Dalton Xavier Lax v. State of Kansas

• Court: District Court, D. Kansas
• Decided: July 2, 2026
• Docket: 5:26-cv-03147
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

DALTON XAVIER LAX,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 26-3147-JWL

STATE OF KANSAS1,

Respondent.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 by Petitioner Dalton Xavier Lax, a state prisoner incarcerated at El Dorado Correctional Facility in El Dorado, Kansas. This matter comes before the Court on the petition (Doc. 1) and on Petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 3). When Petitioner filed his petition on May 22, 2026, he did not pay the filing fee or submit a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court issued a notice of deficiency (“NOD”) (Doc. 2), and on June 11, 2026, Petitioner filed a motion and a trust account statement in compliance with the NOD. Having reviewed these filings, Petitioner’s motion is granted. The Court has begun the initial review of the petition required by Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts and concludes that a limited

1 Petitioner has named the State of Kansas as Respondent in this action, but the proper respondent in a federal habeas action by a state prisoner is the person who has custody over the petitioner. See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 443 (2004) (“[I]n habeas challenges to present physical confinement . . . the default rule is that the proper respondent is the warden of the facility where the prisoner is being held.”). Thus, Tommy Williams, the current warden of El Dorado Correctional Facility where Petitioner is confined, is hereby substituted as Respondent pursuant to Rule 2(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 25(d) and 81(a)(4). Pre-Answer Response (“PAR”) is appropriate. See Wood v. Milyard, 566 U.S. 463, 467 (2012); Denson v. Abbott, 554 F. Supp. 2d 1206 (D. Colo. 2008). Accordingly, the Court directs Respondent to file a PAR limited to addressing whether this Court is barred from considering the merits of Ground Two due to anticipatory procedural default of the claims therein. (See Doc. 1, p. 8-9.) If Respondent does not intend to raise this affirmative defense with respect to Ground Two,

Respondent shall notify the Court of that decision in writing in the PAR. The PAR should not address the merits of the asserted grounds for relief or any subject beyond whether consideration of the merits of Ground Two is barred by the doctrine of anticipatory procedural default. If this case proceeds past the Rule 4 review, Respondent will at that time be ordered to submit a fully developed answer in compliance with Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. Upon the filing of the PAR, Petitioner will be given time in which to submit a written reply to the PAR. and at that time he may provide any information that may be relevant to any defenses identified in the PAR. Once Petitioner files his reply or the time allotted passes, the Court will

resume the Rule 4 review of this matter and issue further orders as necessary. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Tommy Williams, Warden of El Dorado Correctional Facility where Petitioner is confined, is substituted as Respondent in this matter. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 3) is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent is granted to and including August 3, 2026 in which to file a Pre-Answer Response that complies with this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner is granted to and including September 3, 2026 in which to file a reply to the Pre-Answer Response if he chooses to do so. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: This 2nd day of July, 2026, at Kansas City, Kansas.

S/ John W. Lungstrum JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM United States District Judge