plaintiffs appealed those denials as well.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Role

• Fymbo v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 213 F.3d 1320 (10th Cir. 2000): Reiterates that while a person may litigate his or her own claims pro se, a nonlawyer cannot represent others (including a proposed class). This supported the early dismissals of parties improperly represented and underscored the broader theme that pro se status does not relax procedural rules.
• Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a): Requires unrepresented parties to personally sign their filings. The initial failure by two plaintiffs to sign the complaint warranted their dismissal.
• Mann v. Boatright, 477 F.3d 1140 (10th Cir. 2007): A nonlawyer—even a legal guardian—cannot litigate on behalf of a minor without counsel. This justified dismissing the minor plaintiff, A.K.G., absent counsel.
• Havens v. Colorado Department of Corrections, 897 F.3d 1250 (10th Cir. 2018): Emphasizes the appellate court’s independent duty to assure its jurisdiction.
• Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007): Establishes that statutory time limits for filing a notice of appeal are jurisdictional in civil cases; courts cannot extend or excuse them on equitable grounds. This was the central basis for dismissing the untimely appeals.
• 28 U.S.C. § 2107(b) and Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B): Provide a 60-day period to appeal when the United States, a federal agency, or a federal officer is a party—controlling here because federal agencies were named defendants.
• Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A): Enumerates post-judgment motions that can toll the time to appeal, but only if they are timely filed. The court applied this to hold that an untimely Rule 59(e) motion does not toll the deadline.
• Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e): Requires motions to alter or amend judgment to be filed within 28 days; Ms. Gunter’s 31-day filing was untimely. Eaton v. Pacheco, 931 F.3d 1009 (10th Cir. 2019), provided the abuse-of-discretion standard of review and supported affirmance of the district court’s timeliness ruling.
• Fed. R. App. P. 26(a)(1)(C): Explains how to compute deadlines when the last day falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday; this supported the February 20, 2024 cutoff.
• Lebahn v. Owens, 813 F.3d 1300 (10th Cir. 2016): Clarifies that Rule 60(b) relief is extraordinary and reviewed for abuse of discretion; this framework supported affirmance of the denial of Rule 60(b) relief.
• Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b): Provides limited grounds for relief from a final judgment (e.g., excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence). The court held neither applied.
• United States v. Cooper, 654 F.3d 1104 (10th Cir. 2011): Establishes waiver for inadequately briefed arguments. The appellants did not develop appellate arguments challenging the denial of Rule 60(b) relief or the denial of their motion to reopen/extend the appeal deadline, resulting in waiver.
• Nixon v. City & County of Denver, 784 F.3d 1364 (10th Cir. 2015): An appellant’s first obligation is to explain why the district court erred; this supported the court’s rejection of perfunctory challenges to the striking of a post-judgment class-certification motion.
• Kelley v. City of Albuquerque, 542 F.3d 802 (10th Cir. 2008): Perfunctory or undeveloped assignments of error do not suffice to invoke appellate review; this supported the waiver disposition.

Legal Reasoning

1. Jurisdictional Time Bar on the Original Appeals:
   • The court first confirmed its independent obligation to ensure appellate jurisdiction.
   • Because federal agencies were named defendants, the 60-day notice-of-appeal period applied. Accounting for weekend and President’s Day, the last day to file was February 20, 2024.
   • Notices filed on March 18 and April 9 were untimely. Under Bowles, the deadline is jurisdictional; the court lacks authority to forgive or extend it absent a timely, qualifying tolling motion.
   • Ms. Gunter’s Rule 59(e) motion, filed 31 days after judgment, was untimely under Rule 59(e). An untimely Rule 59(e) motion cannot toll the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A). As a result, the appeals from the December 19 judgment had to be dismissed.
2. Affirmance of the Denial of Rule 60(b) Relief:
   • Rule 60(b) relief is extraordinary and granted only in exceptional circumstances.
   • The district court correctly rejected “excusable neglect” based solely on pro se status; litigants proceeding without counsel must still comply with the rules.
   • The “newly discovered evidence” ground failed because no new evidence was identified and, even if there had been, it would have had no bearing on the Rule 8 pleading deficiencies that led to dismissal.
   • On appeal, the appellants did not substantively contest the district court’s Rule 60(b) analysis, resulting in waiver under Cooper.
3. Post-Judgment Class-Certification Motion:
   • Filing a motion to certify a class after final judgment is procedurally improper when the case is already closed.
   • The district court had already explained earlier that class certification did not fit the allegations.
   • On appeal, appellants offered no developed argument explaining why striking the motion was error, again triggering waiver principles.
4. Motion to Reopen and Extend the Appeal Deadline:
   • The district court denied the motion as untimely.
   • On appeal, appellants did not brief any challenge to that denial; under Cooper, the argument was waived.
5. Miscellaneous:
   • The panel resolved the case without oral argument, concluding it would not materially assist.
   • The court denied a motion to consolidate the minor’s state guardianship case with the appeal—consistent with the limited scope of federal appellate jurisdiction.

Impact

Although designated nonprecedential, the decision has significant persuasive value within the Tenth Circuit and offers practical reminders for litigants—especially pro se parties—in federal civil cases:

• Appellate deadlines are rigid. When federal agencies or officers are parties, a 60-day deadline applies. Litigants must carefully calendar weekends and federal holidays using Fed. R. App. P. 26 to avoid inadvertent default.
• An untimely Rule 59(e) motion is a nullity for tolling purposes; it will not extend the time to appeal.
• Rule 60(b) is not a substitute for a timely appeal and demands specific, exceptional justifications. Pro se status—standing alone—does not constitute excusable neglect.
• Arguments not developed in an opening brief are waived. Appellants must explain clearly how the district court erred; perfunctory assertions will not suffice.
• Post-judgment motions inconsistent with the closed status of a case—such as class-certification motions—will be struck as procedurally improper.
• Nonlawyers cannot represent other parties (including minors or putative classes). Minors must appear through counsel; each pro se adult plaintiff must sign his or her own pleadings.

For practitioners, the case reinforces the importance of (1) filing any tolling motions within their strict deadlines; (2) using Rule 60(b) sparingly and only with concrete, relevant grounds; and (3) presenting focused, developed appellate arguments tied to the rulings under review. For district courts, the opinion affirms the appropriateness of dismissing complaints that flout Rule 8, especially when their size and lack of clarity hinder discernment of claims and remedies.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Jurisdictional Deadline: A time limit the court cannot waive or extend. If you miss it, the appellate court lacks power to hear your case, regardless of the merits.
• Rule 59(e) Motion: A request to alter or amend a judgment, which must be filed no later than 28 days after entry of judgment. Only a timely Rule 59(e) motion can toll the time to appeal.
• Rule 60(b) Relief: A narrow, extraordinary mechanism to set aside a final judgment for reasons like excusable neglect or newly discovered evidence. It is not a do-over for late appeals or an avenue to reargue the merits.
• Waiver by Inadequate Briefing: Appellate courts require appellants to explain precisely why a lower court erred. Bare assertions without developed argument or authority are treated as waived.
• Pro Se Limits: Individuals may represent only themselves in court. They cannot represent others, including minors or a class. Each pro se litigant must personally sign filings.
• Post-Judgment Motions: Once a final judgment is entered, motions that presuppose a live case (e.g., class certification) are generally improper unless the judgment is first vacated or altered.
• Nonprecedential Order and Judgment: Not binding in future cases except under law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. It may still be cited for persuasive value under the applicable rules.

Key Timeline (Practical View)

• December 19, 2023: District court dismisses amended complaint; final judgment enters.
• January 19, 2024: Ms. Gunter files Rule 59(e) motion (untimely by three days) and a proposed second amended complaint (struck).
• February 20, 2024: Last day to file notice of appeal (60-day period adjusted for weekend/holiday).
• March 18 and April 9, 2024: Notices of appeal filed—untimely as to the December 19 judgment.
• April 11, 2024: District court denies Rule 60(b) relief; strikes class-certification motion; denies motion to reopen/extend appeal deadline.
• April 25, 2024: Appeals filed challenging the April 11 order; Tenth Circuit affirms.

Conclusion

VanBuskirk v. State of Oklahoma is a clear reaffirmation of procedural rigor in federal appellate practice. The Tenth Circuit dismissed untimely appeals for lack of jurisdiction, underscoring that statutory appeal deadlines are inflexible and that an untimely Rule 59(e) motion cannot salvage an appeal by tolling time. The court also affirmed the denial of Rule 60(b) relief, rejected a post-judgment class certification motion as procedurally improper, and enforced waiver rules for inadequately briefed issues.

For litigants—especially those proceeding pro se—the message is straightforward: know and meet deadlines; comply with pleading rules; ensure each pro se party signs his or her own filings; retain counsel for minors; and present developed, legally supported arguments on appeal. Though nonprecedential, the opinion’s synthesis of jurisdictional timing, Rule 59(e) and Rule 60(b) standards, pro se limitations, and waiver principles will be a persuasive reference point in the Tenth Circuit for future procedural disputes.