HOFLAND v. LIBERTY
ORDER ON MOTION TO VACATE AND COK WARNING denying 253 MOTION to Vacate Amended Judgment 245 , Judgment 119 , and Orders 248 , 244 , 118 By JUDGE JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR. (ccs)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
RANDALL B. HOFLAND,
ORDER ON MOTION TO VACATE AND COK WARNING
On January 18, 2012, this Court issued an order prohibiting Randall B.
Hofland from making any further filings with this Court without first obtaining the
Court’s permission in accordance with Cok v. Family Court of Rhode Island, 985 F.2d
32 (1st Cir. 1993). Id. at 34-36 (requiring the Court to warn any litigant before
restricting the litigant’s ability to file). See Hofland v. LaHaye, Civil No. 1:09-cv00172-JAW, Order on Recommended Decisions at 9-12 (ECF No. 103) (Civil Cok
Order). This order was compelled by Mr. Hofland’s relentless filing of frivolous cases.
Id. When Mr. Hofland filed the pleadings in this case against Randall Liberty, the
Court allowed him to proceed because his petition was filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody, and therefore his petition
was not barred by the Court’s existing Cok order. Order at 1 (ECF No. 6).
Unfortunately, Mr. Hofland has proceeded in his habeas corpus petition in the
same fashion as he proceeded in his other cases. Mr. Hofland believes that he is the
true victim of the crimes for which he was convicted and sentenced in state court. He
views himself as the innocent subject of a gigantic conspiracy involving a vast array
of persons in state and federal government and in private life. See Civil Cok Order
at 10 (“Mr. Hofland proposes to sue all manner of state and private actors, ranging
from judges, a district attorney, an assistant district attorney, a town police chief,
state troopers, a private insurance defense lawyer, the Bangor Daily News, the
Republican Journal, VillageSoup.com, and private individuals, all of whom he claims
were engaged in a vast conspiracy to undermine his civil rights . . . ”).
The essence of Mr. Hofland’s pending habeas petition echoes these very same
After the Court issued its order on October 3, 2017, denying his post-
judgment motions, and the next day entered an amended judgment in favor of the
Defendant, Mr. Hofland moved to extend the time to file a motion against the
judgment. See Order on Recons. of Order Affirming Recommended Decision (ECF No.
244); Am. J. (ECF No. 245); Pet’r Randall B. Hofland’s Mot. to Extend Time to File
and Mot. for Clarification (ECF No. 250). The Court reluctantly granted his motion
for extension, but observed that Mr. Hofland “proposes to file a post-judgment motion
on the order denying his post-judgment motions on the order denying his petition.”
Order on Mot. to Extend Time and Mot. for Clarification at 2 (ECF No. 251). The
Court warned Mr. Hofland that “his new post-judgment motion must not replicate
his old post-judgment motions.” Id.
Despite this clear warning, in his motion to vacate, Mr. Hofland repeats the
same conspiracy claims that have been the hallmark of his numerous civil actions
and that are the gravamen of his pending habeas petition. Pet’r Randall B. Hofland’s
Mot. to Vacate the Am. J. , J. , and Orders [248, 244, 118] for Fraud upon
the Ct. Pursuant to Fed. R. C[i]v. P. 60(b)(d), see Rule 60(b)(3)(6), Rule 60(d)(3) (ECF
No. 253). Mr. Hofland’s motion to vacate leads off with the same conspiracy claims
that the Court has repeatedly rejected:
At issue herein is the truth versus a federal judge’s false claim
about conspiracy facts otherwise well proven—plus more importantly—
the greater evidence of such as then also very carefully concealed by
governmental action from multiple state and federal litigations by
government actors and their associates including this judge. I.e., by and
through pernicious state-action and also federal action conspiracies
that target Petitioner Randall B. Hofland.
Id. at 1. The motion to vacate goes on for fifteen pages with his unique perspective
of this asserted conspiracy. Id. at 1-15.
As the Court wrote on January 18, 2012,
Enough is enough. The federal courts are not the place for Mr.
Hofland to play out 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. . . This must stop.
Id. at 11. The Court expressly warns Mr. Hofland that if he persists with similar
filings in his pending petition for writ of habeas corpus, filing restrictions may be in
the offing. Mr. Hofland must not continue to challenge the Court’s judgment by filing
post-judgment motion after post-judgment motion, even post-judgment motions on
orders denying post-judgment motions. It is an abuse of the legal process. Although
the Court ordered that no certificate of appealability should issue because there has
been no substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right within the meaning
of 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), Mr. Hofland must turn to the Court of Appeals for the First
Circuit for any further legal relief on this pending petition for writ of habeas corpus.
See Order Affirming the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No.
Having reviewed Mr. Hofland’s most recent filing, the Court DENIES
Petitioner Randall B. Hofland’s Motion to Vacate the Amended Judgment ,
Judgment , and Orders [248, 244, 118] for Fraud upon the Court Pursuant to
Fed. R. C[i]v. P. 60(b)(d), see Rule 60(b)(3)(6), Rule 60(d)(3) (ECF No. 253). There is
simply no basis to conclude that the grand conspiracy, which underlies Mr. Hofland’s
petition and the pending motion, ever existed.
/s/ John A. Woodcock, Jr.
JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 28th day of November, 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?