Hachmeister (ID 108952) v. Williams

• Court: District Court, D. Kansas
• Decided: June 30, 2025
• Docket: 5:25-cv-03111
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

JASON WAYNE HACHMEISTER,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 25-3111-JWL

THOMAS WILLIAMS,

Respondent.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 by Petitioner and Kansas state prisoner Jason Wayne Hachmeister, who has now paid the filing fee. The Court has conducted an initial review of the Petition under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. The Court finds that resolving the timeliness question in this matter requires additional information from the Respondent, so the Court concludes that a limited 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 such a response limited to addressing the affirmative defense of timeliness under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Because the question of timeliness may be dispositive of this matter, the Court wishes to resolve it now, during the initial screening process, rather than waiting to consider such argument in the context of a full answer from Respondent that also addresses the merits of Petitioner’s claims. If Respondent does not intend to raise the affirmative defense of untimeliness, Respondent shall notify the Court of that decision in the PAR. Upon receipt of the PAR, the Court will issue further orders as necessary, including allowing Petitioner to file a response to the PAR if appropriate. Also before the Court is Petitioner’s motion for leave to file excess pages (Doc. 2), which will be denied without prejudice. If the timeliness issue is resolved in Petitioner’s favor and Petitioner still wishes to file additional pages in support of his petition, he may a file a motion renewing his request at that time.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT the motion for leave to file excess pages (Doc. 2) is denied without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Respondent is granted to and including July 31, 2025 in which to file a Pre-Answer Response that complies with this order. After receipt and review of the PAR, the Court will issue further orders as necessary. The clerk is directed to transmit a copy of this order to the Office of the Kansas Attorney General.

IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: This 30th day of June, 2025, at Kansas City, Kansas. S/ John W. Lungstrum JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM United States District Judge