Jemaneh v. University of Wyoming,The
ORDER denying 114 Motion to Vacate and FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's request to recuse Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe is DENIED. by Judge Raymond P. Moore on 5/13/2014.(trlee, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Raymond P. Moore
Civil Action No. 12-cv-02383-RM-MJW
TEWODROS G. JEMANEH,
THE UNIVERSITY OF WYOMING,
THE UNIVERSITY OF WYOMING COLLEGE OF HEALTH SCIENCES,
THE UNIVERSITY OF WYOMING SCHOOL OF PHARMACY,
TOM BUCHANAN, in his official and individual capacity,
NELL RUSSELL, in her official and individual capacity,
JOSEPH F. STEINER, in his official and individual capacity,
DAVID L. JONES, in his official and individual capacity,
JOHN H. VANDEL, in his official and individual capacity,
BEVERLY A. SULLIVAN, in her official and individual capacity,
JAIME R. HORNECKER,
JANELLE L. KRUEGER, in her official and individual capacity,
CARA A. HARSHBERGER, in her official and individual capacity,
AMY L. STUMP, in her official and individual capacity,
AGATHA CHRISTIE NELSON, in her official and individual capacity,
KATHLEEN A. THOMPSON, in her official and individual capacity, and
MARIA A. BENNET, in her official and individual capacity,
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO VACATE [MAGISTRATE] JUDGE WATANABE’S
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO EXTEND THE DEADLINE FOR
DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS BY SIX MONTHS (ECF NO. 114)
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s “Motion to Vacate [Magistrate] Judge
Watanabe’s Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Extend the Deadline for Dispositive Motions
by Six Months” (“Motion to Vacate”) (ECF No. 114). By Minute Order (“Order”) dated
September 23, 2013 (ECF No. 112), the Magistrate Judge granted Defendants’ Motion to Extend
Deadline for Dispositive Motions (“Motion to Extend”) (ECF No. 110), finding good cause due
to Defendants’ pending Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 91).1 Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate seeks to
vacate the Order and recuse the Magistrate Judge. In support of his requests, Plaintiff argues the
Magistrate Judge erred because the Motion to Extend violated several Federal rules, Local Rules
and Civil Practice Standards; Defendants’ Motion to Extend should have been stricken as
scandalous as it was filed to deter Plaintiff from filing his motion for summary judgment; and the
Magistrate Judge was biased and prejudiced against Plaintiff and treated him unfairly.2 Each
argument is addressed below.
The Alleged Violations of Rules and Practice Standards. First, Plaintiff made a vague
reference to Rules 8 and 12(b), Fed.R.Civ.P., but failed to articulate how the Motion to Extend
violated such Rules. As such, no error has been shown as to any claimed violation of such rules.
Next, no violation of the Local Rules (D.C.COLO.LCivR), as it existed at the time the
Motion to Extend was filed, has been shown sufficient to support the denial of that motion on the
merits. Local Rule 6.1D was not violated as the information requested relates to the Motion to
Extend, i.e., whether previously extensions were granted for the dispositive motions deadline,
not to requests for extensions of other deadlines. Although this information should have been
disclosed within the Motion to Extend, it was nonetheless disclosed in Defendants’ electronic
Plaintiff also relies on the argument that the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 91) should have been stricken. That
argument is moot in light of this Court’s Order dated May 13, 2014 (ECF No. 146) denying Plaintiff’s motion to
Plaintiff also incorporated his five motions then pending, without explanation as to how they support his
arguments. Those motions have already been or will be separately addressed by the Court.
case filing. As such, while there was not strict compliance with Local Rule 6.1D, denial was not
warranted under the Court’s Civil Practice Standards.
Further, Local Rule 6.1E requires certification of service on the attorney’s clients. While
the Motion to Extend failed to do so, Defendants’ attorney subsequently advised the Court that
he had in fact provided a copy of the motion to Defendants. (ECF No. 117, page 4.) As such,
any violation was cured.
While the Court agrees there was not strict compliance with the Local Rules, the record
shows there was in fact compliance. As such, the Order granting the Motion to Extend was not
an abuse of discretion, clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
The Alleged Scandalous Motion to Extend. Plaintiff also contends the Motion to Extend
should have been stricken as “scandalous” because it was filed after he conferred about his
intention to file a motion for summary judgment, to deter him from filing such motion. The
Court finds no basis to support Plaintiff’s position. The extension of the deadline did not – and
does not – preclude Plaintiff from filing his motion for summary judgment; instead, it gave him
additional time to do so, if he chose to do so.
The Request to Recuse the Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff argues the Order granting the
Motion to Extend evidences the Magistrate Judge’s personal bias against Plaintiff or favoritism
toward Defendants. Plaintiff’s argument is premised on the allegedly improperly filed “second”
Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 91), which he contends should have been stricken. This argument
has already been rejected in this Court’s Order dated May 13, 2014. (ECF No. 146.) Moreover,
the Court has already addressed and denied Plaintiff’s other requests for recusal (ECF Nos. 144-
146) and no information has been provided to show that such denials should be reconsidered or
Based on the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate (ECF No. 114) is DENIED; and
FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request to recuse Magistrate Judge Michael J.
Watanabe is DENIED.
DATED this 13th day of May, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
RAYMOND P. MOORE
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?