HOFLAND v. LAHAYE et al

Filing 129

ORDER striking pleading and affirming Report and Recommended Decision re 120 Report and Recommendations. 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 STRIKING PLEADING AND AFFIRMING RECOMMENDED
DECISION
On May 4, 2009, Randall B. Hofland filed a complaint against Richard
LaHaye, Chief of the Searsport, Maine Police Department, the Searsport Police and
the town of Searsport, alleging that they harassed him and took his property.
Compl. (ECF No. 1).

On May 21, 2009, Mr. Hofland filed an amended complaint,

seeking to name six other individuals on the ground that they were part of the same
conspiracy. Am. Compl. (ECF No. 7).

Mr. Hofland set in motion a complicated

cascade of motions and orders, which the Court reviewed in detail in its Order on
Recommended Decisions dated January 18, 2012.

Order on Recommended

Decisions (ECF No. 103). In its January 18, 2012 Order, the Court dismissed with
prejudice, the Complaint and Amended Complaint and imposed filing restrictions
against Mr. Hofland. Id. at 11-12. Mr. Hofland appealed the dismissal to the Court
of Appeals for the First Circuit. Notice of Appeal (ECF No. 108). On August 14,
2012, the First Circuit issued a Judgment, affirming this Court’s dismissal. J. (ECF
No. 125).

While his appeal was pending, Mr. Hofland filed in this and three other cases
what he calls a Motion to Vacate Judgment of Dismissal (Rule 60(b)). Mr. Hofland
is currently under judicial filing restrictions and therefore before his proposed
motion was docketed, it was subject to judicial screening. In accordance with the
judicial filing restriction, the magistrate judge reviewed Mr. Hofland’s proposed
pleading to determine whether it should be filed and on June 8, 2012, she
recommended that the Court decline to docket the pleading because the case was on
appeal and the district court was without jurisdiction to rule on the motion, absent
extraordinary circumstances not present here, and because the proposed pleading
was frivolous. Recommended Decision Re: Mot. for Leave to File Mot. to Vacate J. of
Dismissal (ECF No. 120).
On July 19, 2012, the Court affirmed the Recommended Decision, but as
things tend to go in Mr. Hofland’s cases, there was a complication. Mr. Hofland
filed an objection to the Recommended Decision on the same day and just after the
affirmance was filed. Order Affirming the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate
Judge (ECF No. 121); Objection to Report and Recommended Decision (ECF No.
122). On July 20, 2012, he moved to extend the time to file a memorandum in
support of his objection to the Recommended Decision. Mot. to Extend Time to File
Mem. (ECF No. 123). Because Mr. Hofland’s objection and motion to extend came
on the heels of the Court’s affirmance, the Court vacated its affirmance on July 26,
2012 and granted Mr. Hofland additional time to file his memorandum, allowing

2

him until August 21, 2012 to file his memorandum.

Order Vacating Order

Affirming Recommended Decision and Granting Mot. to Extend Time (ECF No. 124).
Meanwhile, Mr. Hofland’s appeal proceeded in the appellate court and on
August 14, 2012, the First Circuit issued its affirmance of the dismissal of his claim
and on September 13, 2012, the First Circuit issued its Mandate, returning
jurisdiction to this Court. Mandate (ECF No. 128).
Now that jurisdiction has returned to this Court, the Court reviewed the
Recommended Decision and notes that the primary basis for the Magistrate Judge’s
recommendation—the fact that the Court had no jurisdiction—has been eclipsed by
action of the First Circuit. Nevertheless, the Magistrate Judge also observed that if
the Court had jurisdiction, she “would recommend that [Mr. Hofland] be denied
leave to file this frivolous pleading.” Recommended Decision at 2. Mr. Hofland’s
multiple lawsuits have centered on a supposed grand RICO conspiracy among
innumerable individuals—including judges and clerks in the state and federal
courts—who have purportedly ganged up against Mr. Hofland to deprive him of his
rights. The proposed Motion to Vacate Judgment of Dismissal is more of the same.
As this Court warned Mr. Hofland on January 18, 2012, the “federal courts are not
the place for [him] to play out his bizarre conspiracy theories and meritless private
vendettas.”

Order on Recommended Decisions at 11.

Mr. Hofland’s proposed

motion is patently frivolous and the Court refuses to accept it for filing.
The United States Magistrate Judge filed with the Court on June 8, 2012 her
Recommended Decision (ECF No. 120).

Mr. Hofland filed his objections to the

3

Recommended Decision on July 19, 2012 (ECF No. 122), and his memorandum of
law in support of his objections on August 24, 2012 (ECF No. 127). The Court has
reviewed and considered the Magistrate Judge’s Recommended Decision, together
with the entire record, and has made a de novo determination of all matters
adjudicated by the Magistrate Judge’s Recommended Decision. The Court concurs
with the recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge for one of the
reasons set forth in her Recommended Decision, namely that the proposed pleading
is frivolous, and for the reasons set forth herein.
1. The Court AFFIRMS the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge
(ECF No. 120);
2. The Court directs the Clerk not to docket Randall B. Hofland’s Motion for
Leave to File Motion to Vacate Judgment of Dismissal (Rule 60(b))
because it violates the Court’s January 12, 2012 Order, imposing filing
restrictions on Mr. Hofland.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ John A. Woodcock, Jr.
JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR.
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 28th day of September, 2012

4