Taurus v. Austin

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
• Decided: December 20, 2021
• Docket: 21-1305
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Appellate Case: 21-1305 Document: 010110621248 Date Filed: 12/20/2021 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT December 20, 2021 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court MILAGRO TAURUS,

Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 21-1305 v. (D.C. No. 1:21-CV-01140-LTB-GPG) (D. Colo.) LLOYD AUSTIN, III, Secretary, Department of Defense,

Defendant - Appellee. _________________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________

Before BACHARACH, MURPHY, and CARSON, Circuit Judges. _________________________________

Ms. Milagro Taurus sued the Department of Defense and its

Secretary. The district court could not understand the nature of the claims

and ordered amendment of the complaint. In responding to the order, Ms.

Taurus amended the complaint and supplemented the amendment with two

letters. But the district court couldn’t understand the amended version of

* Because oral argument would not materially aid our consideration of the appeal, we have decided the appeal based on the briefs and record on appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G).

This order and judgment does not constitute binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. But the order and judgment may be cited for its persuasive value if otherwise appropriate. Fed. R. App. P. 32.1(a); 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A). Appellate Case: 21-1305 Document: 010110621248 Date Filed: 12/20/2021 Page: 2

the complaint and dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to

comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This rule

requires every plaintiff to provide a short, plain statement of the claim that

shows a right to relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Ms. Taurus has appealed.

Because she is pro se, we liberally construe Ms. Taurus’s complaint,

amended complaint, and appellate brief. E.g., Hall v. Scott, 292 F.3d 1264,

1266 (10th Cir. 2002). But we too have trouble understanding her filings.

Though Ms. Taurus isn’t an attorney, we must apply the rules equally to all

litigants. See United States v. Green, 886 F.3d 1300, 1307–08 (10th Cir.

2018). Our ultimate task is to determine whether Ms. Taurus showed some

error in the district court’s ruling. See Nixon v. City & Cnty. of Denver,

784 F.3d 1364, 1366 (10th Cir. 2015).

We see no error in the ruling. The rules require a short, plain

statement of the claim showing a right to relief. See pp. 1–2, above. From

the pleadings in district court, we can’t discern how the Department of

Defense and Secretary Austin violated a law.

On appeal, Ms. Taurus says that

 she’s reported many incidents of food poisoning,

 the Department of Defense permits major upheavals, and

 there are threats to cyber security.

2 Appellate Case: 21-1305 Document: 010110621248 Date Filed: 12/20/2021 Page: 3

But we have trouble connecting these statements to Ms. Taurus’s

allegations in the complaint or the amended complaint. In the complaint,

Ms. Taurus referred to the distribution and sale of scans of her brain, body,

and sexual organs. R. at 9. In her amended complaint, she stated that she

had been “[c]yber manipulated” by the scientific community. R. at 59.

These allegations do not provide a short, plain statement of a valid claim

against the Department of Defense or its Secretary. We thus affirm the

dismissal without prejudice. 1

Entered for the Court

Robert E. Bacharach Circuit Judge

1 Though we affirm the dismissal, we grant the application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.