HOFLAND v. LAHAYE et al

Filing 103

ORDER affirming Report and Recommended Decision re 76 and 96 Report and Recommendations; dismissing with prejudice 1 Complaint and 7 Amended Complaint; affirming denial of Motion to Amend set forth in 75 Amended Complaint IV; denying 94 Motion to Amend set forth in Amended Complaint V; denying 101 Motion for Leave to File Late Pursuant to Rule 60(b). Plaintiff is enjoined from further filings in this Court, except for filings, if any, challenging this Order. By JUDGE JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR. (jgw)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
RANDALL B. HOFLAND,
Plaintiff,
v.
RICHARD LAHAYE, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:09-cv-00172-JAW

ORDER ON RECOMMENDED DECISIONS
Randall B. Hofland’s multiple claims and prolific filings make the orderly
disposition of his cases challenging. This case is a prime example. On May 4, 2009,
Mr. Hofland filed a complaint against Richard LaHaye, the Searsport Police, and
the town of Searsport alleging they violated his rights by engaging in a long course
of harassment depriving him of access to his property. Compl. (Docket # 1). On
May 21, 2009, Mr. Hofland filed an amended complaint, seeking to name six new
defendants. Am. Compl. (Docket # 7).
On June 4, 2009, the Magistrate Judge granted Mr. Hofland’s motion to stay
his case pending resolution of state criminal charges.

Order Reconsidering and

Granting Mot. to Stay (Docket # 14). On December 1, 2009, Mr. Hofland moved to
lift the stay and filed his first motion to amend his Amended Complaint. Mot. for
Order Lifting Stay and Proceeding with Action (Docket # 29); Mot. to Amend Am.
Compl. (Docket # 30). On the same day, the Magistrate Judge lifted the stay only to
allow him to file a proposed amended complaint.

Order (Docket # 32).

On

December 8, 2009, Mr. Hofland moved a second time to amend his Amended
Complaint and filed a proposed Third Amended Complaint,1 seeking to increase the
number of defendants to forty-one. Pro Se Mot. to Amend Am. Compl. Attach. 1
(Docket # 33). The Magistrate Judge screened the proposed third complaint and
denied his motion to amend. Order on Mot. to Compel and Mot. to Amend (Docket #
35). On January 14, 2010, over Mr. Hofland’s objection, the Court affirmed the
Magistrate Judge’s Order.

Order on Appeal of the Magistrate Judge’s Order

Denying Pl.’s Mot. to Amend and Mot. to Compel (Docket # 40).
On January 20, 2010, Mr. Hofland filed a third motion to amend the
complaint. Pro Se Mot. to Amend Am. Compl. (Docket # 41). On January 20, 2010,
the Magistrate Judge denied this motion because Mr. Hofland failed to file a
proposed amended complaint. Order (Docket # 43).
On November 1, 2010, Mr. Hofland filed a fourth motion to amend his
complaint, naming twenty-six defendants.

Pro Se Mot. to Amend Am. Compl.

(Docket # 53). On November 4, 2010, the Magistrate Judge denied the motion to
amend the complaint ruling that it did not state a plausible claim for relief. Order
Denying Mot. to Amend and Mot. to Recuse Magistrate Judge (Docket # 55). On
December 2, 2010, the Court affirmed the denial of his motion to amend, again over
Mr. Hofland’s objection. Order (Docket # 62).

Although this is only the second amended complaint, it is really the third version of Mr. Hofland’s
filed complaints. The Court refers to it as the Third Amended Complaint in an effort to be consistent
with the docket and with Mr. Hofland’s later numbering of Amended Complaints IV and V.
1

2

On March 18, 2011, the Magistrate Judge allowed Mr. Hofland until May 2,
2011 to file an amended complaint but imposed strict standards the amended
complaint had to meet. Procedural Order (Docket # 65). On March 24, 2011, she
extended that date to May 23, 2011. Order (Docket # 69). Mr. Hofland proposed a
Fourth Amended Complaint on May 24, 2011, Am. Compl. IV (Docket # 75), and on
June 21, 2011, the Magistrate Judge issued a twenty-page Recommended Decision
in which she performed a 28 U.S.C. § 1915 screening, carefully reviewing Mr.
Hofland’s allegations and recommending that the Court reject his motion to amend
the Complaint, dismiss his pending amended complaint, and issue a Cok2 warning
against frivolous filings.

Recommended Decision (Docket # 76) (Recommended

Decision I).
In response, Mr. Hofland moved to extend the time within which to file
objections to the Recommended Decision. Pro Se Mot. to Extend Time (Docket # 77).
The Magistrate Judge extended the time for objections to August 8, 2011. Order
(Docket # 78). On July 29, 2011, Mr. Hofland filed a motion to appoint counsel and
a motion to stay. Mot. to Appoint Counsel (Docket # 79); Mot. to Stay (Docket # 80).
On August 2, 2011, the Magistrate Judge denied both motions. Order (Docket # 81).
On August 9, 2011, Mr. Hofland filed objections to the June 21, 2011 Recommended
Decision. Objection to Report and Recommended Decision (Docket # 82). He also
moved to extend the time to file a memorandum in support of his objections. Mot. to
Extend Time to File Mem. in Support of Objection to Recommended Decision (Docket
# 83). On August 10, 2011, the Court granted the motion to extend, giving Mr.
2

See Cok v. Family Court of R.I., 985 F.2d 32, 35 (1st Cir. 1993).

3

Hofland until September 12, 2011 to file his memorandum. Order (Docket # 84).
Mr. Hofland filed another motion to stay on September 12, 2011, Mot. to Stay
(Docket # 85), and the next day the Magistrate Judge granted the motion to stay in
part and denied it in part, allowing Mr. Hofland until October 14, 2011 to file his
memorandum. Order (Docket # 86). Mr. Hofland filed another motion to extend
time on September 13, 2011, which the Magistrate Judge denied because she had
stayed the case until October 14, 2011. Mot. to Extend Time (Docket # 87); Order
(Docket # 88).

Mr. Hofland finally filed his memorandum in support of his

objections to the Recommended Decision on October 14, 2011. Objection to Report
and Recommended Decision (Docket # 89).
On November 10, 2011, the Court issued an Order striking Mr. Hofland’s
fourth supplementary pleading, affirming the Magistrate Judge’s Recommended
Decision, and issuing a Cok warning. Order Striking Pleading, Affirming Report
and Recommended Decision and Enjoining Filings (Docket # 92). Later that day,
the Order was reduced to Judgment. J. (Docket # 98). However, on November 15,
2011, the Court received documents dated November 10, 2011 that indicated Mr.
Hofland had mailed a newly proposed, most recent complaint before he physically
received the Order the Court had issued on November 10, 2011. Mot. to Supplement
(Docket # 94). Accordingly, on November 21, 2011, the Court vacated its November
10, 2011 Order. Order Vacating Order and Setting Aside J. (Docket # 95).
One of the documents received on November 15, 2011 was Mr. Hofland’s
proposed Fifth Amended Complaint. Mot. to Supplement Attach. 1 (Proposed Am.

4

Compl. V).

Perhaps in an effort to be overly fair to Mr. Hofland, the Court

concluded that his fifth attempt to state a cause of action should be screened and
referred the newly filed Fifth Amended Complaint to the Magistrate Judge for
screening. Order Vacating Order and Setting Aside J. at 2. Mr. Hofland’s fifth
attempt did not impress the Magistrate Judge. On December 8, 2011, she issued
yet another Recommended Decision—this time eleven pages, reviewing again in
detail the history of this case and concluding that the Court “should not allow this
conduct to continue and should dismiss this action from the docket in its entirety.”
Recommended Decision II at 11 (Docket # 96) (Recommended Decision II).
Objections to her Recommended Decision were due December 27, 2011. Id. On
December 15, 2011, Mr. Hofland filed a motion to extend time, which the
Magistrate Judge denied the following day.

Mot. to Extend Time to File an

Objection (Docket # 97) (Pl.’s Mot. to Extend Time); Order (Docket # 98).

On

December 27, 2011, Mr. Hofland appealed the denial of his motion to extend time,
Appeal of Magistrate Judge Decision to District Ct. (Docket # 99); the Court denied
the appeal on December 28, 2011. Order (Docket # 100).
On January 13, 2012, Mr. Hofland filed two additional documents: (1) a
motion for leave to file late pursuant to Rule 60(b) and (2) an objection to the
Recommended Decision II.

Mot. for Leave to File Late Pursuant to Rule 60(b)

(Docket # 101) (Pl.’s Mot. to File Late); Objection to Recommended Decision II
(Docket # 102) (Pl.’s Objection to Recommended Decision II).

In his Motion for

Leave to File Late, he asks that the Court vacate its prior order denying his motion

5

to extend time and he moves to extend the time to file a memorandum to support
his position. Pl.’s Mot. to File Late at 1. In this motion, Mr. Hofland does not
mention a specific time within which he would like to file his motion, but his
contemporaneous filing presents twenty pages of argument setting forth his
objections to the Magistrate Judge’s December 8, 2011 Recommended Decision. Id.
at 1-4; Pl.’s Objection to Recommended Decision II at 1-20.
The case status now is as follows: Mr. Hofland objected to the Magistrate
Judge’s June 21, 2011 Recommended Decision I; he objected late to the Magistrate
Judge’s Recommended Decision dated December 8, 2011. In addition to his late
objection to the Recommended Decision II, he has now requested more time to file.
The Court turns to whether it should accept Mr. Hofland’s most recent late filings.
The Court DENIES Randall B. Hofland’s Motion for Leave to File Late. The
Magistrate Judge issued her Recommended Decision II on December 8, 2011, and
on December 15, 2011, Mr. Hofland moved to extend time to object.

In his

December 15, 2011 motion, Mr. Hofland announced that he “now has access to
personal copies of the Prisoners’ Self-Help Litigation Guide (4th ed., 2010),
Georgetown Law Journal Annual Review of Criminal Procedure (40th ed., 2011),
plus Westlaw digital law library resources—all gained within past ten days.” Pl.’s
Mot. to Extend Time at 1.

Under the original schedule, Mr. Hofland had until

December 27, 2011 to file his objections to the December 8, 2011 Recommended
Decision II and he gave no good reason for why—particularly in view of his

6

proclaimed access to legal research materials—he should not have been able to file
his objections within the original time.
On December 16, 2011, the Magistrate Judge denied that motion and on
December 27, 2011, Mr. Hofland appealed the denial. On December 28, 2011, this
Court denied Mr. Hofland’s appeal from the Magistrate Judge’s December 16, 2011
Order denying his motion for an extension. Mr. Hofland’s January 13, 2012 Motion
for Leave to File Late is thus an attempted end-run around the Court’s earlier
orders, denying his Motion to Extend Time. Furthermore, on December 15, 2011,
Mr. Hofland provided no proper basis for his requested extension and he gives none
now. Although he claims a lack of access to legal resources, he contradicted this
claim in his December 15, 2011 filing in which he acknowledged access to learned
journals and Westlaw.

Furthermore, each wave of Mr. Hofland’s innumerable

filings in this and other cases is accompanied by prolific citations to caselaw. The
Court has concluded that what prevents Mr. Hofland from presenting a successful
argument in this case is not a lack of access to a law library; it is a fundamental
lack of merit in his case.
Regarding his twenty-page objection to the Magistrate Judge’s December 8,
2011 Recommended Decision, the Court STRIKES Mr. Hofland’s Objection. As the
Magistrate Judge’s Recommended Decision II made clear, Mr. Hofland had to file
an objection to that decision within fourteen days of being served with a copy.
Recommended Decision II at 11. In his December 15, 2011 Motion to Extend Time,
Mr. Hofland himself acknowledged receipt of the decision and demonstrated that he

7

was capable of timely filings. Pl.’s Mot. to Extend Time at 1. Although he filed an
objection to the denial of his motion for an extension, he did nothing about objecting
to the Recommended Decision II itself until January 13, 2012, weeks after the due
date had expired. Mr. Hofland has offered no legitimate reason for his failure to
comply with the Court’s deadlines.

The Court adds that having reviewed the

contents of Mr. Hofland’s January 13, 2011 objection, there is nothing whatsoever
in the objection that would cause the Court to reassess its conclusion that Mr.
Hofland’s Fifth Amended Complaint is meritless and that, if the filing were allowed,
it would be subject to immediate dismissal.
Turning now to the June 21, 2011 Recommended Decision I and the
December 8, 2011 Recommended Decision II, the Court has reviewed and
considered the Magistrate Judge’s Recommended Decisions, together with the
entire record, and has made de novo determinations of all matters adjudicated by
the Magistrate Judge’s Recommended Decisions.

The Court concurs with the

recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge for the reasons set forth in
her Recommended Decisions.
1. The Court ORDERS that the Complaint (Docket # 1) and the Amended
Complaint (Docket # 7) be DISMISSED with prejudice;
2. The Court AFFIRMS the Magistrate Judge’s denial of the Randall B.
Hofland’s motion to amend the Complaint to include the allegations set
forth in his Amended Complaint IV (Docket # 75);

8

3. The Court AFFIRMS the Recommended Decision I of the Magistrate
Judge (Docket # 76);
4. The Court DENIES Randall B. Hofland’s Motion to Amend the Complaint
to include the allegations set forth in his Amended Complaint V (Docket
# 94);
5. The Court AFFIRMS the Recommended Decision II of the Magistrate
Judge (Docket # 96);
6. The Court DENIES Randall B. Hofland’s Motion for Leave to File Late
Pursuant to Rule 60(b) (Docket # 101);
7. The Court STRIKES Randall B. Hofland’s Objection to Recommended
Decision II (Docket # 102).
Finally, the Court addresses filing restrictions under Cok. The Court takes
notice of Mr. Hofland’s multiple filings in this District. See Hofland v. Governor, 09cv-162-JAW, Hofland v. LaHaye, 09-cv-172-JAW, Hofland v. Ross, 09-cv-173-JAW,
Hofland v. Thompson, 09-cv-174-JAW, Hofland v. Perkins, 09-cv-201-JAW, Hofland
v. Westrum, 09-cv-218-JAW, Hofland v. Storey, 09-cv-343-JAW, Hofland v. LaHaye,
11-cv-53-JAW.

In none of his claims has Mr. Hofland stated a viable cause of

action. Indeed, in addressing Hofland v. Cyr, 10-1880, Doc. 00116167105 (1st Cir.
Feb. 4, 2011), the First Circuit stated “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.”

9

In this case, after exhaustively reviewing the allegations in the fourth and
fifth proposed complaints, the Magistrate Judge concluded they were meritless and
recommended that the Court impose filing limitations against Mr. Hofland.
Recommended Decision I at 19; Recommended Decision II at 1 (describing the fifth
version as “untimely, unsolicited, and inexplicable”).
This latest series of filings is especially egregious. On March 18, 2011, the
Magistrate Judge issued a Procedural Order, which stipulated that any new
complaint must: (1) name no more than twelve defendants; (2) be no longer than
twenty pages; (3) be one unified document that does not reference other complaints
or attempt to incorporate allegations in other pleadings; and (4) be filed by May 2,
2011 (later extended to May 23, 2011).

Procedural Order at 2-3.

In his Fifth

Amended Complaint, the only stricture Mr. Hofland obeyed was the page limit;
otherwise, Mr. Hofland violated each of the Magistrate Judge’s directives: (1) he
named twenty-eight potential defendants; (2) he referred to other complaints and
pleadings; and (3) he filed the complaint without permission on November 15, 2011.
Proposed Am. Compl. V. As the Magistrate Judge pointed out in the Recommended
Decision, 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 and thus to
violate the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C.

10

§§ 1961 et seq. and the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Recommended

Decision II at 3-4.
In his January 13, 2012 Motion for Leave to File Late, he accuses the
Magistrate Judge and this Court of “an obvious pattern of prejudice,” Pl.’s Mot. to
File Late at 2, and in his January 13, 2012 objection, he seeks to justify his frivolous
attempt to file suit against a slew of potential defendants by insisting that he
should be entitled to sue newspapers, police officers, courts, and a host of others to
prove that they engaged in a vast conspiracy against him.

Pl.’s Objection to

Recommended Decision II at 2-6.
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.

Mr.

Hofland has repeatedly demonstrated that he is incapable of obeying the simplest
and most direct of court orders. This must stop. The Court has previously and
repeatedly warned Mr. Hofland against such conduct. Hofland v. LaHaye, No. 1:11cv-00053-JAW, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29429, at *4-5 (D. Me. Mar. 18, 2011);
Hofland v. Governor, No. CV-09-162-B-W, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15542, at *1-3 (D.
Me. Feb. 22, 2010); Hofland v. Ross, No. CV-09-173-B-W, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
66820, at *2 (D. Me. Jun. 2, 2009); Hofland v. LaHaye, Nos. 9-172-B-W, 9-174-B-W,
9-162-B-W, 9-173-B-W, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39481, at *3-4 (D. Me. May 6, 2009).

11

Yet Mr. Hofland has disobeyed the Court’s earlier cautionary orders under Cok. See
Cok v. Family Court of R.I., 985 F.2d 32, 35 (1st Cir. 1993) (requiring the Court to
warn any litigant before restricting the litigant’s ability to file).
The Court therefore orders:
Except 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 court order allowing a pleading, the Court directs the Clerk not to
accept Mr. Hofland’s filings and to instead return them to him immediately. See
Chadbrown v. Coles, Nos. 2:11-cv-00145-GZS, 2:11-cv-00219-GZS, 2011 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 127913, 3-4 (D. Me. Nov. 2, 2011).
SO ORDERED.
/s/ John A. Woodcock, Jr.
JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR.
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 18th day of January, 2012

12