IN CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
COUNTY DEPARTMENT – PROBATE DIVISION
ESTATE OF ROMEO NANCE-ASHFORD
A Minor
FRED L. NANCE JR., ) Honorable Judge Riley
Petitioner, ) No. 00 P 1267
v. ) Docket: 282
JULIA JOHNSON, ) Page: 259
Respondent. ) Room 1809
NOTICE OF MOTION
TO: Theresa C. Ceko Honorable Judge Timothy Evans
Loyola University Community Law Center Daley Center, Room 2600
25 East Pearson, Suite 1400 Chicago, Illinois 60601
Chicago, Illinois 60611
Attorney Michael Bergmann Ms. Mary Robinson
Chicago Volunteer Legal Services Foundation ARDC Administrator
100 No. LaSalle, Suite 900 130 East Randolph Drive
Chicago, Illinois 60602 Chicago, Illinois 60601-6219
Cook County Department of Supportive Services Judicial Inquiry Board
Mr. Marcelino P. Jones, assigned social worker 100 West Randolph St.
69 West Washington Street, Suite 818 Suite 14-500
Chicago, Illinois 60602 Chicago, Illinois 60601-3233
Please be advised on July 5, 2005 at 9:00 am, or soon thereafter as petitioner may be heard, he shall appear before the Honorable Supervising Judge Henry Budzinski of the
Probate Division presiding in Room 1803 at the Richard J. Daley Center, Chicago, Illinois, and then and there present petitioner’s Motion to Recuse a Judge, a copy of which is hereto attached and served upon the parties above.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Fred Nance Jr., pro se petitioner certifies that I caused the above Notice and attached motion to be served upon the parties above by hand-delivering copy on July 5, 2005 to their respective offices.
IN CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
COUNTY DEPARTMENT – PROBATE DIVISION
ESTATE OF ROMEO NANCE-ASHFORD
A Minor
FRED L. NANCE JR., ) Honorable Judge Riley
Petitioner, ) No. 00 P 1267
v. ) Docket: 282
JULIA JOHNSON, ) Page: 259
Respondent. ) Room 1809
MOTION TO RECUSE A JUDGE
Now Comes, Fred Nance Jr. Pro Se petitioner, requesting Judge James Riley’s recusal from this matter pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 63(A)(1)(3)(4)(8)(9)(B)(3)(C)(1)(a). Petitioner sets forth the following support for this motion, and request this Court review this action de novo.
The plaintiff is a “pro se” litigant requesting this Honorable Court should liberally construe his motions. Castro v. United States, 290 F.3d 1270 (2003) reports courts sometimes will ignore the legal label that a pro se litigant attaches to a motion and recharacterize the motion in order to place it within a different legal category. See, e.g., Raineri v. United States, 233 F.3d 96, 100 (CA1 2000); United States v. Detrich, 940 F.2d 37, 38 (CA2 1991); United States v. Miller, 197 F.3d 644, 648 (CA3 1999); Raines v. United States, 423 F.2d 526, 528, n. 1 (CA4 1970); United States v. Santora, 711 F.2d 41, 42 (CA5 1983); United States v. McDowell, 305 F.2d 12, 14 (CA6 1962); Henderson v. United States, 264 F.3d 709, 711 (CA7 2001); McIntyre v. United States, 508 F.2d 403, n. 1 (CA8 1975) (per curiam); United States v. Eatinger, 902 F.2d 1383, 1385 (CA9 1990) (per curiam); United States v. Kelly, 235 F.3d 1238, 1242 (CA10 2000); United States v. Jordan, 915 F.2d 622, 625 (CA11 1990); United States v. Tindle, 522 F.2d 689, 693 (CADC 1975) (per curiam).This Court may do so in order to avoid an unnecessary dismissal, e.g., id., at 692—693, to avoid inappropriately stringent application of formal labeling requirements, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam), or to create a better correspondence between the substance of a pro se motion’s claim and its underlying legal basis. See Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 10 (1980) (per curiam); Andrews v. United States, 373 U.S. 334 (1963).
1. On June 24, 2005, the Honorable Judge Henry Budzinski recused Judge Kathleen McGury from this matter, petitioner stating Judge McGury had personal biases and prejudices stemming from petitioner’s complaint to the Judicial Inquiry Board on June 13, 2005 (order attached).
2. On June 24, 2005, Judge Budzinski assigned the case to Judge James Riley in courtroom 1809 (order attached).
3. On June 24, 2005, petitioner filed a motion (after Judge Budzinski’s order) to recuse a judge and immediately reinstate visitation of June 27, 2000 requesting it heard on July 1, 2005 in room 1809.
4. Judge James Riley has personal biases and prejudices concerning the petitioner, and personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning this matter.
5. On or about January 25, 2001, Judge James Riley was involved in this matter.
6. On July 1, 2005, petitioner informed Judge James Riley that petitioner filed a formal complaint with the Judicial Inquiry Board against him in 2001 or 2002 regarding this same behavior claimed in this motion (complaint actually filed with the Judicial Inquiry Board on January 25, 2001 and not stated for the record in court on July 1, 2005 because petitioner did not know the precise date until he called on July 1, 2005).
7. On July 1, 2005, Judge James Riley was swayed by partisan interest, that is, Attorneys Theresa Ceko and Margaret Benson (see attached letters to Judges Timothy Evans and Henry Budzinski).
8. On July 1, 2005, petitioner submitted an Affidavit from the mother, Genesis Nance, to Judge James Riley (attached).
9. On July 1, 2005, Judge Riley stated that the petitioner’s Affidavit was no good in his courtroom, statement part of the official record.
10. On July 1, 2005, petitioner presented 3 witnesses, that is, his 74-year-old mother, his stepdaughter, and the minor child’s brother for testimony regarding the present motion requested to be heard on July 1, 2005.
11. Judge Riley refused testimony from the petitioner’s witnesses.
12. Judge James Riley was not patient or courteous to the petitioner.
13. Judge James Riley did not accord to petitioner the right to be heard.
14. For the reasons stated, petitioner requested of Judge James Riley to recuse himself from this matter; petitioner submitting a recusal order to be signed by Judge Riley (attached).
15. Judge Riley threw the recusal order across his desk, at the petitioner, stating recusal denied, you already had one.
16. Petitioner informed Judge Riley that he could not hear his own recusal.
17. Judge Riley ignored the petitioner.
18. Attorneys Ceko and Benson have submitted to this court unsupported statements for the suspension of the petitioner’s visitation rights pursuant to the court order of June 27, 2000.
19. Attorneys Ceko has suggested to the court that her claims for suspension of petitioner’s rights to visitation are predicated on the minor child’s conversation with her.
20. Petitioner spoke to the minor child on July 3, 2005, and the minor child stated that he did not tell Ms. Ceko that he did not want to visit with his grandfather.
21. The minor child states that he goes to summer school, but does not attend summer school on Fridays.
22. Petitioner has agreed upon July 12, 2005 with the Cook County Department of Supportive Services for a home study with the minor child present.
23. Attorneys Ceko and Benson have not supplied the petitioner with contact information for the minor child to comply with the agreement with the Cook County Department of Supportive Services.
24. The court has ignored this visitation date of July 12, 2005 also.
25. Attorneys Ceko and Benson have persuaded the court to continue all matters until July 25, 2005 to avoid, moot, and challenges of petitioner’s motions for contempt of the court by the respondent, and the GAL’s unsupported testimony for suspension of visitation.
WHEREFORE, petitioner presents this motion to the supervising Judge, praying the Honorable Judge Henry Budzinski order: (1) recusal of Judge James Riley, (2) setting a court date for July 15, 2005 to hear petitioner’s motions finding respondent in contempt of court, (3) ordering the GAL and respondent to produce the minor child for testimony supporting the suspension of visitation on July 15, 2005, (4) reinstate visitation immediately, (5) ordering counsel for the respondent or the GAL to adhere to the Cook County Department of Supportive Services’ demand for a home study of petitioner and minor child by providing petitioner with the minor child’s new address and phone numbers for contact needed for petitioner’s home study date of July 12, 2005, and (6) whatever other remedies deemed appropriate and necessary towards the ends of justice.
