Strege v. Launch All Nuclear Missiles

Opinion

Appellate Case: 26-1026 Document: 18-2 Date Filed: 04/20/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT April 20, 2026 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court ADAM STREGE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. No. 26-1026 (D.C. No. 1:25-CV-03897-RTG) LAUNCH ALL NUCLEAR MISSILES; (D. Colo.) ALL PLANETS NUCLEAR MISSILES; NATE LONG, Grand Junction CO Police Officer in his official and individual capacities; BEN COOPER, Grand Junction CO Police Officer in his individual capacity; CRISS KOPP, Grand Junction CO Police Officer in his official and individual capacities; STEVE ANSEL, Grand Junction Police Officer in his official and individual capacities; 5 unknown named Delta County Sheriff Deputies in their individual and official capacities; STEVE BERUJ, Delta County Sheriff in his official and individual capacities; FAY MATHEWS, Delta County Planning Department Director in his official and individual capacities; STARBUCKS COFFEE; DAVID STEINER, United States Post Office Postmaster General in his official and individual capacities; ACSES HEATH; GOD LOVES US; GOD LOVES YOU; GOD HATES US; GOD HEAVEN; GOD HELL; ALL SPACE PLANETS; ALL PLANETS PEOPLE; ALL PLANETS SUN LIGHT; ALL PLANETS ATOMS; SATAN; ALL PLANETS; ALL SPACE PLANETS COURTS ALL PLANETS POLICE AND LAW ENFORCEMENT; Appellate Case: 26-1026 Document: 18-2 Date Filed: 04/20/2026 Page: 2

ALL PLANETS MILITARY; ALL PLANETS COMPUTERS,

Defendants - Appellees. _________________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________

Before MATHESON, MURPHY, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges. _________________________________

Adam Strege appeals the dismissal of his complaint without prejudice under

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. 1 He also seeks leave to

proceed in forma pauperis (“ifp”) on appeal. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291, we reverse dismissal of his complaint, grant his ifp request, and remand for

further proceedings.

The district court dismissed because it had ordered Mr. Strege to cure deficiencies

in his complaint within 30 days, and he had not done so. He filed a motion for

reconsideration, which the district court denied. He then appealed.

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 1 Because Mr. Strege appears pro se, “we liberally construe his filings, but we will not act as his advocate.” James v. Wadas, 724 F.3d 1312, 1315 (10th Cir. 2013).

2 Appellate Case: 26-1026 Document: 18-2 Date Filed: 04/20/2026 Page: 3

Despite his prolix and confusing opening brief, we liberally construe it as at least

attempting to explain that he missed the 30-day deadline because he had informed the

district court that he has no mail delivery and received no court documents. We further

note that Mr. Strege moved in district court to “electronically file all court documents and

fore [sic] court to 100% only contact by pacer email or court to Fedex or Ups court

documents to [his address],” but the court docket reflects no ruling on the motion. Mot.

to Electronically File at 1, No. 1:25-cv-03897 (D. Colo. Dec. 22, 2025), ECF No. 5.

Also, the docket repeatedly lists that court documents mailed to Mr. Strege were returned

as undeliverable.

Under these circumstances, we vacate the district court’s Rule 41(b) dismissal and

remand for further proceedings. See Haynes v. Turner Bass & Assocs., No. 20-40787,

2022 WL 2383855, at *1 (5th Cir. July 1, 2022) (per curiam) (unpublished) (reversing

dismissal for failure to prosecute when plaintiff “was unable to receive her mail” and

“repeatedly called the district court for updates”).

We also grant Mr. Strege’s motion to proceed ifp.

Entered for the Court

Scott M. Matheson, Jr. Circuit Judge