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
THOMAS WILLIAMS,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On February 3, 2026, this Court dismissed this federal habeas matter with prejudice
because it was untimely filed, declined to issue a certificate of appealability, and entered judgment.
(Docs. 24 and 25.) The memorandum and order dismissing the case set forth in detail the relevant
history of this case, the parties’ arguments on timeliness, and the Court’s analysis. (Doc. 24, p. 1-
19.) The Court sees no need to repeat that information here. This matter comes now before the
Court on Petitioner’s motion to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 59(e). (Doc. 26.) Petitioner has also filed a motion for leave to file excess pages (Doc.
27), which will be granted. The Court has considered the excess pages contained in Doc. 27.
In the motion to alter or amend, Petitioner argues: 	“The 2019 MD&O was not a final
order. It did not dispose of all claims. Statutory tolling applies.” (Doc. 26, p. 1.) He identifies
several arguments in his K.S.A. 60-1507 motion that “[t]he [state] district court totally ignored”
and he cites Kansas state statutes, Rules of the Kansas Supreme Court, and Kansas case law. Id. at
1-5. He asks this Court to alter its judgment to find that no final order was entered in the 60-1507
case, meaning that statutory tolling applies to render the federal habeas petition that began this
case timely filed. Id. at 5.
Case 5:25-cv-03111-JWL Document 28 Filed 03/04/26 Page 1 of 2

2
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), the Court may grant a motion to alter or
amend a judgment only if the moving party establishes: (1) an intervening change in the controlling
law; (2) the availability of new evidence that could not have been obtained previously through the
exercise of due diligence; or (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.
Servants of the Paraclete v. Does, 294 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000). A motion under Rule
59(e) is not to be used to present supporting facts that could have been presented in earlier filings.
Id. “Rule 59(e) motions are not second or successive [habeas] petitions, but instead a part of a
prisoner’s first habeas proceeding.” Bannister v. Davis, 590 U.S. 504, 517 (2020). Nevertheless,
when considering a Rule 59(e) motion, “courts will not address new arguments or evidence that
the moving party could have raised before the decision issued.” Id. at 508.
Even liberally construed, the motion to alter or amend the judgment includes only
arguments that either were or could have been presented to this Court in the briefing submitted
before this matter was dismissed. Thus, they cannot sufficiently support a motion to alter or amend
the judgment. See Bannister, 590 U.S. at 508. The motion to alter or amend the judgment will be
denied and this matter will remain closed.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion for leave to file excess pages (Doc. 27)
is granted. The motion to alter or amend the judgment (Doc. 26) is denied. This matter shall
remain closed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: 	This 4th day of March, 2026, at Kansas City, Kansas.
S/ John W. Lungstrum
JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM
United States District Judge
Case 5:25-cv-03111-JWL Document 28 Filed 03/04/26 Page 2 of 2