In other words, any relief in this action could 'only be predicated upon a conviction that the state court proceeding was wrong.'" Id. at *4 (quoting Hutcherson v. Lauderdale Cnty., 326 F.3d 747, 756 (6th Cir. 2003)); see also Passmore v. Turner, No. 13-11865, 2014 WL 988892, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 12, 2014) (holding that because the plaintiff's injuries stemmed from the state-court's child custody decisions finding the plaintiff in contempt and refusing to consider the plaintiff's evidence, the court was without jurisdiction to review the claims). Although Elizabeth does not specifically request this Court to reverse or set aside Judge Mullally's orders, as in Kropek, this Court can grant Elizabeth relief only if it concludes that Judge Mullally's orders were wrong or invalid because Elizabeth's complaints of injury stem directly from Judge Mullally's orders in the probate court proceeding, which this Court may not review.