USA v. Berryman et al

Filing 71

MINUTE ORDER denying 69 Motion to Strike All of Plaintiff's Pleadings Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 12(f) Nunc Pro Tunc and Motion to Set for Hearing of Motion to Strike by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 05/21/13.(jjhsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 11-cv-02708-WYD-KLM
USA,
Plaintiff,
v.
NANCY D. BERRYMAN,
THE TEMPLE OF THE UNVEILED GOD, and
THE OFFICE OF THE OVERSEER OF DEDICATION TO ENLIGHTENMENT, and her
successors, a corporation sole,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Nancy D. Berryman’s Motion to Strike
All of Plaintiff’s Pleadings Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 12(f)
Nunc Pro Tunc and Motion to Set for Hearing of Motion to Strike [Docket No. 69; Filed
May 20, 2013] (the “Motion”). Defendant Berryman appears to ask the Court to strike the
Complaint [#1; Filed October 18, 2011] because it “contains no Affidavit and Complaint by
a competent fact witness attesting facts that would commence an action against Alleged
Defendants NANCY D. BERRYMAN, Et al.” [sic] Motion [#69] at 2. Defendant Berryman
further argues that “[t]he Sham Pleading contain[s] no allegations within its four corners
which could be construed to be admissible evidence in an action, pursuant to the Federal
Rules of Evidence.” Id.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), “[a] pleading that states a claim for relief,” such as
the Complaint in this action, “must contain: (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds
for the court’s jurisdiction . . . , (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief; and (3) a demand for the relief sought . . . .” There is no
requirement that an affidavit or other admissible evidence be included in a complaint.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#69] is DENIED.
Dated: May 21, 2013
-1-