United States District Court, D. Utah
Nuffer, District Judge.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
Kohler, United States Magistrate Judge.
Watson, a pro se plaintiff, has filed a motion (the
“Motion for Recusal”) to have me disqualified from
further participation in this case. Because Watson's
filings are insufficient, the Motion is DENIED.
previously filed a motion “to allow him to bring in a
small amount of marijuana . . . and Weiner dog anal glands
substance/discharge to test UHP Chris Terry's ability to
smell said marijuana over Watson's two Weiner dogs'
anal glands.” The defendants filed a response opposing
that motion (the “Smell-Test
Motion”). Watson did not file a reply memorandum,
and after the time expired for him to do so,  I entered an
order denying the Smell-Test Motion for each of the following
1. Other than stating that the proposed smell test is to be
performed “over Watson's two Weiner dogs' anal
glands, ” Watson has not explained when, where, or
under what specific conditions or circumstances this test is
2. Watson has not shown how the conditions of his proposed
experiment would be in any way similar to the conditions that
led to his arrest.
3. Watson has not disclosed how or from whom he has or will
obtain the “small amount of marijuana” that he
seeks “to bring in” for this test.
4. And Watson has not complied with the procedures set forth
in Fed.R.Civ.P. 35, which govern the examination of
on that ruling, Watson now accuses me “of unbelievable
bias and [lying] to prejudice and compromise [his] otherwise
great case.” He also accuses me of having not
“even read [his] Motion”-which was only one sentence
allegations of bias are conclusory, devoid of evidentiary
support, and unfounded. “In every lawsuit, judges make
rulings adverse to one or the other party. That these rulings
may be unwelcome is simply too commonplace a circumstance to
support an allegation of bias.” Accordingly, the Motion for
Recusal will not be granted on this basis.
allegations of fabrication and dishonesty are also
conclusory, without evidentiary support, and incorrect.
Although Watson may have now (1) “clearly and
in great detail describe[d] the ‘specific conditions or
circumstances' of how and where the Smell test would
occur, ” (2) “stated the extraordinary
circumstances of th[e] night” that he was arrested, and
(3) “state[d] where he would ‘obtain' the pot
to bring in to Court, ” he did not do so in the
Smell-Test Motion or in any document that was then on file
connected to it. The reply memorandum, in which Watson
purports to supply this information, was not filed until 16
days after the order denying his Smell-Test Motion
was entered-when Watson attached it as an exhibit to his
Motion for Recusal. As a result, Watson's accusations of
dishonesty are without merit.
assertion that I did not read his one-sentence-long
Smell-Test Motion is likewise false. Indeed, the order
denying it ...