HOFLAND v. LIBERTY

Filing 208

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

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