Opinion ID: 1577184
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Reconsideration of Motion for Recusals

Text: In the September 17, 2003, order I decided only plaintiff's motion asking that I recuse myself and did not participate in the motion regarding whether the other justices should recuse themselves. Justice Marilyn J. Kelly, who was not challenged by the plaintiff, did not participate in the motion. Plaintiff argues that the whole Courtincluding Justice Kelly and myselfshould convene to decide the motion to recuse Chief Justice Corrigan and Justices Taylor, Young, and Markman and to have an evidentiary hearing regarding each justice's participation in this case. MCR 2.003(3) states in pertinent part, however, that the ... challenged judge shall decide the motion. As I explained in my previous statement in this matter, pursuant to MCR 2.003(3), it is the duty of each challenged judge to make his or her own decision on a motion asking for the judge's disqualification in a case. Thus, I do not participate in the reconsideration regarding the denial of the motion regarding Chief Justice Corrigan and Justices Taylor, Young, and Markman. Plaintiff contends that the Supreme Court need not comply with MCR 2.003(3). This argument is without merit. MCR 2.001 governs when the rules in chapter 2 of the court rules, including MCR 2.003, apply to a court. MCR 2.001 provides: The rules in this chapter [which include MCR 2.003] govern procedure in all civil proceedings in all courts established by the constitution and laws of the State of Michigan, except where the limited jurisdiction of a court makes a rule inherently inapplicable or where a rule applicable to a specific court or a specific type of proceeding provides a different procedure. The Michigan Supreme Court is a court established by the Constitution of the state of Michigan; it is not a court of limited jurisdiction so that MCR 2.003 would be inherently inapplicable. Nor is there a rule on motions for recusal that provides a different procedure applicable specifically to the Supreme Court. Thus, until such time as MCR 2.003 is revised to include a different procedure that would specifically apply to the Supreme Court, [4] it is appropriate for each justice to follow the procedure outlined in MCR 2.003(3) when deciding motions for his or her recusal. Finally, plaintiff's argument that the procedure detailed in MCR 2.003(3) does not apply to the Supreme Court because the court rule uses the term judge rather than justice must fail. A justice is a judge. Black's Law Dictionary defines a justice as A judge, esp. of an appellate court or a court of last resort. [5] Therefore, use of the term judge does not preclude this Court from following the procedures articulated in MCR 2.003.