Williams (ID 2000058506) v. Williams et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
LEE EDWARD WILLIAMS,
Petitioner,
v. 	CASE NO. 25-3188-JWL
TOMMY WILLIAMS,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254
by Kansas prisoner Lee Edward Williams to challenge his 2016 state-court convictions. (Doc. 1,
p. 1.) Petitioner proceeds in forma pauperis. (Doc. 7.) It comes now before the Court on Petitioner’s
amended petition (Doc. 11) and his motion to stay this matter and hold it in abeyance. (Doc. 12.)
For the reasons explained below, the motion to stay will be denied without prejudice. Petitioner
will be granted time in which to file a complete and proper second amended petition that includes
all grounds for relief from his 2016 convictions that he wishes to pursue in this matter.
Background
In May 2016, a jury in Wyandotte County, Kansas convicted Petitioner of first-degree
premeditated murder and criminal possession of a firearm. (Doc. 1, p. 1-2.) The state district court
sentenced him to life in prison without the possibility of parole for 25 years for the murder
conviction and a consecutive sentence of 20 months in prison for the criminal possession of a
firearm conviction. Id. at 1; see also State v. Williams, 308 Kan. 1320, 1323 (2018) (Williams I).
Petitioner appealed to the Kansas Supreme Court (KSC), which affirmed his convictions in an
opinion issued on October 26, 2018. Williams I, 308 Kan. at 1320-21. Petitioner filed a petition
Case 5:25-cv-03188-TC Document 13 Filed 11/24/25 Page 1 of 8

2
for writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court, which was denied on January 30, 2019.
(Doc. 1, p. 3.)
On October 23, 2019, Petitioner filed in state district court a petition for habeas corpus
relief under K.S.A. 60-1507. Id. The state district court summarily denied the motion and, on
appeal, the Kansas Court of Appeals (KCOA) affirmed the denial. Id.; see also Williams v. State,
2025 WL 573882, *1 (Kan. Ct. App. Feb. 21, 2025) (unpublished) (Williams II), rev. denied July
31, 2025. The KSC denied Petitioner’s petition for review on July 31, 2025.
On September 12, 2025, Petitioner filed in this Court the petition for federal habeas relief
that began this case. (Doc. 1.) The petition raised nine grounds for relief. Submitted with the
petition was a 22-page document that is titled “Memorandum of Law in Support of 28 U.S.C. §
2254,” hereinafter referred to as “the memorandum.” (Doc. 2.) The memorandum included a 6-
page recitation of the procedural and factual background of the case, some standards of review,
and discussions of the facts and legal argument supporting each ground. Id. As relief, Petitioner
sought the appointment of counsel, an evidentiary hearing to prove his actual innocence, an order
vacating or reversing his convictions and sentences, and an order for his immediate release. (Doc.
1, p. 14.)
Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District
Courts, which are hereinafter called “the Habeas Rules,” the Court must review a habeas petition
upon filing and to dismiss it “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that
the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” Because Petitioner is proceeding pro se,
the Court liberally construes the pleading, but it may not act as Petitioner’s advocate. See James
v. Wadas, 724 F.3d 1312, 1315 (10th Cir. 2013). “[T]he court cannot take on the responsibility of
serving as the litigant’s attorney in constructing arguments and searching the record.” Garrett v.
Case 5:25-cv-03188-TC Document 13 Filed 11/24/25 Page 2 of 8

3
Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005). It “‘may not rewrite a petition
to include claims that were never presented.’” Childers v. Crow, 1 F.4th 792, 798 (10th Cir. 2021)
(citation omitted).
The Court conducted the Rule 4 review of the petition and, on October 2, 2025, issued a
memorandum and order (“M&O”) explaining that Petitioner’s failure to include all of the
information required on the court-approved form violated Rule 2(d) of the Habeas Rules. Id. at 4.
In addition, for Grounds Five through Nine, which were asserted in pages attached to the petition,
Petitioner did not set out the information required about the exhaustion of each ground for relief.
Id. Rather than dismissing this matter for failure to properly use the required form, the M&O
granted Petitioner time in which to submit a complete and proper amended petition, on the required
form, that includes all of the information required by the form. Id. at 5.
In the M&O, the Court also identified additional deficiencies so that Petitioner could ensure
that they did not occur in the amended petition. First, the Court noted that the initial petition failed
to comply with Rule 2(c) of the Habeas Rules, which left the Court unable to determine the specific
factual basis for and constitutional violation being asserted in several grounds in the petition. Id.
at 5-7. Next, the Court explained that other grounds in the petition asserted claims for which habeas
relief is not available as a matter of law. Id. at 7-10. Finally, the M&O pointed out that the
information in the petition about exhaustion was internally inconsistent and was inconsistent with
the information in Petitioner’s pending motion to stay this matter and hold it in abeyance. Id. at
10-11. The Court reminded Petitioner that he should ensure that any grounds for relief asserted in
his amended petition are exhausted or that he explains why they are not. Id. at 11.
As noted above, Petitioner has now timely filed his amended petition (Doc. 11) and a
second motion to stay this matter and hold it in abeyance (Doc. 12). Due to the nature of the motion
Case 5:25-cv-03188-TC Document 13 Filed 11/24/25 Page 3 of 8

4
to stay and the information contained therein, the Court will address the motion first.
Motion to Stay and Hold in Abeyance (Doc. 12)
Petitioner acknowledges that, in this case, he may challenge the judgment entered by only
one state court. (Doc. 12, p. 1.) This restriction is based on Rule 2(e) of the Habeas Rules, which
states: 	“A petitioner who seeks relief from judgments of more than one state court must file a
separate petition covering the judgment or judgments of each court.” Petitioner states in the current
motion that three different courts entered a judgment that he wishes to challenge and that he also
wishes to challenge “two judgment order[s]” that denied motions he filed in the state district court.
(Doc. 12, p. 1.) Petitioner believes that this means he must file five separate federal habeas
petitions. Id. He asks the Court to stay this matter and hold it in abeyance until “all five petition[s]
are filed.” Id.
Liberally construing the motion to stay, Petitioner identifies the “judgments” he wishes to
challenge as (1) the judgment of the district court; (2) the judgment of the Kansas Court of Appeals;
(3) the judgment of the Supreme Court of Kansas; and (4 and 5) Kansas District Judge Bill
Klapper’s “judgment an[d] order[s] on two motion[s].” Id. at 2. It further appears from the motion
that Petitioner anticipates dividing his arguments so that one petition will address ineffective
assistance of trial counsel, another will address ineffective assistance of direct-appeal counsel, a
third will address the “judgment” denying his motion to dismiss that was based on the argument
that his constitutional speedy trial rights were violated, and a fourth will address the “judgment”
denying his “Motion [on the] Right to remain silent.” Id. at 5-6.
Petitioner asks the Court how to proceed in filing his additional four petitions, namely
whether the Court wishes him to provide a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and a
bank statement for each petition. Id. at 2. He further states that he seeks the appointment of counsel
Case 5:25-cv-03188-TC Document 13 Filed 11/24/25 Page 4 of 8

5
and a jury trial “on all fact finding matters.” Id. He points out that he has limited time left in the
one-year federal habeas statute of limitations in which to file the additional four petitions, so he
asks the Court to stay the statute of limitations. Id. at 2-5.
It appears that Petitioner has misunderstood the meaning of the term “judgment” in the
federal habeas context. The Tenth Circuit has explained:
[U]nder § 2254, we may “entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus on
behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the
ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of
the United States.” As the Supreme Court instructed in Burton v. Stewart, “[f]inal
judgment in a criminal case means sentence. The sentence is the judgment.” 549
U.S. 147, 156, 127 S. Ct. 793, 166 L. Ed. 2d 628 (2007) (quoting Berman v. United
States, 302 U.S. 211, 212, 58 S. Ct. 164, 82 L. Ed. 204 (1937)); Ferreira v. Sec'y
Dep't of Corr., 494 F.3d 1286, 1293 (11th Cir.2007) (“[The Supreme Court's
decision in] Burton makes clear that the writ [of habeas corpus] and AEDPA,
including its limitations provisions, are specifically focused on the judgment which
holds the petitioner in confinement. What this Court has previously called the
judgment of conviction and the sentencing judgment together form the judgment
that imprisons the petitioner.”), cert. denied[] 555 U.S. 1149, 129 S. Ct. 1033, 173
L. Ed. 2d 315 (2009).
Reber v. Steele, 570 F.3d 1206, 1209 (10th Cir. 2009).
In other words, the “judgment” referenced in Rule 2(e) of the Habeas Rules and in 28
U.S.C. § 2254 is “the judgment causing the habeas applicant’s confinement, not merely any
decision in the applicant’s case.” Verge v. Williams, 2024 WL 340394 (10th Cir. Jan. 30, 2024)
(unpublished) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a), (b)(1) and Magwood v. Patterson, 561 U.S. 320, 332
(2010)). In this case, Petitioner seeks to challenge only one judgment: 	the convictions and
sentences in case number 2013-CR-1043 in the District Court of Wyandotte County, Kansas. The
opinions by the Kansas Court of Appeals or the Kansas Supreme Court in Petitioner’s direct appeal
or his K.S.A. 60-1507 proceedings are not additional “judgments,” as that word is used in Rule
2(e). Nor are orders from Judge Klapper denying motions “judgments” under Rule 2(e). Rather,
the judgment consists of the convictions and sentences in case number 2013-CR-1043.
Case 5:25-cv-03188-TC Document 13 Filed 11/24/25 Page 5 of 8

6
A practical example of a petition violating Rule 2(e)’s prohibition on challenging
judgments by more than one court can be found in Portley-El v. Brill, et al., 380 Fed. Appx. 744
(10th Cir. May 27, 2010) (unpublished). In that case, Mr. Portley-El “was convicted of various
crimes by three different Colorado State district courts” and was sentenced in each district court
separately. See id. at 744. Mr. Portley-El then filed a single federal habeas petition that “challenged
five judgments of conviction rendered by three different Colorado state district courts (Denver,
Adams County, and Arapahoe County district courts).” Id. at745.
The Federal District Court for the District of Colorado directed Mr. Portley-El “to amend
his petition . . . to challenge the judgment or judgments of one court only. If Mr. Portley-El wished
to challenge his remaining convictions from the other two courts, . . . he could do so by filing
separate petitions.” Id. Ultimately, when Mr. Portley-El failed to amend his petition, the federal
district court dismissed it “on the ground that it challenged judgments entered in more than one
court, in violation of Rule 2(e) of the [Habeas Rules].” Id. In contrast, all five petitions that
Petitioner discusses in the motion currently before this Court allege constitutional violations that
occurred with respect to a single judgment: 	the judgment entered in case number 2013-CR-1034
in the District Court of Wyandotte County, Kansas.
The Court recognizes that the meaning of “judgment” in federal habeas matters under 28
U.S.C. § 2254 is a precise legal meaning that may be confusing to Petitioner, who proceeds pro
se. 1 The Court appreciates Petitioner’s efforts to comply with the directions on the form petition
and the applicable Habeas Rules. It does not appear from the information now before this Court,
1 The Court may have unintentionally added to Petitioner’s confusion by discussing exhaustion in the M&O. Whether
claims are exhausted focuses on when and how a petitioner raised arguments in the state court system. This is different
than the analysis to determine whether a petitioner is challenging judgments from multiple state courts, which focuses
on whether a petition is challenging convictions and sentences imposed by one state district court or multiple state
district courts.
Case 5:25-cv-03188-TC Document 13 Filed 11/24/25 Page 6 of 8

7
however, that Petitioner should file multiple petitions as he states in his motion he intends to do.
To be clear, Petitioner is not required to file separate petitions based on which state court
rejected his various constitutional challenges to the convictions and sentences imposed in case
number 2013-CR-1034. Rather, Petitioner should raise in one petition all of the grounds on which
he asserts the convictions and sentences imposed in case number 2013-CR-1034 have resulted in
his currently being “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United
States.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Under 28 U.SC. § 2244(b), “[t]he filing of a second or successive
§ 2254 application is tightly constrained.” Case v. Hatch, 731 F.3d 1015, 1026 (10th Cir. 2013).
Thus, any grounds for relief from the convictions and sentences in Wyandotte County district court
in case number 2013-CR-1034 that are not included in the petition in this case may be unavailable
to Petitioner should he try to raise them in a separate petition.
Because the motion to stay this matter and hold it in abeyance is based on an incorrect
understanding of the term “judgment,” the motion will be denied without prejudice. The Court
will, however, grant Petitioner time in which to file a second amended petition, on the required
form, that includes every ground for relief Petitioner wishes to assert to challenge the convictions
and sentences—or “judgment”—imposed in case number 2013-CR-1034. As explained in the
M&O, grounds that assert only the violation of state law, grounds that assert actual innocence as
a freestanding basis for relief, and grounds that assert ineffective assistance of counsel in
Petitioner’s K.S.A. 60-1507 proceedings may be dismissed because federal habeas relief cannot
be granted on those grounds. (See Doc. 7, p. 7-10.) Once the second amended petition is filed, the
Court will review it under Rule 4 and will issue further orders as necessary. If Petitioner fails to
timely file a second amended petition, the Court will proceed with the Rule 4 screening of the
amended petition (Doc. 11) and Petitioner may be limited to the ineffective assistance of trial
Case 5:25-cv-03188-TC Document 13 Filed 11/24/25 Page 7 of 8

8
counsel grounds asserted therein.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion to stay and hold in abeyance (Doc. 12)
is denied without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner is granted to and including December 29,
2025, in which to file a second amended petition in this matter that contains all of the grounds for
relief he wishes to assert. The clerk is directed to send § 2254 forms and instructions to Petitioner.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: 	This 24th day of November, 2025, at Kansas City, Kansas.
S/ John W. Lungstrum
JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM
United States District Judge
Case 5:25-cv-03188-TC Document 13 Filed 11/24/25 Page 8 of 8