HOFLAND v. LAHAYE et al

Filing 92

ORDER Striking Pleading, Affirming 76 Report and Recommended Decision, and Enjoining Filings. By JUDGE JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR. (jlg)

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, AFFIRMING RECOMMENDED DECISION
AND ENJOINING FILINGS
On June 21, 2011, the Magistrate Judge filed her Recommended Decision
with the Court, recommending dismissal of this lawsuit. Recommended Decision
(Docket # 76).
I.

RANDALL HOFLAND’S MULTIPLE MOTIONS TO AMEND
The Court STRIKES Mr. Hofland’s latest attempts to restate the allegations

in his Complaint.

Supp. 2 with Clarification to Am. Compl. IV (Docket # 90);

Clarification to Memo. (Docket # 91).
A.

Procedural History

Mr. Hofland filed the original Complaint on May 4, 2009, Compl. (Docket #
1), and an Amended Complaint on May 21, 2009. Am Compl. (Docket # 7). On
December 1, 2009, he moved to amend his Amended Complaint. Mot. to Am. Am.
Compl. (Docket # 30). The Court denied the motion because Mr. Hofland had not
submitted a proposed amended complaint. Order (Docket # 31). After Mr. Hofland
submitted a proposed amended complaint, the Court denied the motion to amend on

the ground of futility. Order on Mot. to Compel and Mot. to Am. (Docket # 35). Mr.
Hofland appealed the denial of his motion to amend and on January 14, 2010, the
Court denied the appeal. Order on Appeal of the Magistrate Judge’s Order Denying
Pl.’s Mot. to Am. and Mot. to Compel (Docket # 40).
On January 20, 2010, Mr. Hofland quickly filed a third motion to amend his
amended complaint, Mot. for Leave to Am. Action (Docket # 41), and moved to
extend the time to file a proposed second amended complaint. Mot. to Extend Time
(Docket # 42). The Magistrate Judge denied the motion to amend on the ground
that no proposed amended complaint was filed and granted Mr. Hofland until
March 9, 2010 to file the amended complaint so long as the proposed complaint
added no new defendants and provided additional factual information about his
claim against Richard LaHaye. Order (Docket # 43). On January 27, 2010, the
Magistrate Judge granted Mr. Hofland a stay in this action until May 1, 2010 to
allow him to resolve pending criminal proceedings and on July 28, 2010, the
Magistrate Judge granted an extension of the stay until March 22, 2011 for the
same reason. Order (Docket # 45); Order (Docket # 49). On November 1, 2010,
while the stay was still in effect, Mr. Hofland moved a fourth time to amend his
amended complaint. Mot. to Am. (Docket # 53). He also moved for recusal of both
Magistrate Judge Kravchuk and this Judge because we had denied his earlier
motions to amend. Mot. to Recuse (Docket # 52). The recusal motions and the
motion to amend were denied on November 4, 2010. Order (Docket # 55); Order
(Docket # 56).

2

Following the denial of his fourth motion to amend, on November 8, 2010, Mr.
Hofland moved to extend time within which to file an amended complaint. Mot. to
Extend Time (Docket # 57).

The Magistrate Judge denied the motion.

Order

(Docket # 58). Mr. Hofland then moved to extend the time for filing objections to
the denial of his motion to amend, which the Magistrate Judge granted, extending
the time to December 1, 2010. Mot. to Extend Time (Docket # 59); Order (Docket #
60).
On December 1, 2010, Mr. Hofland objected to the Orders on the Motion for
Recusal and the Motion to Amend Amended Complaint.

(Docket # 61).

On

December 2, 2010, the Court denied Mr. Hofland’s objection to the Magistrate
Judge’s Order on Recusal and her Order denying the fourth motion to amend.
Order (Docket # 62). On March 18, 2011, the Magistrate Judge issued a procedural
order, noting that Mr. Hofland was to file any amended complaint by May 2, 2011,
Procedural Order (Docket # 65), and on March 24, 2011, upon Mr. Hofland’s motion
for further stay, she extended the deadline for filing an amended complaint until
May 23, 2011. Mot. for Stay (Docket # 68); Order (Docket # 69). On April 1, 2011,
Mr. Hofland filed another motion to extend time, which the Magistrate Judge
denied since the deadline had already been extended to May 23, 2011.

Mot. to

Expand Time (Docket # 71); Order (Docket # 72).
On May 23, 2011, Mr. Hofland moved to extend time to file an amended
complaint, noting that he was not able to mail the amended complaint until May 23,
2011. Mot. to Extend Time (Docket # 73). The Magistrate Judge granted the motion

3

provided he could establish that the Amended Complaint was deposited in the mail
by May 23, 2011.

Order (Docket # 74).

Mr. Hofland complied and his fourth

amended complaint was filed with the Court on May 24, 2011. Am. Compl. IV
(Docket # 75).
On June 21, 2011, the Magistrate Judge performed a 28 U.S.C. § 1915
screening and issued a painstaking twenty-page Recommended Decision in which
she scrupulously reviewed each cause of action in the proposed Fourth Amended
Complaint to determine whether it contained new allegations that would prevent
dismissal.

She concluded that none of the allegations in either the Amended

Complaint or the proposed Fourth Amended Complaint stated a viable cause of
action. Recommended Decision (Docket # 76). She recommended that the Court
dismiss the entire cause of action and that the Court limit further filings from Mr.
Hofland. Id. at 19. On June 30, 2011, Mr. Hofland moved to extend time to file
objections to the Recommended Decision; the Court extended the time for objections
to August 8, 2011. Mot. to Extend Time (Docket # 77); Order (Docket # 78). On July
29, 2011, Mr. Hofland moved for appointment of counsel and for a stay; both were
denied. Mot. for Appointment of Att’y (Docket # 79); Mot. for Stay (Docket # 80);
Order (Docket # 81).
Mr. Hofland filed an objection to the Recommended Decision on August 9,
2011. Objection (Docket # 82). However, he also moved to extend time to file a
memorandum in support of his objection.

Id.

The Court extended the time to

September 12, 2011. Order (Docket # 84). On September 12, 2011, Mr. Hofland

4

moved again for a stay, which the Magistrate Judge granted in part, extending the
time to October 14, 2011. Mot. for Stay (Docket # 85); Order (Docket # 86). On
September 13, 2011, Mr. Hofland moved to extend time, which was denied since the
Court had already granted an extension on his Motion for Stay. Mot. to Extend
Time (Docket # 87); Order (Docket # 88). On October 14, 2011, Mr. Hofland filed an
objection to the Recommended Decision and on the same day, he filed a so-called
supplement to his Fourth Amended Complaint. Mem. of Facts and Law (Docket #
89); Supplement 2 with Clarification to Am. Compl. IV (Docket # 90). Finally, on
October 21, 2011, he filed a clarification to his objection to the Recommended
Decision. Clarification to Memo. (Docket # 91).
B.

Discussion

As this long and convoluted procedural history reveals, Mr. Hofland has been
given opportunity after opportunity to amend his Complaint to provide the factual
underpinnings of his multiple grievances. He has failed.
As this is at least his fourth attempt to amend his Complaint, Mr. Hofland
knows what the law requires of him: he must file a motion for leave to amend and
present a viable proposed complaint. Here, the Magistrate Judge recommended
that the Court deny his last motion and he has decided to try and slip in allegations
by describing them as a supplement to a previously filed complaint.

But his

supplement is simply an amended complaint by another name. The supplement
must be struck because Mr. Hofland must first obtain permission from the Court
before filing such a document and he has not done so, and because the supplement

5

is nothing more than a restatement of the Fourth Amended Complaint, which the
Magistrate Judge has recommended that the Court reject.

The Supplement is

procedurally defective and substantively deficient and the Court STRIKES
Supplement 2 with Clarification to Amended Complaint IV (Docket # 90).
II.

RECOMMENDED DECISION
The United States Magistrate Judge filed with the Court on June 21, 2011

her Recommended Decision (Docket # 76). Mr. Hofland filed his objections to the
Recommended Decision on August 9, 2011 (Docket # 82), his memorandum of law in
support of his objections on October 14, 2011 (Docket # 89), and his clarification to
that memorandum on October 21, 2011 (Docket # 91). 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 the reasons set forth in
her Recommended Decision.
1. The Court AFFIRMS the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge
(Docket # 76);
2. The Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s Complaint (Docket # 1) and Amended
Complaint (Docket # 7);
3. The COURT AFFIRMS the Magistrate Judge’s denial of the Plaintiff’s
motion to amend the Complaint to include the allegations set forth in his
Amended Complaint IV (Docket # 75).

6

III.

Cok ORDER
In her Recommended Decision, the Magistrate Judge observed that “this may

be a moment for firm filing limitations against this litigant.”

Recommended

Decision at 19. The Court agrees. Updating the Court’s prior description of Mr.
Hofland’s vexatious pattern of litigation, the Court notes that this case is one of
seven lawsuits Mr. Hofland filed in federal court during the year 2009 and one in
2011 against a slew of defendants alleging a host of wrongs. In five cases, the Court
ruled against Mr. Hofland and entered judgment against him, and the Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit has upheld its dismissals. Hofland v. Governor, Civil
Action Docket No. 09-cv-162, J. (Docket # 43) (summarily affirming judgment of
dismissal entered by the district court on January 13, 2010); Hofland v. Perkins,
Civil Action Docket No. 09-cv-201, J. (Docket # 38) (same); Hofland v. Ross, Civil
Action Docket No. 09-cv-173, J. (Docket # 52) (summarily affirming the judgment of
the district court on January 13, 2010); Hofland v. Westrum, Civil Action Docket
No. 09-cv-218, J. (Docket # 37) (same); Hofland v. Thompson, Civil Action Docket
No. 09-cv-174, J. (Docket # 83) (summarily affirming the judgment of dismissal
entered by the district court on December 17, 2009 and the district court order
denying Mr. Hofland’s Rule 60(b) motion). In one case, the Court entered judgment
and Mr. Hofland did not appeal. Hofland v. Story, Civil Action Docket No. 09-cv343-JAW, J. (Docket # 17). In a seventh case, Hofland v. LaHaye, Civil Action
Docket No. 11-cv-53-JAW, the Court entered Judgment against Mr. Hofland on May

7

26, 2011 and the case is now before the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. J.
(Docket # 26); Notice of Appeal (Docket # 30).
This is the last case. With this Order, the Court enters Judgment against
Mr. Hofland. Mr. Holfland’s conduct in this and other cases reveals him to be an
abusive and frivolous litigant and the Court concludes that he merits filing
restrictions under Cok v. Family Court of Rhode Island, 985 F.2d 32, 35 (1st Cir.
1993).

Mr. Hofland’s pleadings are prolix and contentious nonsense.

He sees

conspiracies great and small in the actions of anyone he believes has wronged him.
He attempts to sue all manner of people from government officials to his fellow
citizens. He files multiple lawsuits, all meritless. He writes verbose and confusing
pleadings filled with citations to irrelevant case law. He refuses to accept court
rulings: if ruled against, he files motions to recuse, accusing judges of bias; he files
motions to reconsider; and he repeatedly files the same motion, even though his
request has been denied. He stalls, delays, and hinders the resolution of his case by
innumerable motions to extend and stay. He fails to attempt to tailor his efforts to
the rulings of the Court.
The United States Constitution created the federal courts to resolve
meritorious and significant matters. To devote untold judicial energy and resources
to Mr. Hofland’s private and obscure vendettas is a profound waste of this Court’s
limited time and the taxpayers’ hard earned money.
On March 11, 2011, the United States Magistrate Judge gave Mr. Hofland a
Cok warning in a companion case in which he sued Richard LaHaye. In Hofland v.

8

LaHaye, No. 1:11-cv-53-JAW, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29429, at *5 (D. Me. Mar. 18,
2011), she issued a Cok warning to Mr. Hofland that “repeated filings could result
in the imposition of filing restrictions.” Mr. Hofland’s actions in this case since
March 18, 2011 merit the imposition of the following filing restrictions:
Before any similar filings by Randall B. Hofland may be docketed in this
Court, the Clerk is directed to bring the lawsuit to this Judge’s attention. If the
lawsuit involves a dispute arising out of the events leading up to his arrest on
October 31, 2008, the Court hereby ENJOINS Mr. Hofland from filing such lawsuit
without prior leave of the Court. Furthermore, before Mr. Hofland is allowed to
docket any motion in this or other pending lawsuit, the Clerk is directed to bring
the proposed filing to this Judge’s attention. If the motion is frivolous or vexatious,
the Court will direct the Clerk not to docket the filing.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ John A. Woodcock, Jr.
JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR.
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 10th day of November, 2011

9