HOFLAND v. LIBERTY

Filing 244

ORDER denying 183 Motion for New Trial and Motion for New Process; denying 184 Motion for Findings of Fact and Law. By JUDGE JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR. (MFS)

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

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:15-cv-00414-JAW

ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER AFFIRMING
RECOMMENDED DECISION
On October 7, 2015, Randall B. Hofland filed a petition for writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2254. Pet. for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1). On
May 13, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued a nineteen page decision and
recommended that the petition be dismissed. Recommended Decision on 28 U.S.C. §
2254 Pet. (ECF No. 86). On August 15, 2016, this Court affirmed the recommended
decision, dismissed the petition, and ordered that no certificate of appealability be
issued. Order Affirming the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge (ECF
No. 118). On August 16, 2016, a judgment issued, dismissing Mr. Hofland’s petition.
J. of Dismissal (ECF NO. 119).
After receiving numerous extensions of time, Mr. Hofland finally filed a postjudgment motion on May 26, 2017 together with a motion for findings of fact and
conclusions of law. Pet’r Randall B. Hofland’s Mot. for New Trial/New Process
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) (ECF No. 183); Pet’r Randall B. Hofland’s Mot. for

Findings (ECF No. 184). On June 5, 2017, Randall Liberty responded. Respondent’s
Resp. to Pet’r’s Mots (ECF 183, 184) (ECF No. 188). On September 29, 2017, Mr.
Hofland filed a reply to Mr. Liberty’s response. Pet’r Randall B. Hofland’s Reply to
Respondent’s Resp. (ECF No. 243).
In his post-judgment motion, Mr. Hofland reiterates his long-held and
persistently-expressed view that he is not the perpetrator of any crime, rather he is
the victim of an immense and complicated conspiracy:
[T]he additive body of evidence now docketed herein is further
compounded by the still evolving evidence of a broad swatch of state &
federal law crimes associated with various government & private actors
via “state action” in Maine since at least 2004 that targeted Hofland
including the due process impediments inflicted upon Hofland
throughout the proceedings of Maine v. Randall B. Hofland, BELSC-CR08-334, plus all appellate proceedings as well as other state & federal
litigations.
Hofland Reply at 1. Mr. Hofland maintains that “from the beginnings of Maine v.
Randall B, Hofland, BELSC-CR-08-333/334, there was a criminal conspiracy that
targeted Hofland for years including as documented by the Belfast District Court
cases in 2007, and various courts since.” Id. at 3. Mr. Hofland includes not only the
justices of the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, but also the judges of the federal court
as members of the conspiracy. Id. at 14. Mr. Hofland also inveighs against the Maine
State Prison.

Id. at 15 (“a corrupt, dangerous, and intentionally dysfunctional

facility”). Mr. Hofland predicts that there will be “bad news” at the Maine State
Prison’s Close Unit and demands that the Court “ought—immediately—grant the
Writ of Habeas Corpus for Petitioner Randall B. Hofland, or, bear responsibility for
its failures.” Id. at 20.
2

The Court reviewed Mr. Holfand’s filings and memoranda in support of his
pending motions and concludes that there is no evidence whatsoever to confirm his
conspiracy allegations and no basis to grant him relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
The Court DENIES Petitioner Randall B. Hofland’s Motion for New Trial/New
Process Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) (ECF No. 183) and
Petitioner Randall B. Hofland’s Motion for Findings (ECF No. 184). The Court’s
Order Affirming the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 118)
is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ John A. Woodcock, Jr.
JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 3rd day of October, 2017

3