Bunn v. Perdue, 966 F.3d 1094

Bunn was hired Jan. 31, 2011 as a probationary HR assistant at the USFS and was fired Jan. 6, 2012 after supervisor concerns and related complaints to an EEO counselor.
He pursued administrative EEO claims (harassment, hostile work environment, retaliation); the EEOC administrative judge and USDA appellate bodies granted summary judgment for the agency.
Bunn sued Secretary Perdue in his official capacity in federal district court alleging retaliation (Title VII) and §1983 claims; the district court granted summary judgment for the Secretary and entered final judgment June 3, 2019.
On June 27, 2019 non‑lawyer William A. Rankin filed a motion to vacate (treated as a Rule 59(e) motion) and sought to act as Bunn’s “next friend”; Bunn’s attorneys had not withdrawn.
The district court struck Rankin’s filings and denied the Rule 17 request on July 1, 2019 because Rankin was not licensed and Bunn remained represented; struck filings were treated as nullities and could not toll appeal deadlines.
Bunn filed a notice of appeal Aug. 29, 2019. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the strike and dismissed Bunn’s appeal of the summary‑judgment order as untimely for lack of jurisdiction because the struck post‑judgment motion did not toll the 60‑day appeal period.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion by striking the post‑judgment motion and denying Rankin leave to represent Bunn	Rankin’s filings should not have been struck; striking is disfavored and appellee wasn’t prejudiced	Rankin was not a licensed attorney; Bunn was represented and could not proceed pro se; Rule 17 next‑friend requirements not met	Affirmed. Court did not abuse discretion; strike proper under local rules and Rule 17 limits
Whether Bunn’s appeal of the summary‑judgment order was timely (i.e., whether the struck motion tolled the 60‑day appeal period)	The June 27 motion to vacate tolled the 60‑day clock, making the Aug. 29 notice of appeal timely	The motion was properly struck and therefore a nullity; struck/invalid post‑judgment filings do not toll the appeal period	Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The struck motion did not toll the 60‑day period and the notice of appeal was untimely

Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (timely filing of a notice of appeal in civil cases is jurisdictional)
Vanderwerf v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 603 F.3d 842 (tolling effect of timely post‑judgment motions under Fed. R. App. P. 4)
Fymbo v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 213 F.3d 1320 (party may proceed pro se only for own claims)
Adams ex rel. D.J.W. v. Astrue, 659 F.3d 1297 (pro se means to appear for oneself; others may not appear pro se)
Air Line Pilots Ass’n v. Precision Valley Aviation, Inc., 26 F.3d 220 (stricken/noncompliant post‑judgment motions do not toll appeal periods)
Allender v. Raytheon Aircraft Co., 439 F.3d 1236 (appellate jurisdiction requires timely notice of appeal)
Hamer v. Neighborhood Housing Servs. of Chicago, 138 S. Ct. 13 (distinguishing jurisdictional rules from claim‑processing rules)