United States District Court, D. Maine
RANDALL B. HOFLAND, Petitioner,
RANDALL LIBERTY, Respondent.
ORDER ON MOTION TO COMPEL
A. WOODCOCK, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
February 17, 2017, Randall B. Hofland, a state inmate, moved
to compel Randall Liberty and Attorney James E. Fortin:
(1) “to provide a notebook computer with a DVD drive
plus all necessary software needed to allow Hofland to review
and transcribe his remaining digital ‘discovery'
recordings in his cell as was previously done with a DVD
(2) “to also allow Hofland to type up his
transcriptions using the Microsoft Word on said computer,
plus permanently save the files then print out five (5)
copies of each transcription”;
(3) “to also provide Hofland with sufficient DVD blanks
to produce four (4) copies of the digital discovery records
and transcript, one set to be served on the District Court as
one of more enumerated Exhibits holding other
enumerated Exhibits as folders in said DVD
(4) “to provide three (3) full copies of the filed
indictments for CR-08-333 and CR-08-334 plus”
(5) “transcribe the full record of the Special Grand
Jury proceedings for Maine v. Hofland, CR-08-334 on
or about 30 December 2008 as well produce all digital or
other records therefrom, and provide four (4) copies of all
these materials, one to be filed with the docket, and all
items not served upon the Court for this matter to be kept by
Petitioner Hofland as evidence (except- eventually-the
notebook computer provided by the Respondent).”
Pet'r's Mot. to Compel at 3 (ECF No. 163)
(Mot. to Compel).
context of these discovery demands harkens back to Mr.
Hofland's petition for writ of habeas corpus, which he
filed on October 7, 2015. Pet. Under 28 U.S.C. §
2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State
Custody (ECF No. 1). On May 13, 2016, the Magistrate
Judge issued a thorough recommended decision on Mr.
Hofland's petition for writ of habeas corpus in which he
recommended that the Court grant the state of Maine's
request to dismiss Mr. Hofland's petition.
Recommended Decision on 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Pet.
(ECF No. 86). On August 11, 2016, Mr. Hofland objected
to the Recommended Decision. Pet'r Randall B.
Hofland's Objections to the Recommended Decision
(ECF No. 116). On August 15, 2016, this Court affirmed the
Recommended Decision over Mr. Hofland's objection and
ordered that no certificate of appealability be issued.
Order Affirming the Recommended Decision of the
Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 118). On August 16, 2016,
a judgment issued, dismissing Mr. Hofland's petition.
J. of Dismissal (ECF No. 119).
August 26, 2016, Mr. Hofland filed a motion to correct record
and a motion to extend time to file a Rule 52(b), 59(e), and
60(a)(b)(d) motion. Pet'r Randall B. Hofland's
Mots. to: (1) Correct Record (F.R. Cv. P. 60(a), and (2)
Extend Time to File F.R. Cv. P. 52(b), 59(e), 60(a)(b)(d)
Mots. (ECF No. 120). On August 29, 2016, the Court
denied Mr. Hofland's motion to correct the record and
granted his motion to extend. Order Denying Mot. to
Correct Record and Granting Mot. to Extend Time to File F.R.
Cv. P. 52(b), 59(e), and 60(a), (b) and (d) Mots. (ECF
No. 121). Since then, Mr. Hofland has moved periodically to
extend the time for the filing of his post-judgment motions
and the motions are now due no later than April 24, 2017.
See Order Granting Mot. to Stay and Granting Mot. to
Extend Time (ECF No. 159). In addition, Mr. Hofland has
inundated the Court with a prolific number of documents in
anticipation of the filing of his post-judgment motion; by
his reckoning, he is now up to exhibit number 183D. See
Letter from Randall B. Hofland Attach. 183D (ECF No.
Hofland's right to discovery in his § 2254 case is
strictly circumscribed by Rule 6 of the Rules Governing
Section 2254 Cases. Rule 6 provides that before discovery may
be granted, a petitioner must first obtain leave of court and
that the requesting party must provide reasons for the
request. Mr. Hofland's expressed reason for his need for
items one through five is that he has “collected
credible evidence of an extensive racketeering enterprise
operating within government offices in Maine and via the
Maine State Bar Association membership . . . .” On
January 18, 2012, the Court addressed Mr. Hofland's
persistent claims that there has been an extensive
racketeering enterprise conspiring against him:
Enough is enough. The federal courts are not the place for
Mr. Hofland to playout his bizarre conspiracy theories and
meritless private vendettas. The work of the Court is serious
business and parties with meritorious claims must wait while
the judges of this District expend untold hours unraveling
the procedural tangles Mr. Hofland has wrought by his
relentless and frivolous filings.
Randall Hofland v. Richard LaHaye, Order on
Recommended Decisions at 11 (ECF No. 103),
1:09-cv-00172-JAW. Having previously warned Mr. Hofland in
accordance with Cok v. Family Court of R.I., 985
F.2d 32, 35 (1st Cir. 1993), the Court issued a filing
restriction against further pleadings.
Hofland is attempting to revisit his conspiracy theories in
this case through the vehicle of a post-judgment motion
following the denial of his petition for writ of habeas
corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the Court concludes that
he has not demonstrated good cause within the meaning of Rule
6(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases for discovery