-1-

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.

_____________________________________________________________________

ORDER

_____________________________________________________________________

ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX

This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Answer to United States’ Motion

for Summary Judgment Against Nancy D. Berryman and for Default Judg Judgment

Against the Temple of the Unveiled God and the Office of the Overseer of Dedication

to Enlightenment, and Her Successors, a Corporation Sole, and for Sanctions

Pursuant to FRCP 37, by Means of a Compulsory Counterclaim Pursuant to FRCP

13(a) and Addition of Parties FRCP, Rule 20(2)(A) [sic] [Docket No. 58; Filed November

21, 2013] (the “Response”). On October 15, 2012, Plaintiff filed the Motion for Summary

Judgment Against Nancy D. Berryman and for Default Judgment Against the Temple of the

Unveiled God and the Office of the Overseer of Dedication to Enlightenment, and Her

Successors, a Corporation Sole, and for Sanctions Pursuant to FRCP 37 (the “Motion”).

On November 21, 2013, Defendant Nancy D. Berryman (“Berryman”) filed the Response

Case 1:11-cv-02708-WYD-KLM Document 64 Filed 02/22/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3
-2-

[#58]. On December 5, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Reply [#59], although it is titled Response to

Defendant Nancy D. Berryman’s Motion for Enlargement of Time to Object to United

States’ Summary Judgment Motion, the same title as Docket No. 55. In spite of the

erroneous title, the accompanying text to the Reply [#59] does address the issues raised

by Defendant Berryman in the Response [#58].

However, there appears to be some confusion over whether Defendant Berryman’s

Response is merely a Response to the Motion or also an assertion of counterclaims against

the United States of America, Lee Routledge, and Ginger L. Wray, the latter two of whom

are not Plaintiffs in this case. Examining the Response, the Court notes that the vast

majority of the twelve “claims” Defendant Berryman asserts are merely arguments against

Plaintiff’s Motion and cannot be fairly read to assert a claim against any person or entity.

The remaining claims, although also mainly arguments against imposition of summary

judgment against her, appear to rely on conclusory allegations of fraud on the part of

Plaintiff and the other proposed counter defendants.

The deadline for joinder of parties and amendment of pleadings passed on February

29, 2012. Scheduling Order [#39] at 16. This deadline included the assertion of

counterclaims and addition of counter defendants. The vast majority of issues raised by

Defendant Berryman as “claims” are items that could have been raised long ago in this

rapidly-aging case. The discovery period is closed and the dispositive motions deadline

has passed. In order to amend her pleadings at this late stage, Defendant Berryman must

follow Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) and 15. See Nielson v. Price, 17 F.3d 1276, 1277 (10th Cir.

1994) (stating that pro se litigants must follow the same procedural rules that govern other

litigants). In the Response, Defendant Berryman simply (and erroneously) presumes that

Case 1:11-cv-02708-WYD-KLM Document 64 Filed 02/22/13 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3
-3-

she can raise counterclaims and add counter defendants at this stage of the proceedings

without permission of the Court.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Berryman’s proposed counterclaims are

not accepted for filing with the Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall remove each Counter

Claimant and each Counter Defendant from the electronic docket.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Response [#58] is accepted only as a

Response to Plaintiff’s Motion [#52] and not as an amendment of the pleadings.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, due to the confusion regarding the Response filed

by Defendant Berryman, Plaintiff may, if it so desires, file a Supplemental Reply of no more

than five pages on or before March 8, 2013.

Dated: February 22, 2013

Case 1:11-cv-02708-WYD-KLM Document 64 Filed 02/22/13 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3