HOFLAND v. LIBERTY

Filing 139

ORDER dismissing as moot 136 Motion to Extend Time; granting in part and denying in part 138 Motion for Reconsideration, post-trial motions due 11/26/2016 By JUDGE JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR. (jwr)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
RANDALL B. HOFLAND,
Petitioner,
v.
RANDALL LIBERTY,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:15-cv-00414-JAW

ORDER ON MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT AND MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
On October 21, 2016, Randall B. Hofland moved this Court to reconsider its
Order on Emergency Motion to Extend Time filed on October 14, 2016. Pet’r Randall
B. Hofland’s Mot. for Recons. (ECF No. 138) (Mot. for Recons.). In the Order, the
Court granted, as he requested, Mr. Hofland’s emergency motion to extend time to
file post-judgment motions an additional seven days, making his post-judgment
motions due on or before October 27, 2016. Pet’r Randall B. Hofland’s Emer. Mot. to
Extend Time (ECF No. 134) (Emer. Mot.); Order on Emergency Mot. to Extend Time
at 1 (ECF No. 135) (Order on Emer. Mot.). In his motion for reconsideration, Mr.
Hofland points to the fact that on October 14, 2016, he mailed a motion
supplementing is emergency motion to extend time and asking for additional time
from October 12, 2006 to November 2, 2016 to file his post-judgment motions and he
then asks the Court to further extend the time to file his post-judgment motions to
November 26, 2016. Mot. for Recons. at 2; see Pet’r Randall B. Hofland’s Supp. to
Mot. (ECF No. 136) (Supp. Mot.). The Court GRANTS Mr. Hofland’s motion to extend

the time within which to file post-judgment motions. Those motions are now due on
or before November 26, 2016. The Court DISMISSES as moot his supplement to the
emergency motion, which had asked for an extension to November 2, 2016.
Also, in his motion for reconsideration, Mr. Hofland continues to complain that
the Clerk’s Office failed to provide him with a copy of the docket entries for Hofland
v. Ponte, No. 1:12-mc-92-MJK, and for this case. Mot. for Recons. at 1-2. In its
October 14, 2016 Order, the Court observed that a Carlton Wiggin, Jr. arrived at the
Clerk’s office on September 29, 2016 asking purportedly on behalf of Mr. Hofland for
copies of the docket entries for both this case and Ponte cases and that the Clerk’s
office duly made the requested copies. Order on Emer. Mot. at 1-2. In its Order, the
Court explained that before it ordered the Clerk’s office to make another set of copies,
the Court ordered Mr. Hofland to represent that Mr. Wiggin was acting for him in
obtaining the first set. Id. at 2.
In his motion for reconsideration, Mr. Hofland refused to comply with the
Court’s Order. Mot. for Recons. at 2 (“Therefore, Petitioner hereby refuses to comply
with the Court’s Order”) (emphasis in original). As best the Court understands it,
Mr. Hofland acknowledges that Mr. Wiggin was acting on his behalf in obtaining
copies of the docket entries in both Ponte and this case. Id. Indeed, Mr. Hofland says
that Mr. Wiggin spent postage to mail these documents, but Mr. Hofland does not
come out and admit that he received them. Id. If Mr. Wiggin obtained copies of the
Ponte docket entries on September 29, 2016 and if Mr. Wiggin mailed those copies to
Mr. Hofland on the same day, then the Court is confused as to why Mr. Hofland

requires yet another copy of those docket entries. The last docket entry in Hofland
v. Ponte, No. 1:12-mc-00092-JAW, is dated March 7, 2013 and therefore Mr. Hofland
should now possess a complete copy of all docket entries in that case. The Court will
not order the Clerk’s Office to copy and mail to Mr. Hofland another set of docket
entries in Hofland v. Ponte, No. 1:12-mc-00092-JAW.
Regarding the docket entries in this case, Mr. Hofland moves for
reconsideration “based on the truths found in ECF 129 & 134, plus as pleaded in ECF
137.” Id. ECF number 129 is a motion to recuse and change venue based on this
Judge’s and Magistrate Judge Kravchuk’s being “implicated in felony crimes by their
involvement in multiple cases by and through their falsifications in ‘facts’ and law.”
Mot. to Recuse; Mot. for Change of Venue at 1 (ECF No. 129). The Court denied the
motions on September 29, 2016. Order Denying Mot. for Recusal; Denying Mot. for
Change of Venue (ECF No. 135). The Court will not dignify Mr. Hofland’s scurrilous
allegations by responding further, except to note that the contents of his motion have
nothing to do with whether he is entitled to have the Clerk’s office copy and mail to
him yet another set of docket entries. ECF numbers 134 and 136 (mis-numbered by
Mr. Hofland as 137) describe the difficulties that he is having making photocopies,
accessing digital records, and connecting with a caseworker. Emer. Mot. at 1; Supp.
Mot. at 1.
The Court remains uncertain why Mr. Hofland is unable to access its CM/ECF
system and why he demands that the Clerk’s office continually send him copies of
updates to the docket entries in this case. Nevertheless, the Court will relent and

require the Clerk’s office to copy and mail to Mr. Hofland the latest docket entries in
this case. Before the Court issues another similar order, Mr. Hofland will have to do
a better job explaining why he is unable to access the Court’s CM/ECF system and
why he is unable to obtain for himself what he demands the Clerk’s office do for him.
The Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Petitioner Randall B.
Hofland’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 138). The Court GRANTS Randall B.
Hofland’s request for a further extension of time to November 26, 2016 for the filing
of post-judgment motions; the Court DENIES Randall B. Hofland’s motion for a copy
of the docket entries in Hofland v. Ponte, No. 1:12-mc-00092-JAW; the Court
GRANTS Randall B. Hofland’s motion for an up to date copy of the docket entries in
this pending case. The Court DISMISSES as moot Petitioner Randall B. Hofland’s
Supplement to Motion (ECF No. 136).
SO ORDERED.

/s/John A. Woodcock, Jr.
JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE