United States District Court, D. Maine
RANDALL B. HOFLAND, Petitioner,
RANDALL LIBERTY, Respondent.
ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS
A. WOODCOCK, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
13, 2017, Randall B. Hofland filed three motions with the
Court: (1) a motion to file late, (2) an objection to the
Court's June 27, 2017 Order on Motion to Extend Time, and
(3) a motion to compel return. Mot. to File Late
(ECF No. 197) (Late Mot.); Pet'r Randall B.
Hofland's Obj. to Order (196) (ECF No. 198)
(Order Obj.); Pet'r Randall B. Hofland's
Mot. to Compel Return (ECF No. 201) (Compel
Mot.). On July 24, 2017, he filed a motion for return of
originals and motion to extend time to September 7, 2017.
Pet'r Randall B. Hofland's Mot. for Return of
Originals and to Extend Time (ECF No. 202) (Jul. 24,
genesis of these filings are the Court's June 26 and June
27, 2017 Orders, in which the Court granted Mr. Hofland's
motions to extend time. Order (ECF No. 192)
(June 26, 2017 Order); Order on Mot. to Extend
Time (ECF No. 196) (June 27, 2017 Order).
Specifically, on June 19, 2017, Mr. Hofland requested a
thirty-day extension to file some additional documents and to
file his reply to the Respondents' objection to Mr.
Hofland's motion for a new trial. Pet'r Randall
B. Hofland's Mot. to Extend Time at 1 (ECF
No. 189) (“Petitioner moves for a 30 day extension of
time to (a) acquire needed documents & docket sheet, and
(b) then author his Reply to Defendant's
Objections”). On June 26, 2017, the Court
granted Mr. Hofland's request and gave Mr. Hofland until
July 20, 2017, to file additional documents and his reply.
June 26, 2017 Order.
Mr. Hofland filed another motion to extend time, which the
Court received on June 26, 2017, shortly after ruling on Mr.
Hofland's first motion to extend time. Pet'r
Randall B. Hofland's Mot. to Extend Time and Notice of
Intent to File Missing Record (ECF No. 194). In this
second motion, Mr. Hofland asked for an extension to July 22,
2017. Id. at 1. On June 27, 2017, the Court granted
Mr. Hofland's request for what amounted to an additional
two days within which to file the supposedly missing
documents and his reply. June 27, 2017 Order at 2.
But the Court warned Mr. Hofland that although it was
granting his motion, he should not conclude that the Court
was inclined to grant more extensions of time to supply
supposedly missing records. Id. at 1-2.
Hofland now moves to vacate the Court's June 27, 2017
Order. Order Obj. at 1. He claims-incorrectly-that
in its June 26, 2017 Order, the Court set the filing deadline
for August 7, 2017. Id. He is upset because he
believes that the Court moved the filing deadline up to July
22, 2017, in its subsequent June 27, 2017 Order. Id.
(“Petitioner Randall B. Hofland therefore
OBJECTS to the Court's sly resetting of the
previously docketed time extension (8/7/2017)”).
Court never set the filing deadline for August 7, 2017;
rather, in its June 26, 2017 Order, the Court set the
deadline for July 20, 2017. Upon investigation, the August 7,
2017 filing date was the result of a clerical error within
the Clerk's Office. The Clerk erroneously set August 7,
2017, as the filing date for Mr. Hofland's reply when it
should have been July 20, 2017.
an example of how muddled the record can become as a result
of Mr. Hofland's relentless filings; it is inevitable
that at some point the Clerk's Office will make a
mistake. Mr. Hofland never requested an extension to August
7, 2017. As noted earlier, his extension requests were until
July 20, 2017, and July 22, 2017. However, once the Clerk
mistakenly denoted August 7, 2017, as the date for his reply,
he seized upon the clerical error and declared that it was
evidence of the Court's bad faith.
because the August 7, 2017 date was the result of a clerical
error, the Court allows Mr. Hofland until August 7, 2017, to
file whatever new or missing documents that he wishes the
Court to consider in his pending motion and to file his
reply. The Court's allowance should not be
misinterpreted. Simply because Mr. Hofland files documents
does not mean that the Court will consider them in ruling on
his pending motion. Mr. Hofland had the obligation to present
the Magistrate Judge with all his evidence, not wait until
the Magistrate Judge issued a recommended decision and then
present the evidence on objection.
recently, Mr. Hofland moved this Court to extend the date for
filing documents and his reply until September 7, 2017.
July 24, 2017 Mot. The Court will not do so. Mr.
Hofland's petition has been pending for nearly two years,
and the Magistrate Judge's recommended decision has long
since been affirmed. It is past time to have Mr.
Hofland's petition finally resolved. The Court will issue
a ruling on whatever is docketed as of August 7, 2017,
waiting for an interval to make certain that the so-called
mailbox rule has been complied with. The Court places Mr.
Hofland on notice that if he wishes to file documents and a
reply, he must place those documents and his reply in the
mail no later than August 7, 2017.
Mr. Hofland continues to make extraordinary demands on the
Clerk's Office, insisting that they copy all original
documents that he has filed, scan them, docket them, and
return the originals to him. Compel Mot. at 1;
July 24, 2017 Mot. at 1. The Court is unclear why
Mr. Hofland requires this unusual treatment, although it
appears to be related to some sort of tangle between Mr.
Hofland and state of Maine authorities. To expedite the
resolution of this long-pending matter, however, the Court
will reluctantly grant his request.
Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Randall B.
Hofland's Motion to File Late (ECF No. 197); Petitioner
Randall B. Hofland's Objection to Order (196) (ECF No.
198); Petitioner Randall B. Hofland's Motion to Compel
Return (ECF No. 201); and Petitioner Randall B. Hofland's
Motion for Return of Originals and to Extend Time (ECF No.
202). The Court GRANTS so much of the motions for extension
as request an extension to August 7, 2017, ...