United States District Court, D. Maine
RANDALL B. HOFLAND, Petitioner,
RANDALL LIBERTY, Respondent.
ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTION
A. WOODCOCK, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
October 7, 2015, Randall B. Hofland filed a petition for writ
of habeas corpus pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2254. Pet.
for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1). On May 13, 2016,
the Magistrate Judge issued a nineteen-page recommended
decision in which he concluded that the petition should be
dismissed. Recommended Decision on 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Pet. (ECF No. 86). On August 15, 2016, this Court
affirmed the recommended decision, dismissed the petition,
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).
receiving numerous extensions of time, Mr. Hofland finally
filed a post-judgment motion on May 26, 2017 together with a
motion for findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Pet'r Randall B. Hofland's Mot. for New Trial/New
Process Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) (ECF No. 183);
Pet'r Randall B. Hofland's Mot. for Findings
(ECF No. 184). On October 3, 2017, the Court denied Mr.
Hofland's motion for new trial and findings. Order on
Mot. for Recons. of Order Affirming Recommended
Decision (ECF No. 244). This Order was reduced to an
amended judgment, which was filed on October 4, 2017. Am.
J. (ECF No. 245).
October 16, 2017, Mr. Hofland objected to the order
overruling his objection to the order affirming the
Magistrate Judge's recommended decision. Pet'r
Randall B. Hofland's Obj. to Order  (ECF No.
246). On October 20, 2017, the Court denied Mr. Hofland's
October 16, 2017 objection. Order (ECF No. 248).
November 20, 2017, Mr. Hofland filed a motion to vacate the
amended judgment. 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). On November 28, 2017, the Court issued an order denying
these motions and issued a warning to Mr. Hofland in
accordance with Cok v. Family Court of Rhode Island,
985 F.2d 32 (1st Cir. 1993) that if he persisted with
relentless and frivolous filings, filing restrictions would
be in the offing. Order on Mot. to Vacate and Cok
Warning (ECF No. 255) (Cok Order).
the November 28, 2017 Order, Mr. Hofland filed yet another
objection to the Court's order. Pet'r Randall B.
Hofland's Obj. to  Order (ECF No. 256). There
is some ambiguity as to whether Mr. Hofland is requesting
relief from this Court or from the Court of Appeals for the
First Circuit. Mr. Hofland filed the motion in this Court
just before he filed a notice of appeal to the First Circuit
Court of Appeals and he captioned the motion with this
Court's heading. Id. at 1-6. Nevertheless, Mr.
Hofland “demands relief from the First Circuit Court of
Appeals.” Id. at 6. To the extent that the
First Circuit Court of Appeals views this motion as one
encompassed by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(A),
(B), the Court OVERRULES Petitioner Randall B. Hofland's
Objection to  Order. As Mr. Hofland concedes, he is
raising in this objection the same evidence and arguments
that the Court previously rejected and warned him not to
persist with. Id. at 4.
Hofland violated the Court's November 28, 2017 Order by
reiterating the same conspiracy allegations that the Court
has continually rejected and that the Court warned him
against repeating. Cok Order at 2-3. Mr. Hofland has
also violated the order by making scurrilous personal attacks
against this Judge. Id. at 1 (“All that judge
John A. Woodcock Junior's fraud-which contains Michael
Flynn 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(1)(2)(3) falsehoods,
misrepresentations and concealments of material
facts”), at 6 (“John A. Woodcock, Junior must
also be fully prosecuted for his criminal conduct”).
Hofland's conduct of this litigation is a repetition of
his conduct of his other multiple lawsuits in this Court and
at the First Circuit. In Hofland v. Cyr, No. 10-1880
(1st Cir. Feb. 4, 2011), the First Circuit wrote “that
this is the sixth appeal that Hofland has recently pursued,
each of which has been summarily affirmed. In light of this
prior litigation, we warn Hofland that any future frivolous
appeal may be subject to sanctions.” On January 18,
2012, this Court issued a filing restriction against Mr.
Hofland based on his “relentless and frivolous
filings” in the eight civil cases he had filed with
this Court. Hofland v. LaHaye, 1:09-cv-00172-JAW,
Order on Recommended Decisions at 11-12 (ECF No.
103). In this case, this Court allowed Mr.
to proceed because his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
for writ of habeas corpus was not barred by the Court's
January 18, 2012 order. Order (ECF No. 6).
Unfortunately, Mr. Hofland has used his § 2254 petition
to make the same frivolous and scurrilous allegations that
were the hallmark of his prior lawsuits.
Court concludes that Mr. Hofland violated the Cok
Order and the Court therefore ORDERS:
for filings, if any, challenging this Order, the Court
prohibits any further filings by Randall B. Hofland without
prior permission from this Court. If Mr. Hofland wishes to
file any other pleadings in this Court, including new
lawsuits, he must file a motion for leave to file the
specific pleading. In the motion for leave, Mr. Hofland must
explain the type of pleading he seeks to file, he must attach
the proposed pleading to the motion, and the motion for leave
to file must not exceed three pages. A judge shall review the
proposed pleading and the motion for leave to file and will
determine whether such a pleading shall be allowed. In the
absence of a motion to allow filing and a court order
allowing a pleading, the Court directs the Clerk not to