United States District Court, D. Maine
RANDALL B. HOFLAND, Petitioner,
RANDALL LIBERTY, Respondent.
ORDER ON MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT AND MOTION FOR
A. WOODCOCK, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
October 21, 2016, Randall B. Hofland moved this Court to
reconsider its Order on Emergency Motion to Extend Time filed
on October 14, 2016. Pet'r Randall B.
Hofland's Mot. for Recons. (ECF No. 138) (Mot.
for Recons.). In the Order, the Court granted, as he
requested, Mr. Hofland's emergency motion to extend time
to file post-judgment motions an additional seven days,
making his post-judgment motions due on or before October 27,
2016. Pet'r Randall B. Hofland's Emer. Mot.
to Extend Time (ECF No. 134) (Emer.
Mot.); Order on Emergency Mot. to Extend Time
at 1 (ECF No. 135) (Order on Emer. Mot.). In his
motion for reconsideration, Mr. Hofland points to the fact
that on October 14, 2016, he mailed a motion supplementing is
emergency motion to extend time and asking for additional
time from October 12, 2006 to November 2, 2016 to file his
post-judgment motions and he then asks the Court to further
extend the time to file his post-judgment motions to November
26, 2016. Mot. for Recons. at 2; see Pet'r
Randall B. Hofland's Supp. to Mot. (ECF No.
136) (Supp. Mot.). The Court GRANTS Mr.
Hofland's motion to extend the time within which to file
post-judgment motions. Those motions are now due on or before
November 26, 2016. The Court DISMISSES as moot his supplement
to the emergency motion, which had asked for an extension to
November 2, 2016.
in his motion for reconsideration, Mr. Hofland continues to
complain that the Clerk's Office failed to provide him
with a copy of the docket entries for Hofland v.
Ponte, No. 1:12-mc-92-MJK, and for this case. Mot.
for Recons. at 1-2. In its October 14, 2016 Order, the
Court observed that a Carlton Wiggin, Jr. arrived at the
Clerk's office on September 29, 2016 asking purportedly
on behalf of Mr. Hofland for copies of the docket entries for
both this case and Ponte cases and that the
Clerk's office duly made the requested copies. Order
on Emer. Mot. at 1-2. In its Order, the Court explained
that before it ordered the Clerk's office to make another
set of copies, the Court ordered Mr. Hofland to represent
that Mr. Wiggin was acting for him in obtaining the first
set. Id. at 2.
motion for reconsideration, Mr. Hofland refused to comply
with the Court's Order. Mot. for Recons. at 2
(“Therefore, Petitioner hereby refuses to comply with
the Court's Order”) (emphasis in
original). As best the Court understands it, Mr. Hofland
acknowledges that Mr. Wiggin was acting on his behalf in
obtaining copies of the docket entries in both Ponte
and this case. Id. Indeed, Mr. Hofland says that Mr.
Wiggin spent postage to mail these documents, but Mr. Hofland
does not come out and admit that he received them.
Id. If Mr. Wiggin obtained copies of the
Ponte docket entries on September 29, 2016 and if
Mr. Wiggin mailed those copies to Mr. Hofland on the same
day, then the Court is confused as to why Mr. Hofland
requires yet another copy of those docket entries. The last
docket entry in Hofland v. Ponte, No.
1:12-mc-00092-JAW, is dated March 7, 2013 and therefore Mr.
Hofland should now possess a complete copy of all docket
entries in that case. The Court will not order the
Clerk's Office to copy and mail to Mr. Hofland another
set of docket entries in Hofland v. Ponte, No.
the docket entries in this case, Mr. Hofland moves for
reconsideration “based on the truths found in ECF 129
& 134, plus as pleaded in ECF 137.” Id.
ECF number 129 is a motion to recuse and change venue based
on this Judge's and Magistrate Judge Kravchuk's being
“implicated in felony crimes by their involvement in
multiple cases by and through their falsifications in
‘facts' and law.” Mot. to Recuse; Mot.
for Change of Venue at 1 (ECF No. 129). The Court denied
the motions on September 29, 2016. Order Denying Mot. for
Recusal; Denying Mot. for Change of Venue (ECF
No. 135). The Court will not dignify Mr. Hofland's
scurrilous allegations by responding further, except to note
that the contents of his motion have nothing to do with
whether he is entitled to have the Clerk's office copy
and mail to him yet another set of docket entries. ECF
numbers 134 and 136 (mis-numbered by Mr. Hofland as 137)
describe the difficulties that he is having making
photocopies, accessing digital records, and connecting with a
caseworker. Emer. Mot. at 1; Supp. Mot. at
Court remains uncertain why Mr. Hofland is unable to access
its CM/ECF system and why he demands that the Clerk's
office continually send him copies of updates to the docket
entries in this case. Nevertheless, the Court will relent and
require the Clerk's office to copy and mail to Mr.
Hofland the latest docket entries in this case. Before the
Court issues another similar order, Mr. Hofland will have to
do a better job explaining why he is unable to access the
Court's CM/ECF system and why he is unable to obtain for
himself what he demands the Clerk's office do for him.
Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Petitioner Randall B.
Hofland's Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 138). The
Court GRANTS Randall B. Hofland's request for a further
extension of time to November 26, 2016 for the filing of
post-judgment motions; the Court DENIES Randall B.
Hofland's motion for a copy of the docket entries in
Hofland v. Ponte, No. 1:12-mc-00092-JAW; the Court
GRANTS Randall B. Hofland's motion for an up to date copy
of the ...