Untimely Rule 59(e) Motions Do Not Toll Appeals and Pro Se Litigants Cannot Represent Others: The Tenth Circuit’s Strict Application of Jurisdictional Deadlines in Gunter v. State of Oklahoma

Introduction

This Tenth Circuit order and judgment arises from a pro se federal lawsuit filed by family members disputing state-court custody determinations regarding a minor, A.K.G. The plaintiffs-appellants—Melissa Gunter (the paternal grandmother), her son Austin Gunter (the child’s father), and her other son, Aaron VanBuskirk (the child’s uncle)—sued a wide array of governmental and individual defendants, including the State of Oklahoma, the City of Shawnee, federal agencies (the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the U.S. Department of the Interior), the Governor of Oklahoma, state courts and judges, child-welfare officials, prosecutors, and others.

The district court dismissed the case after concluding the amended complaint failed to meet basic pleading standards and that certain plaintiffs could not proceed as presented. Plaintiffs then pursued multiple post-judgment motions, as well as several notices of appeal, which the Tenth Circuit resolved in consolidated fashion.

The key issues before the appellate court were procedural rather than substantive: (1) whether the notices of appeal from the December 19, 2023 final judgment were timely (and therefore whether the court had jurisdiction); (2) whether plaintiffs were entitled to relief from judgment under Rule 60(b); (3) whether the district court properly struck a post-judgment motion for class certification; and (4) whether plaintiffs preserved any challenge to the denial of their motion to reopen and extend the appeal deadline. The Tenth Circuit dismissed the appeals from the final judgment for lack of jurisdiction and affirmed the district court’s post-judgment rulings.

Summary of the Opinion

Jurisdictional dismissal of three appeals (Nos. 24-6049, 24-6069, 24-6070): Because the United States (via federal agencies) was a party, the notice-of-appeal deadline was 60 days. The final judgment entered on December 19, 2023; the deadline, per time-computation rules, was February 20, 2024. The notices of appeal (March 18 and April 9, 2024) were late, and an untimely Rule 59(e) motion did not toll the deadline. The court therefore lacked appellate jurisdiction to review the merits of the December 19 judgment.
Affirmance of April 11, 2024 order (Nos. 24-6078, 24-6079, 24-6080):
- Rule 60(b): The court affirmed denial of relief from judgment. Ms. Gunter’s arguments (excusable neglect and newly discovered evidence) were inadequately briefed on appeal and therefore waived; regardless, pro se status does not excuse noncompliance with rules.
- Class certification: The district court properly struck a motion for class certification filed three months after final judgment; appellants again failed to develop any cognizable appellate argument.
- Reopen/extend appeal deadline: Appellants did not brief any challenge to the district court’s denial, resulting in waiver.
Additional dispositions: The Tenth Circuit denied appellants’ motion to consolidate the child’s state guardianship case with this federal appeal.

Analysis

Precedents and Authorities Cited

Fymbo v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 213 F.3d 1320 (10th Cir. 2000): A nonlawyer may represent only themselves; they cannot bring claims on behalf of others. This supported the district court’s dismissal of parties and claims improperly asserted by a pro se litigant for others.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a): Every pleading must be signed by an attorney of record, or by the party personally if unrepresented. The absence of signatures initially required dismissal of certain plaintiffs.
Mann v. Boatright, 477 F.3d 1140 (10th Cir. 2007): Even a legal guardian cannot litigate on behalf of a minor without counsel. This sustained the dismissal of the minor, A.K.G., as an unrepresented party.
Havens v. Colo. Dep’t of Corr., 897 F.3d 1250 (10th Cir. 2018): Courts have an independent duty to assess appellate jurisdiction. The panel applied this threshold inquiry sua sponte.
Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007): A timely notice of appeal in civil cases is jurisdictional; courts cannot create equitable exceptions. This controlled the dismissal of untimely appeals.
28 U.S.C. § 2107(b) and Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B): When the United States or its agencies/actors are parties, the appeal period is 60 days. Treasury and Interior triggered the longer deadline here.
Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A): Certain timely post-judgment motions toll the appeal deadline. Because the Rule 59(e) motion was untimely, it did not toll.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e): A motion to alter or amend judgment must be filed within 28 days. Filing on day 31 made the motion untimely.
Fed. R. App. P. 26(a)(1)(C): Time computation extends deadlines falling on weekends or legal holidays to the next business day. This made the deadline February 20, 2024.
Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836 (10th Cir. 2005): Courts liberally construe pro se filings, but pro se parties must comply with procedural rules.
Eaton v. Pacheco, 931 F.3d 1009 (10th Cir. 2019): Abuse-of-discretion standard for Rule 59(e) determinations.
Lebahn v. Owens, 813 F.3d 1300 (10th Cir. 2016): Rule 60(b) relief is extraordinary, available only in exceptional circumstances; reviewed for abuse of discretion.
United States v. Cooper, 654 F.3d 1104 (10th Cir. 2011): Inadequately briefed arguments are waived.
Nixon v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 784 F.3d 1364 (10th Cir. 2015): An appellant’s first task is to explain why the district court erred; failure to do so forfeits review.
Kelley v. City of Albuquerque, 542 F.3d 802 (10th Cir. 2008): Perfunctory allegations that do not develop an issue are insufficient to invoke appellate review.

Legal Reasoning

The panel’s analysis proceeded in two stages: jurisdiction first, then the merits (of later post-judgment orders) only to the extent jurisdiction existed.

1) Appellate Jurisdiction over the December 19, 2023 Judgment

Because federal agencies were defendants, the notice-of-appeal period was 60 days. With judgment entered on December 19, 2023, and the 60th day falling on a Saturday, with a federal holiday (Presidents’ Day) the following Monday, the final deadline (under FRAP 26’s computation rules) was Tuesday, February 20, 2024. Ms. Gunter filed her notice on March 18; Mr. Gunter and Mr. VanBuskirk filed theirs on April 9. None were timely.

Could a post-judgment motion have tolled the deadline? Yes, but only if the motion were among those listed in FRAP 4(a)(4)(A) and timely filed. Plaintiffs filed a Rule 59(e) motion on January 19, 2024—31 days after entry of judgment—beyond the 28-day limit. The district court properly deemed it untimely. An untimely Rule 59(e) motion does not toll the appeal period. Under Bowles, the appellate deadline is jurisdictional and not subject to equitable extension. Consequently, the Tenth Circuit lacked jurisdiction to review the underlying merits of the December 19 judgment and dismissed Nos. 24-6049, 24-6069, and 24-6070.

2) Review of the April 11, 2024 Order

The court retained jurisdiction over appeals from the district court’s April 11 order addressing three post-judgment motions. It affirmed across the board.

Rule 60(b) relief (abuse of discretion): Ms. Gunter invoked “excusable neglect” (Rule 60(b)(1)) and “newly discovered evidence” (Rule 60(b)(2)). The district court explained that pro se status does not excuse noncompliance with pleading standards and that any purported new evidence was not identified and in any event would not cure the complaint’s Rule 8 deficiencies. On appeal, appellants did not meaningfully challenge these reasons. Under Cooper, undeveloped or inadequately briefed issues are waived. Affirmed.
Motion for class certification: Filed approximately three months after final judgment, the motion was procedurally improper; the district court struck it. On appeal, appellants again failed to explain any legal error, contravening Nixon and Kelley. Affirmed.
Motion to reopen and extend appeal deadline: Appellants did not brief the issue on appeal; it was therefore waived under Cooper. Affirmed.

The Tenth Circuit also denied appellants’ motion to consolidate the child’s state guardianship matter with this federal appeal.

Impact and Practical Consequences

Strict compliance with appellate deadlines: The decision reinforces that the notice-of-appeal deadline is jurisdictional. When federal agencies or actors are parties, litigants have 60 days—no more. Untimely Rule 59(e) motions do not toll that period.
Pro se limits remain firm: Nonlawyers cannot litigate on behalf of other adults, and minors must be represented by counsel. Additionally, pro se status does not excuse failure to meet Rule 8’s demand for a short and plain statement of claims and grounds for relief.
Pleading clarity and length matter: An “exorbitantly long” complaint riddled with immaterial allegations and citations will be dismissed. Remedies sought must be discernible and legally anchored in the pleaded facts.
Post-judgment motions must be timely and properly aimed: Rule 59(e) has a hard 28-day deadline. Rule 60(b) relief is extraordinary and requires developed, nonconclusory showings. Filing a class certification motion after judgment is typically improper.
Issue preservation on appeal is critical: Failure to explain why a district court erred—in clear, developed argument—waives the issue. Pro se status does not relax this requirement.
Family-law disputes in federal court: Even where litigants seek to challenge state custody actions, federal appellate review will be foreclosed by missed deadlines and procedural noncompliance. The opinion underscores the importance of timely, precise federal practice if such cases are to be heard at all.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Jurisdictional deadline: A time limit that defines the court’s power to hear an appeal. Missing it deprives the court of authority to decide the case.
FRAP 4(a)(1)(B) and 28 U.S.C. § 2107(b): If the United States, its agency, or officer is a party, a civil notice of appeal must be filed within 60 days of the judgment.
Time computation (FRAP 26): If a deadline falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, it extends to the next business day.
Rule 59(e): A post-judgment motion asking the district court to alter or amend a judgment; must be filed within 28 days. If untimely, it does not delay the appeal deadline.
Rule 60(b): Allows relief from a final judgment in exceptional circumstances (e.g., excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence). It is not a do-over; the movant must meet specific, demanding criteria.
Excusable neglect: A narrow concept covering certain failures to act despite reasonable care; pro se status alone is not enough.
Newly discovered evidence: Evidence that could not have been discovered in time with reasonable diligence and that likely would change the outcome—mere disagreement or cumulative material does not suffice.
Rule 8 pleading standard: Requires a short and plain statement of jurisdiction, the claim showing entitlement to relief, and a demand for the relief sought—organized, concise, and connected to specific defendants.
Waiver by inadequate briefing: Appellate courts will not craft arguments for the appellant; issues not clearly argued with supporting authority are deemed waived.
Class certification post-judgment: As a general rule, once a case is dismissed and judgment enters, there is no live case in which to certify a class; any such motion is ordinarily improper absent vacatur or reopening.
Representation of minors: Minors cannot proceed pro se; even a parent or guardian must retain counsel to litigate on a minor’s behalf in federal court.

Conclusion

Gunter v. State of Oklahoma is a clear reaffirmation of several foundational procedural principles:

Appellate deadlines, especially the 60-day period when federal agencies are parties, are rigid and jurisdictional; untimely Rule 59(e) motions do not toll them.
Pro se litigants may represent only themselves and must adhere to federal pleading rules; minors must be represented by counsel.
Rule 60(b) relief is extraordinary, and perfunctory or undeveloped arguments are insufficient on appeal.
Post-judgment attempts to certify a class are procedurally improper absent a live case.
Issues not adequately briefed are waived.

Although this order and judgment is nonprecedential, it offers persuasive, practical guidance to litigants and counsel: master the procedural rules, file on time, draft focused pleadings, and preserve issues through cogent appellate briefing. Failure to do so will preclude merits review, as it did here.