Butler (ID 2000152231) v. Geither

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
RICHARD CHANTEZ BUTLER,
Petitioner,
v. 	CASE NO. 25-3280-JWL
GLORIA GEITHER,
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 Richard Chantez Butler, a state prisoner incarcerated at Lansing Correctional Facility
in Lansing, Kansas. (Doc. 8.) On May 18, 2026, the Court issued a memorandum and order to
show cause (“MOSC”) granting Petitioner time “to submit a written response to this order that
shows cause why Ground Seven of the amended petition should not be dismissed as barred by
anticipatory procedural default.” (Doc. 26, p. 12.) The MOSC also denied Petitioner’s “motion to
amend case law to ground four and seven” (Doc. 25), informing Petitioner that if he “wishes to
amend his memorandum of law filed in support of the amended petition (Doc. 14), he must file a
motion seeking to file a complete amended memorandum of law in support of the amended petition
that will replace any previous memorandum of law filed in this case.” (Doc. 26, p. 12.)
This matter comes now before the Court on a document Petitioner filed on May 20, 2026
titled “Motion to File Amended Memorandum of Law in Support of Law.” (Doc. 27 (emphasis in
original).) The Court has carefully reviewed the motion, which (1) sets forth the language of 28
U.S.C. § 2254, (2) argues that the Grounds in the amended petition entitle Petitioner to federal
habeas relief, and (3) requests an evidentiary hearing. (Doc. 27, p. 1-6.) The body of the motion
does not expressly ask to file an amended memorandum of law. Id.
Case 5:25-cv-03280-DDC-JBW Document 28 Filed 05/21/26 Page 1 of 3

2
When the pro se motion is liberally construed in light of the language quoted above from
the MOSC regarding filing an amended memorandum of law in support of the amended petition,
however, it appears that Petitioner wishes this motion to be filed as the amended memorandum of
law in support of his amended petition. If this understanding is incorrect, Petitioner should clarify
the purpose of the “Motion to File Amended Memorandum of Law in Support of Law” (Doc. 26)
as soon as possible in a written notice to this Court. If the Court’s understanding of the “Motion to
File Amended Memorandum of Law in Support of Law” is correct, Petitioner need file nothing
further related to that motion. To the extent that Petitioner wishes to file the motion as an amended
memorandum of law in support of the amended petition, the request is granted. The Court will
direct the clerk to docket a copy of the motion as an amended memorandum of law in support of
the amended petition.
To the extent that the motion seeks an evidentiary hearing in this Court, it is denied without
prejudice. In the case now before this Court, the initial review required by Rule 4 of the Rules
Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts (“the Rules”) is not yet
complete. (See Doc. 26, p. 2-3.) Once the questions identified in the MOSC are resolved, the Court
will order Respondent to file an answer as contemplated by Rule 5 of the Rules. After the answer,
the relevant state-court records, and the traverse—Petitioner’s response to the answer—are filed,
the Court will consider whether an evidentiary hearing is necessary. See Rule 8 of the Rules, 28
U.S.C. foll. § 2254 (“If the petition is not dismissed, the judge must review the answer, any
transcripts and records of state-court proceedings, and any materials submitted under Rule 7 to
determine whether an evidentiary hearing is warranted.”); 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2) (identifying
limited circumstances under which a federal court may an hold evidentiary hearing on a claim for
which the factual basis was insufficiently developed in state court); Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S.
Case 5:25-cv-03280-DDC-JBW Document 28 Filed 05/21/26 Page 2 of 3

3
465, 474 (2007) (holding district court not required to hold evidentiary hearing if the record
precludes habeas relief); Anderson v. Att’y Gen. of Kansas, 425 F.3d 853, 859 (10th Cir. 2005)
(“[A]n evidentiary hearing is unnecessary if the claim can be resolved on the record.”). Thus,
whether an evidentiary hearing is warranted in this matter is a question that will be resolved at a
later time and the current request is denied without prejudice.
Finally, the Court notes that Petitioner refers briefly in the current motion to a miscarriage
of justice. (Doc. 27, p. 5-6.) To be clear, the Court does not consider the current motion as a
response to the MOSC. Petitioner has until and including June 18, 2026 to file a single written
response to the MOSC. He should clearly title his written response to the MOSC in a way that it
is easily identifiable as the response to the MOSC.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion (Doc. 27) is granted in part and
denied in part. To the extent that the Petitioner seeks to file the motion as an amended
memorandum of law, the request is granted. The Clerk shall docket a copy of the motion (Doc. 27)
as an “Amended Memorandum of Law in Support of the Amended Petition.” To the extent that
the motion asks for an evidentiary hearing, it is denied without prejudice for the reasons stated in
this order. Petitioner’s response to the memorandum and order to show cause (Doc. 26) is due on
or before June 18, 2026.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: 	This 21st day of May, 2026, at Kansas City, Kansas.
S/ John W. Lungstrum
JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM
United States District Judge
Case 5:25-cv-03280-DDC-JBW Document 28 Filed 05/21/26 Page 3 of 3