HOFLAND v. LIBERTY

Filing 208

ORDER ON MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION AND MOTIONS FOR RETURN OF ORIGINALS By JUDGE JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR. (ccs)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE RANDALL B. HOFLAND, Petitioner, v. RANDALL LIBERTY, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:15-cv-00414-JAW ORDER ON MOTION FOR CLARIFICIATION AND MOTIONS FOR RETURN OF ORIGINALS On July 26, 2017, the Court reluctantly granted Randall B. Hofland’s motion to require that that Clerk’s Office scan, docket, copy and mail to Mr. Hofland the original documents that he filed with the Court because he was having some kind of tussle with state authorities. Order on Pending Mots. at 4-5 (ECF No. 203). Since then, Mr. Hofland has filed three motions involving the return of original exhibits. Pet’r Randall B. Hofland’s Mot. for Clarification (ECF No. 204); Letter Mot. for Return of Originals (ECF No. 205); Letter Mot. for Return of Originals (ECF No. 206). The Court GRANTS Mr. Hofland’s motion for clarification (ECF No. 204): the docket reflects that the Clerk’s Office sent the voluminous packet of documents referred to in the Court’s July 26, 2017 Order to him on August 1, 2017. (ECF No. 207). The Court GRANTS Randall B. Hofland’s letter motions for return of originals. (ECF Nos. 205, 206). So that Mr. Holfand will not clog the docket with similar motions, the Court enters a standing order that the Clerk’s Office will copy and return to Mr. Hofland all original exhibits in this case that he files with the Court. There is no need for repetitive motions to ask for this extraordinary remedy. Finally, in his latest filing, Mr. Hofland warns the Court that his final responses will be delayed until he has had time to analyze the original documents that have been returned. To the extent that this constitutes a motion to extend time, the Court DENIES it. These are documents Mr. Hofland himself sent to the Court for filing and he should be thoroughly familiar their contents. As the Court earlier noted, the due date for Mr. Hofland’s reply is August 7, 2017. The Court will wait a reasonable amount of time to comply with the so-called mailbox rule, but it will rule on whatever Mr. Hofland has placed in the mail on or before August 7, 2017. SO ORDERED. /s/ John A. Woodcock, Jr. JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated this 2nd day of August, 2017 2

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?