United States District Court, D. Maine
RANDALL B. HOFLAND, Petitioner,
RANDALL LIBERTY, Respondent.
ORDER ON MOTION TO VACATE AND COK WARNING
A. WOODCOCK, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE .
January 18, 2012, this Court issued an order prohibiting
Randall B. Hofland from making any further filings with this
Court without first obtaining the Court's permission in
accordance with Cok v. Family Court of Rhode Island,
985 F.2d 32 (1st Cir. 1993). Id. at 34-36 (requiring
the Court to warn any litigant before restricting the
litigant's ability to file). See Hofland v.
LaHaye, Civil No. 1:09-cv-00172-JAW, Order on
Recommended Decisions at 9-12 (ECF No. 103) (Civil
Cok Order). This order was compelled by Mr.
Hofland's relentless filing of frivolous cases.
Id. When Mr. Hofland filed the pleadings in this
case against Randall Liberty, the Court allowed him to
proceed because his petition was filed under 28 U.S.C. §
2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State
Custody, and therefore his petition was not barred by the
Court's existing Cok order. Order at 1
(ECF No. 6).
Mr. Hofland has proceeded in his habeas corpus petition in
the same fashion as he proceeded in his other cases. Mr.
Hofland believes that he is the true victim of the crimes for
which he was convicted and sentenced in state court. He views
himself as the innocent subject of a gigantic conspiracy
involving a vast array of persons in state and federal
government and in private life. See Civil Cok Order
at 10 (“Mr. Hofland proposes to sue all manner of state
and private actors, ranging from judges, a district attorney,
an assistant district attorney, a town police chief, state
troopers, a private insurance defense lawyer, the Bangor
Daily News, the Republican Journal, VillageSoup.com, and
private individuals, all of whom he claims were engaged in a
vast conspiracy to undermine his civil rights . . . ”).
essence of Mr. Hofland's pending habeas petition echoes
these very same claims. After the Court issued its order on
October 3, 2017, denying his post-judgment motions, and the
next day entered an amended judgment in favor of the
Defendant, Mr. Hofland moved to extend the time to file a
motion against the judgment. See Order on Recons. of
Order Affirming Recommended Decision (ECF No. 244);
Am. J. (ECF No. 245); Pet'r Randall B.
Hofland's Mot. to Extend Time to File and Mot. for
Clarification (ECF No. 250). The Court reluctantly
granted his motion for extension, but observed that Mr.
Hofland “proposes to file a post-judgment motion on the
order denying his post-judgment motions on the order denying
his petition.” Order on Mot. to Extend Time and
Mot. for Clarification at 2 (ECF No. 251). The Court
warned Mr. Hofland that “his new post-judgment motion
must not replicate his old post-judgment motions.”
this clear warning, in his motion to vacate, Mr. Hofland
repeats the same conspiracy claims that have been the
hallmark of his numerous civil actions and that are the
gravamen of his pending habeas petition. Pet'r
Randall B. Hofland's Mot. to Vacate the Am. J.
, J. , and Orders [248, 244, 118] for Fraud
upon the Ct. Pursuant to Fed. R. C[i]v. P. 60(b)(d),
see Rule 60(b)(3)(6), Rule 60(d)(3) (ECF No. 253). Mr.
Hofland's motion to vacate leads off with the same
conspiracy claims that the Court has repeatedly rejected:
At issue herein is the truth versus a federal judge's
false claim about conspiracy facts otherwise well proven-plus
more importantly- the greater evidence of such as then also
very carefully concealed by governmental action from multiple
state and federal litigations by government actors and their
associates including this judge. I.e., by and through
pernicious state-action and also federal action conspiracies
that target Petitioner Randall B. Hofland.
Id. at 1. The motion to vacate goes on for fifteen
pages with his unique perspective of this asserted
conspiracy. Id. at 1-15.
Court wrote on January 18, 2012,
Enough is enough. The federal courts are not the place for
Mr. Hofland to play out 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. . . This must stop.
Id. at 11. The Court expressly warns Mr. Hofland
that if he persists with similar filings in his pending
petition for writ of habeas corpus, filing restrictions may
be in the offing. Mr. Hofland must not continue to challenge
the Court's judgment by filing post-judgment motion after
post-judgment motion, even post-judgment motions on orders
denying post-judgment motions. It is an abuse of the legal
process. Although the Court ordered that no certificate of
appealability should issue because there has been no
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right
within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), Mr.
Hofland must turn to the Court of Appeals for the First
Circuit for any further legal relief on this pending petition
for writ of habeas corpus. See Order Affirming the
Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No.
reviewed Mr. Hofland's most recent filing, the Court
DENIES Petitioner Randall B. Hofland's Motion to Vacate
the Amended Judgment , Judgment , and Orders [248,
244, 118] for Fraud upon the Court Pursuant to Fed. R. C[i]v.
P. 60(b)(d), see Rule 60(b)(3)(6), Rule 60(d)(3) (ECF No.
253). There is simply no basis to conclude that the ...