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 petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 by
Petitioner and Kansas state prisoner Richard Chantez Butler, who is currently incarcerated at
Lansing Correctional Facility in Lansing, Kansas. Petitioner’s response to the memorandum and
order to show cause (Doc. 26) regarding the anticipatory procedural default of Ground Seven is
due on or before June 18, 2026. This matter comes now before the Court on Petitioner’s second
motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. 34). Petitioner’s first motion for appointment of counsel
was denied without prejudice on January 6, 2026. (Doc. 6.)
The current motion for appointment of counsel asserts that Petitioner is in custody, he is
indigent, and he is unable to retain counsel. (Doc. 34, p. 1.) As Petitioner is aware, he has no
constitutional right to counsel in a federal habeas corpus action, and whether to appoint counsel is
a matter of discretion by the Court. (See Doc. 6, p. 1 (citing Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551,
555 (1987), and Swazo v. Wy. Dept. of Corr. State Penitentiary Warden, 23 F.3d 332, 333 (10th
Cir 1994)).) The Court may appoint counsel if it “determines that the interest of justice so require,”
but Petitioner bears the burden to convince the Court that appointment of counsel is warranted.
(See Doc. 6, p. 1-2); 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); Steffey v. Orman, 451 F.3d 1218, 1223 (10th
Case 5:25-cv-03280-DDC-JBW Document 35 Filed 06/10/26 Page 1 of 2

2
Cir. 2006) (quoting Hill v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 393 F.3d 1111, 1115 (10th Cir. 2004)).
When deciding whether to appoint counsel, the Court must consider “the merits of a prisoner's
claims, the nature and complexity of the factual and legal issues, and the prisoner's ability to
investigate the facts and present his claims.” Hill, 393 F.3d at 1115 (citation omitted).
As it did when it considered Petitioner’s previous motion for appointment of counsel, the
Court concludes that the interest of justice does not currently require appointment of counsel for
Petitioner. The Court has not yet concluded its review of the amended petition under Rule 4 of the
Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. Petitioner has so far
appeared capable of presenting relevant facts and legal arguments. Moreover, the Court does not
anticipate that the issues in this matter will be overly complex. Thus, the motion for appointment
of counsel will be denied without prejudice. If this case develops in a way that requires counsel,
Petitioner may renew his motion. See Rules 6, 7, and 8 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases
in the United States District Courts, 28 U.S.C.A. foll. § 2254 (discussing discovery, expansion of
the record, and evidentiary hearings).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT the motion to appoint counsel (Doc. 34) is
denied without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: 	This 10th day of June, 2026, at Kansas City, Kansas.
S/ John W. Lungstrum
JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM
United States District Judge
Case 5:25-cv-03280-DDC-JBW Document 35 Filed 06/10/26 Page 2 of 2