STATE OF MICHIGAN
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
JASON PURKEY
Plaintiff-Appellee, Court of Appeals No. 358704
v
RUBILYN PRANGE
Defendant-Appellant.
/
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
RUBILYN PRANGE
6728N Federal Hwy #343
Fort Lauderdale FL 33308
248-993-8654
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS 2
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 3
FACTS AND PROCEDURE 4
ARGUMENTS 5
i. The judge was biased 5
ii. The Judge abused its discretion 6
CONCLUSION 8
8
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Cain v Mich Dep't of Corrections, 451 Mich 470, 494-496; 548 NW2d 210 (1996) 5
Ireland v Smith, 214 Mich App 235, 250; 542 NW2d 344 (1995) 5
Liteky v United States, 510 US 540, 555; 114 S Ct 1147; 127 L Ed 2d 474 (1994). 5
Mitchell v Mitchell, 296 Mich App 513, 523; 823 NW2d 153 (2012) 5
Spalding v Spalding, 355 Mich. 382, 384-385; 94 N.W.2d 810 (1959) 6
Rules
MCR 2.003(C)(1)(a) and (b) 5
8
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The parties, have one child, a son JJP, born in 2018.
On or about July 2019, Plaintiff filed a complaint at the Circuit Court for the County of
Washetenaw, Family Division. In the Complaint, the Plaintiff sought joint legal and physical
custody of the child because his relationship with defendant had deteriorated. The Parties later
consented to the entry of a judgment regarding joint legal and physical custody, parenting time,
and child support.
Consequently, the Trial Court entered a written order on or about September 10, 2021.
In the said Order, the Court, inter alia, granted plaintiff sole legal and physical custody of the
child. The trial court granted defendant continued parenting time via video or telephone.
It is pertinent to note that the presiding Judge of the case at the County of Washetenaw,
Family Division, Hon. Judge Patrick J. Conlin, Jr. disqualified himself on October 6, 2021, on
the grounds of bias towards the Plaintiff.
Defendant then filed the instant appeal on September 29, 2021. In the appeal, the
Defendant argued that her due process rights were violated by the Trial Court’s Order because it
interfered with her parental interest by separating her from the child without holding a hearing.
Defendant further asserted that the Trial Court must have first considered and determined her
fitness to be a parent before issuing the said Order.
On or about May 26, 2022, this Court issued an unpublished opinion. In the said
opinion, the Court stated inter alia, that the Trial Court had indeed met Defendant’s due process
rights and the Trial Court’s decision was supported by evidence. The court therefore held that
Defendant is not entitled to relief.
8
ARGUMENTS
i. The judge was biased
"Due process requires that an unbiased and impartial decision-maker hear and decide a
case." Mitchell v Mitchell, 296 Mich App 513, 523; 823 NW2d 153 (2012).
Disqualification is warranted where a "judge is biased or prejudiced for or against a party
or attorney," where a judge has exhibited "a serious risk of actual bias impacting the due process
rights of a party," or where there is an appearance of impropriety. MCR 2.003(C)(1)(a) and (b);
Cain v Mich Dep't of Corrections, 451 Mich 470, 494-496; 548 NW2d 210 (1996). Actual bias
tends only to exist where a judge displays "'a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would
make fair judgment impossible.' " Cain, 451 Mich at 496, quoting Liteky v United States, 510 US
540, 555; 114 S Ct 1147; 127 L Ed 2d 474 (1994). In the absence of actual bias, "disqualification
is warranted 'where there are circumstances of such a nature to cause doubt as to [the judge's]
partiality, bias, or prejudice.'" Ireland v Smith, 214 Mich App 235, 250; 542 NW2d 344 (1995);
aff'd as mod 451 Mich 457 (1986).
In the instant action, the presiding Judge, Hon. Judge Patrick Conlin Jr. made findings of
fact against the great weight of evidence in favor of Defendant. Besides, there was insufficient
proof that Defendant had violated the recommendation by the Parenting Coordinator. Defendant
further avers that she was reluctant to give up her exact location in Florida since she was in fear
for her safety from the Plaintiff. Further, Defendant has evidence that the Plaintiff refused to
allow her to speak to the child on Facetime. And in the event a call was made, the Plaintiff either
faced the camera to the wall or upside down. The Plaintiff also ensured that there was a lot of
noise during the call such that Defendant could not hear the child. Defendant filed a Motion to
this effect on or about July 6, 2021.
Defendant also asserts that Judge Patrick Conlin Jr. showed bias when he constantly
8
denied Defendant chance to see her child, for no reason yet Defendant was in full compliance
with ALL the requirements and that she duly presented all information he requested, which she
delivered on three different occasions. Notably, Defendant sent all the information to the Clerk’s
office, Judge’s chambers, other attorney, and parenting coordinator (03X). The said Judge also
denied numerous motions filed by the Defendant, which if allowed, would have been in the best
interest of the child.
On or about April 5, 2021, the Defendant filed a Motion to Recuse the Judge. The Judge
denied the Motion. He only recused himself around five months later, on October 6, 2021.
In sum, Defendant avers that the Trial Court judge was biased and his conduct and/or
decisions flew against the interest of justice. It stands, therefore, the Trial Court’s Order granting
Plaintiff sole legal and physical custody of the child should be dismissed and/or reversed.
ii. The Judge abused its discretion
In defining the term "abuse of discretion," the Supreme Court in Spalding v Spalding,
355 Mich. 382, 384-385; 94 N.W.2d 810 (1959) stated that the term discretion itself involves the
idea of choice, of an exercise of the will, of a determination made between competing
considerations. In order to have an "abuse" in reaching such determination, the result must be so
palpably and grossly violative of fact and logic that it evidences not the exercise of will but
perversity of will, not the exercise of judgment but defiance thereof, not the exercise of reason,
but rather of passion or bias. The exercise of discretion turns upon a factual determination made
by the trier of the facts, an abuse of discretion involves far more than a difference in judicial
opinion between the trial and appellate courts. Id.
Defendant also asserts that Judge Patrick Conlin Jr. committed blatant abuse of discretion
in each of the decisions he made. First, the Judge allowed a Parenting Coordinator on the case
without Defendant’s consent. Also, on or about January 15, 2021, the Judge suspended
8
Defendant’s Parenting Time without an Evidentiary-Hearing. On January 15, 2021, Defendant’s
parenting time was suspended. She did not receive an evidentiary hearing until September 9, 2021
(08-Months).
On April 21, 2021, Defendant asked Judge Conlin Jr. to “Recuse” himself. He DENIED
the said motion on April 23, 2021. He went on to issue biased rulings and/or decisions until he
reused himself on October 2021. To further expose the rot in the system, on May 5, 2021,
Defendant asked the chief judge Carol Kuhnke to have Judge Conlin Jr. to be removed and/or
recused from THE case for being Biased. The Chief Judge denied the Motion.
Further, on or about June 18, 2021, there was a Hearing before a Judge Conlon Jr. to
Reinstate Parenting-Plan. The Judge told Defendant to send in a few more documents to his
chambers, which Defendant duly did. The judge then told Defendant that he was going to reinstate
the parenting plan soon. However, it was until September 9, 2021 when the Judge finally granted
Defendant her Evidentiary-Hearing that she had been asking for almost two years. It was exactly
90-days from the previous hearing where the Judge had reassured Defendant that she (Defendant)
was going to be seeing her son and the parenting plan would be reinstated.
It is also notable that contrary to the Judge’s words, Defendant went from 50-50 shared
physical/legal custody. After almost 3 hours of testimony, the Judge granted 100% sole, physical,
legal custody & Child Support to be granted to the Plaintiff. As a result of the Judgment,
Defendant can never see her son in person, unless she gets a signed specific court order for a
supervised visitation in Michigan. She can also never bring her son to Florida to visit her.
Further, she will be obligated to do FaceTime with her son, until she secures a signed specific
court order for the supervised visitation.
On November 18, 2021, Defendant got a hearing in front of the new judge that was
assigned to the case. Further, the new Judge Timothy P Connors told Defendant that everything
8
stood and that he would not be changing anything amidst Defendant’s concerns that the case has
been ruled on for the last 2 1/2 years by a biased judge. The Judge disregarded Defendant’s
concerns and went on to sanction Defendant $900 for the Plaintiff’s attorney’s fees, and assigned
a $5000 cash surety bond paid to the court before Defendant could file any further motions.
On June 2, 2022 (6.5-Months), Defendant had a show cause hearing in front of Tracy E.
Van den Bergh. She asked me why Defendant was not paying the child support as she was
obligated to do. Defendant then sought a Motion for Stay. Consequently, Defendant was issued a
Warrant for her Arrest.
It is clear that the Judges at the Trial Court abused the Court’s discretion. Decisions were
made, which were against the interest of justice, and failed to consider pertinent evidence in
support of Defendant. The Court also failed to consider the best interest of the child.
CONCLUSION
The foregoing shows how Defendant has suffered in the hands of the Court. The
prosecution of the case at the Trial Court was tainted with bias from the presiding Judge, coupled
with a blatant abuse of discretion, which hampered Defendant’s access to justice.
WHEREFORE, Defendant prays this Court reconsiders its decision entered on May 26,
2022, and to dismiss the Trial Court’s decision granting the Plaintiff sole, legal and physical
custody. The Defendant also prays this Court issues any other Order it deems just.
Respectfully Submitted,
Dated: _____________
_____________________________
RUBILYN PRANGE
6728N Federal Hwy #343
Fort Lauderdale FL 33308
248-993-8654
8
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was sent on the
[ENTER DATE] by regular U.S. mail postage prepaid, to the Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s attorney of
record:
Plaintiff:
JASON PURKEY
7309 Wellington Lane Ypsilanti
Mi 48197
Plaintiff’s Attorney
NIK LULGJURAJ (P48879)
300 N. Main, Suite 4,
Chelsea, MI 48118
(734) 433-0816
Fax: (734) 433-0817
Email: nik@niklaw.com
Dated this ____ day of June, 2022. Respectfully submitted,
_____________________________
RUBILYN PRANGE
6728N Federal Hwy #343
Fort Lauderdale FL 33308
248-993-8654
At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )