Milagro Taurus v. LLOYD AUSTIN, III, Secretary, Department of Defense

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
_________________________________
MILAGRO TAURUS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
LLOYD AUSTIN, III, Secretary,
Department of Defense,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 21-1305
(D.C. No. 1:21-CV-01140-LTB-GPG)
(D. Colo.)
_________________________________
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).
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
December 20, 2021
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
Appellate Case: 21-1305 Document: 010110621248 Date Filed: 12/20/2021 Page: 1

-- 1 of 3 --

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

-- 2 of 3 --

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

-- 3 of 3 --