HOFLAND v. LIBERTY
ORDER denying 163 Motion to Compel; denying 163 Motion for Copy of Indictments. By JUDGE JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR. (MFS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
RANDALL B. HOFLAND,
ORDER ON MOTION TO COMPEL
On February 17, 2017, Randall B. Hofland, a state inmate, moved to compel
Randall Liberty and Attorney James E. Fortin:
(1) “to provide a notebook computer with a DVD drive plus all necessary
software needed to allow Hofland to review and transcribe his remaining
digital ‘discovery’ recordings in his cell as was previously done with a DVD
(2) “to also allow Hofland to type up his transcriptions using the Microsoft
Word on said computer, plus permanently save the files then print out five
(5) copies of each transcription”;
(3) “to also provide Hofland with sufficient DVD blanks to produce four (4)
copies of the digital discovery records and transcript, one set to be served
on the District Court as one of more enumerated Exhibits holding other
enumerated Exhibits as folders in said DVD disks”;
(4) “to provide three (3) full copies of the filed indictments for CR-08-333 and
(5) “transcribe the full record of the Special Grand Jury proceedings for Maine
v. Hofland, CR-08-334 on or about 30 December 2008 as well produce all
digital or other records therefrom, and provide four (4) copies of all these
materials, one to be filed with the docket, and all items not served upon the
Court for this matter to be kept by Petitioner Hofland as evidence (except—
eventually—the notebook computer provided by the Respondent).”
Pet’r’s Mot. to Compel at 3 (ECF No. 163) (Mot. to Compel).
The context of these discovery demands harkens back to Mr. Hofland’s petition
for writ of habeas corpus, which he filed on October 7, 2015. Pet. Under 28 U.S.C. §
2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (ECF No. 1). On May
13, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued a thorough recommended decision on Mr.
Hofland’s petition for writ of habeas corpus in which he recommended that the Court
grant the state of Maine’s request to dismiss Mr. Hofland’s petition. Recommended
Decision on 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Pet. (ECF No. 86).1 On August 11, 2016, Mr. Hofland
objected to the Recommended Decision. Pet’r Randall B. Hofland’s Objections to the
Recommended Decision (ECF No. 116). On August 15, 2016, this Court affirmed the
Recommended Decision over Mr. Hofland’s objection and ordered that no certificate
of appealability be issued.
Order Affirming the Recommended Decision of the
In the Recommended Decision, the Magistrate Judge clarified that Mr. Hofland had been
convicted of kidnapping, criminal restraint with a dangerous weapon, criminal threatening with a
dangerous weapon and burglary. Recommended Decision at 1.
Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 118). On August 16, 2016, a judgment issued, dismissing
Mr. Hofland’s petition. J. of Dismissal (ECF No. 119).
On August 26, 2016, Mr. Hofland filed a motion to correct record and a motion
to extend time to file a Rule 52(b), 59(e), and 60(a)(b)(d) motion. Pet’r Randall B.
Hofland’s Mots. to: (1) Correct Record (F.R. Cv. P. 60(a), and (2) Extend Time to File
F.R. Cv. P. 52(b), 59(e), 60(a)(b)(d) Mots. (ECF No. 120). On August 29, 2016, the
Court denied Mr. Hofland’s motion to correct the record and granted his motion to
extend. Order Denying Mot. to Correct Record and Granting Mot. to Extend Time to
File F.R. Cv. P. 52(b), 59(e), and 60(a), (b) and (d) Mots. (ECF No. 121). Since then,
Mr. Hofland has moved periodically to extend the time for the filing of his postjudgment motions and the motions are now due no later than April 24, 2017. See
Order Granting Mot. to Stay and Granting Mot. to Extend Time (ECF No. 159). In
addition, Mr. Hofland has inundated the Court with a prolific number of documents
in anticipation of the filing of his post-judgment motion; by his reckoning, he is now
up to exhibit number 183D. See Letter from Randall B. Hofland Attach. 183D (ECF
Mr. Hofland’s right to discovery in his § 2254 case is strictly circumscribed by
Rule 6 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Rule 6 provides that before
discovery may be granted, a petitioner must first obtain leave of court and that the
requesting party must provide reasons for the request. Mr. Hofland’s expressed
reason for his need for items one through five is that he has “collected credible
evidence of an extensive racketeering enterprise operating within government offices
in Maine and via the Maine State Bar Association membership . . . .” On January 18,
2012, the Court addressed Mr. Hofland’s persistent claims that there has been an
extensive racketeering enterprise conspiring against him:
Enough is enough. The federal courts are not the place for Mr. Hofland
to playout 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.
Randall Hofland v. Richard LaHaye, Order on Recommended Decisions at 11 (ECF
No. 103), 1:09-cv-00172-JAW. Having previously warned Mr. Hofland in accordance
with Cok v. Family Court of R.I., 985 F.2d 32, 35 (1st Cir. 1993), the Court issued a
filing restriction against further pleadings.
As Mr. Hofland is attempting to revisit his conspiracy theories in this case
through the vehicle of a post-judgment motion following the denial of his petition for
writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the Court concludes that he has not
demonstrated good cause within the meaning of Rule 6(a) of the Rules Governing
Section 2254 Cases for discovery and the Court therefore DENIES Petitioner’s Motion
to Compel and Motion for Copy of Indictments (ECF No. 163).
/s/ John A. Woodcock, Jr.
JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 1st day of March, 2017
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?