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)

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 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

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?