HOFLAND v. LAHAYE et al

Filing 48

ORDER adopting Report and Recommended Decision re 42 Report and Recommendations; denying 47 Motion to Extend Time By JUDGE JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR. (jgw)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
RANDALL B. HOFLAND,
Plaintiff

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

v.
RICHARD LAHAYE, JR., et al.,
Defendants

1:11-cv-00053-JAW

ORDER AFFIRMING RECOMMENDED DECISION AND DENYING MOTION TO
EXTEND TIME TO FILE MEMORANDUM
On February 11, 2011, Randall B. Hofland filed a complaint against fortythree known and an unspecified number of unknown defendants, alleging that they
engaged in a conspiracy against him and thereby violated a list of federal criminal
and civil statutes.

Compl. (ECF No. 1).

He filed an amended complaint on

February 17, 2011. Am Compl. (ECF No. 4). The magistrate judge performed an
initial screening of the Amended Complaint and on March 18, 2011, she
recommended that the Court dismiss the Amended Complaint.

Recommended

Decision and Order on Mot. to Consolidate (ECF No. 11). Mr. Hofland objected to
the Recommended Decision on May 23, 2011 and the Court affirmed the
Recommended Decision on May 24, 2011 over his objection. Pl.’s Objection to R & R
(ECF No. 21); Order Affirming the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge
(ECF No. 23). On May 24, 2011, Mr. Hofland filed a supplemental objection and on
May 26, 2011, the Court reviewed and considered his supplemental filing and
affirmed

the

Recommended

Decision.

Supplement

to

Pl.’s

Objection

to

Recommended Decision (ECF No. 24); Supplemental Order Affirming the

Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 25). The Court entered
Judgment against Mr. Hofland’s Amended Complaint on May 26, 2011. J. (ECF No.
26). On June 7, 2011, Mr. Hofland moved for relief from Judgment and on June 9,
2011, the Court denied the motion. Mot. for Relief from J. (ECF No. 27); Order on
Pl.’s Mot. for Relief from J. and Mot. to Extend Time (ECF No. 29). On June 30,
2011, Mr. Hofland appealed the dismissal to the Court of Appeals for the First
Circuit. Notice of Appeal (ECF No. 30). On May 30, 2012, the Court of Appeals
affirmed the district court Judgment. J. (ECF No. 41).
While his appeal was pending before the Court of Appeals, Mr. Hofland filed
a motion to amend the record pursuant to Rule 60(b) on May 10, 2012. Mot. to
Vacate J. of Dismissal (Rule 60(b)) (ECF No. 39). On June 8, 2012, describing the
motion as “frivolous in the extreme,” the magistrate judge recommended that the
motion be denied as soon as the district court regained jurisdiction upon the receipt
of the Court of Appeals mandate. Recommended Decision Re: Mot. for Leave to File
Mot. to Vacate J. of Dismissal (ECF No. 42).

The Court of Appeals issued its

Mandate on July 2, 2012. Mandate (ECF No. 45). On July 19, 2012, Mr. Hofland
filed an objection to the magistrate judge’s recommended decision and a motion to
extend time to file memorandum. Objection to Recommended Decision (ECF No.
46); Mot. to Extend Time to File Memorandum (ECF No. 47).
The Court AFFIRMS the Recommended Decision of the magistrate judge and
DENIES the Motion for Extension of Time. First, as the magistrate judge pointed
out, this case is over. This Court closed the case on May 26, 2011; the Court of

Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the Judgment on May 12, 2012 and issued its
Mandate on July 2, 2012.

Mr. Hofland cannot revive what is judicially dead.

Second, Mr. Hofland is under filing restrictions in this Court ironically precipitated
by his frivolous filings in the companion case of Holfand v. LaHaye, 1:09-cv-00172JAW, which alleged substantially the same conspiracy. Third, even if the Court
were to consider the merits of his motion, it would deny the motion. Mr. Hofland
persists in believing that claims innumerable state officials and private parties
participated in a vast conspiracy against him and as the Court warned Mr. Hofland
in its January 18, 2012 Order, “[t]he federal courts are not the place for Mr. Holfand
to play out his bizarre conspiracy theories and meritless private vendettas.”
Hofland v. LaHaye, 1:090-cv-00172-JAW, Order on Recommended Decision at 11
(ECF No. 11). Finally, because the motion itself is frivolous, because Mr. Hofland is
operating under a filing restriction, and because he has not obtained prior
permission to make this filing, the Court STRIKES Randall B. Hofland’s Motion to
Vacate Judgment of Dismissal and his Motion for Extension of Time.
The Court AFFIRMS the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge,
DENIES Randall B. Hofland’s Motion to Vacate Judgment of Dismissal (Rule 60(b))
(ECF No. 42), DENIES Randall B. Hofland’s Motion for Extension of Time (ECF No.
47), and STRIKES both pleadings.
SO ORDERED.
/s/John A. Woodcock, Jr.
John A. Woodcock, Jr.
Chief U.S. District Judge
Dated this 15th day of August, 2012.