Hachmeister (ID 2000077444) v. Williams

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
JASON WAYNE HACHMEISTER,
Petitioner,
v. 	CASE NO. 25-3111-JWL
TOMMY 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. (Doc. 1.) The operative amended
petition was filed on July 25, 2025. (Doc. 10.) This matter comes now before the Court on
Respondent’s limited Pre-Answer Response (“PAR”) regarding the timeliness of this matter and
Petitioner’s reply to the PAR. (Docs. 13 and 17.) Also before the Court is Petitioner’s motion for
leave to file excess pages. (Doc. 18.) For the reasons explained below, the Court will grant the
motion for leave to file excess pages and will direct Respondent to submit to the Court relevant
state-court records required for resolution of the timeliness question in this matter.
Background
In December 2013, a jury in Shawnee County, Kansas convicted Petitioner of 105 counts
of sexual exploitation of a child. (Doc. 10, p. 1.) See also State v. Hachmeister, 2015 WL 8175905,
*1-2 (Kan. Ct. App. Dec. 4, 2015) (unpublished) (Hachmeister I), Aff’d in part at 306 Kan. 630
(2017). The Shawnee County District Court sentenced him to a total of 86 months in prison. Id. at
*2; (Doc. 10, p. 1). Petitioner pursued a direct appeal, but the Kansas Court of Appeals (“KCOA”)
affirmed his convictions and sentences. Hachmeister I, 2015 WL 8175905, at *1. Petitioner filed
Case 5:25-cv-03111-JWL Document 19 Filed 11/06/25 Page 1 of 6

2
a petition for review, which the Kansas Supreme Court (“KSC”) granted in part. See State v.
Hachmeister, 306 Kan. 630, 630 (2017) (Hachmeister II). In an opinion issued on June 16, 2017,
the KSC affirmed on the two issues on which it had granted review. Id. Petitioner advises that he
did not file a petition for writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court. (Doc. 10, p. 3.)
On January 19, 2018, Petitioner timely filed a motion in Shawnee County District Court
seeking habeas relief under K.S.A. 60-1507. Id.; see also Kansas District Court Public Access
Portal, Hachmeister v. State, Case No. 2018-CV-000129.1 On December 31, 2018, the district
court issued a memorandum decision and order (“MDO”) that summarily denied the motion.
Unfortunately, the MDO was filed in the underlying criminal case, not in the 60-1507 case. See
State v. Hachmeister, Case No. 2012-CR-000471; see also Hachmeister, Case No. 2018-CV-
000129.
Nevertheless, Petitioner received a copy of the MDO and, on January 25, 2019, he filed in
the 60-1507 case a motion to reconsider the denial of relief. See Case No. 2018-CV-000129. On
February 8, 2019, Petitioner filed a letter in support of his motion to reconsider. Id. On March 20,
2019, the Shawnee County District Court entered a minute order in the underlying criminal case
acknowledging that the order denying K.S.A. 60-1507 relief had been filed in that case by mistake
and should be disregarded. See Case. No. 2012-CR-000471. The following day, the Shawnee
County District Court entered an MDO in the 60-1507 case, finding that the motion had been
timely filed but that the petition, files, and records demonstrated that Petitioner was not entitled to
relief under K.S.A. 60-1507. See Case No. 2018-CV-000129.
The MDO filed in the 60-1507 case was similar but not identical to the MDO that had been
erroneously filed in the criminal case. In any event, the MDO filed in the 60-1507 case
1 When the Court, in this order, cites to the state district court case number, it is citing to Shawnee County District
Court records obtained through the Kansas District Court Public Access Portal.
Case 5:25-cv-03111-JWL Document 19 Filed 11/06/25 Page 2 of 6

3
acknowledged neither the previous misfiling in the criminal case nor the motion to reconsider
Petitioner had filed. Id. It did, however, state: “This Memorandum Decision and Order shall
constitute the Court’s entry of judgment when filed with the Clerk of this Court. No further journal
entry is required.” Id.
In August 2019, the Shawnee County District Court received from Petitioner a written
inquiry about the status of the motion to reconsider. Id. The letter also requested an “R.O.A.”—or
Register of Actions—and information about warrants issued in the underlying criminal case. Id.
The docket2 for the 60-1507 case reflects that an R.O.A. was mailed to Petitioner on August 27,
2019. In a letter the state district court received on June 22, 2020, Petitioner requested a copy of
the March 2019 MDO, explaining that he was unable to determine whether his motion for 60-1507
relief had been granted or denied because he had never received a copy of the March 2019 MDO.
Id. The docket for the 60-1507 case reflects that a copy of the MDO was mailed to Petitioner on
June 23, 2020. Id.
On February 22, 2021, the Shawnee County District Court received from Petitioner a letter
stating that he had received the copy of the MDO on June 30, 2020, while he was incarcerated in
Arizona. He stated that he sent a Notice of Appeal in early July 2020 but had not heard anything
further about the status of his appeal. Petitioner also asserted that the Arizona prison where he had
been incarcerated “was known for ‘losing’ a lot of legal mail for a bunch of the Kansas inmates”
incarcerated there and he “personally had multiple letters to [his] attorney in another case that he
never received.” Id. Petitioner requested a copy of the R.O.A., which the state court docket reflects
was mailed to him on February 24, 2021 along with a notice informing him that the court had not
2 When the Court refers in this order to the “docket” of a state court case, it means the R.O.A.—the list of actions
taken in the case. The Court also has reviewed the contents of document available through the Kansas courts’ Public
Access Portals, where necessary.
Case 5:25-cv-03111-JWL Document 19 Filed 11/06/25 Page 3 of 6

4
received a notice of appeal related to the 60-1507 case.
On April 5, 2021, the Shawnee County District Court received from Petitioner a document
titled “2nd Notice of Appeal.” Attached as an exhibit to this document was a copy of the first
notice of appeal that Petitioner stated he had mailed on July 9, 2020. Id. at p. 21. The first notice
of appeal was, by its own language, intended to “appeal[] the district court’s order and all adverse
rulings,” including the order denying his 60-1507 motion and “the denial [of] the timely filed
motion to Reconsider the denial of case [number] 2018-CV-000129 . . . .” Id. On April 9, 2021,
the State filed a motion to dismiss the notice of appeal, arguing that it was untimely filed. Petitioner
filed a response to the motion and, on May 14, 2021, the Shawnee County District Court issued an
order granting the motion to dismiss the notice of appeal. Id.
On September 11, 2023, the Shawnee County District Court received from Petitioner a
“Motion For Findings Of Facts And Conclusions Of Law On All Issues Raised In 18-CV-129.”
Id. It does not appear that this motion has been ruled upon.
On June 5, 2025, this Court received from Petitioner the petition for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 that began this case. (Doc. 1.) On June 30, 2025, the Court issued an
order directing Respondent to file a PAR limited to addressing the affirmative defense of
timeliness under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). (Doc. 5.) Petitioner then filed a “preemptive” and
unsolicited “Motion Regarding Timeliness and Exhaustion” that contained arguments regarding
timeliness. (Doc. 8.) Shortly thereafter, Petitioner filed the currently operative amended petition
for writ of habeas corpus. (Doc. 10.)
Respondent obtained an extension of time for filing the PAR (Docs. 11 and 12) and, on
September 19, 2025, he timely filed the PAR. (Doc. 13.) The Court then issued an order granting
Petitioner time in which to file a reply to the PAR. (Doc. 14.) Petitioner timely filed his reply on
Case 5:25-cv-03111-JWL Document 19 Filed 11/06/25 Page 4 of 6

5
October 24, 2025. (Doc. 17.) With his reply, he filed a motion for leave to file excess pages in
order to submit exhibits in support of his reply. (Docs. 18 and 18-1.)
Discussion
The Court has reviewed the parties’ briefing on timeliness, including Petitioner’s “Motion
Regarding Timeliness and Exhaustion” (Doc. 8); the timeliness arguments contained in the
operative amended petition (Doc. 10, p. 13); Respondent’s PAR (Doc. 13); the “exhibit” Petitioner
filed that contains supplemental argument on timeliness (Doc. 16); Petitioner’s Reply to the PAR
(Doc. 17); and the exhibits submitted by Petitioner in support of his reply (Doc. 18-1). The motion
for leave to file excess pages will be granted and the Court will direct the clerk to docket the pages
currently located at Doc. 18-1 as exhibits in support of the reply to the PAR.
To resolve the question of timeliness, which could be dispositive in this case, the Court
requires further information contained in state-court records that are not currently before this Court
and are not available through the Kansas courts’ Public Access Portals. Therefore, the Court will
direct Respondent to submit to this Court for examination the records and transcripts, if available,
of the criminal and 60-1507 proceedings relevant to this federal habeas matter. Specifically,
Respondent shall provide this Court with the records and transcripts of Shawnee County District
Court cases numbered 2012-CR-000471 and 2018-CV-000129.
In addition, Petitioner refers in his operative petition to an original action in mandamus he
filed in the Kansas Supreme Court seeking to compel a ruling on pending motions in the 60-1507
case. (See Doc. 10, p. 8.) To the extent possible, Respondent is directed to provide the Court with
the records of and documents filed in any related original mandamus action Petitioner pursued in
the Kansas Supreme Court. After the Court receives the records and transcripts identified above,
it will resume examination of whether this matter was timely filed and will issue further orders as
Case 5:25-cv-03111-JWL Document 19 Filed 11/06/25 Page 5 of 6

6
necessary. No supplemental briefing on timeliness may be filed at this time.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT the motion for leave to file excess pages (Doc.
18) is granted. The clerk is directed to docket the pages currently located at Doc. 18-1 as exhibits
in support of the reply (Doc. 17) to the PAR.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT Respondent is granted to and including December
8, 2025 in which to cause to be forwarded to this Court for examination and review the records
and transcripts, if available, of (1) the criminal proceedings that led to the convictions at issue in
this matter; (2) the K.S.A. 60-1507 case in which Petitioner sought to collaterally attack the
convictions at issue in this matter; and (3) any original action in mandamus Petitioner filed in the
Kansas Supreme Court. Upon receipt and review of these records, the Court will resume its
analysis of the timeliness of this matter and will issue further orders as necessary.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: 	This 6th day of November, 2025, at Kansas City, Kansas.
S/ John W. Lungstrum
JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM
United States District Judge
Case 5:25-cv-03111-JWL Document 19 Filed 11/06/25 Page 6 of 6