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 and state prisoner Richard Chantez Butler, who is currently incarcerated at Lansing
Correctional Facility in Lansing, Kansas. Petitioner has been granted leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. (Doc. 4.) The Court has conducted the review of the petition required by Rule 4 of the
Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. Petitioner will be granted
time in which to file an amended petition that cures the deficiencies identified below. If Petitioner
fails to timely file an amended petition, the deficient portions of the petition will be dismissed.
Also before the Court is Petitioner’s “Motion to Take [A]ction of Tamper [sic],” filed
January 21, 2026. (Doc. 7.) In the motion, Petitioner asserts that while reviewing his filings, he
discovered that his “library file” on the prison library computer contained case law and arguments
that he had not added and that he had not given anyone else permission to add. Id. at 1. Petitioner
identifies the limited people who have access to that computer and asks the Court to “take action”
on the tampering. Id. The motion will be denied without prejudice because Petitioner does not
identify the action he wants the Court to take, and his claim that he has “been dealing with
misconduct since 2020 when it comes to this case with the court and KDOC” is undermined by
the fact that this case began less than one month ago. (See Doc. 1.)
Case 5:25-cv-03280-DDC-JBW Document 8 Filed 01/22/26 Page 1 of 9

2
Background
A jury in Atchison County, Kansas, convicted Petitioner “of aggravated kidnapping and 14
other crimes, including 3 counts of rape and 2 counts of aggravated criminal sodomy, all against
the same victim.” See State v. Butler, 2022 WL 3692866, *1, 6 (Kan. Ct. App. Aug. 26, 2022)
(unpublished) (Butler I), rev. in part on other grounds by State v. Butler, 317 Kan. 6705 (2023)
(Butler II). After trial but before sentencing, Petitioner moved to represent himself, which the
district court allowed. Butler I, 2022 WL 3692866 at *6. Petitioner then filed a pro se motion for
a new trial based on ineffective assistance of counsel.1 Id. The district court heard argument on
the motion at sentencing in July 2020, but ultimately denied it and sentenced Petitioner to a
controlling sentence of 543 months in prison. Id. Petitioner pursued a direct appeal and, in an
opinion issued on August 26, 2022, the Kansas Court of Appeals (KCOA) vacated Petitioner’s
conviction for aggravated kidnapping, vacated the related sentence, and affirmed all other
convictions. Id. at *1, 13. It also considered but rejected Petitioner’s arguments that the district
court had erred by denying the motion for a new trial based on ineffective assistance of counsel.
Id. at *17-19.
Petitioner filed a petition for review, which the Kansas Supreme Court (“KSC”) denied,
and the State filed a cross-petition for review, which the KSC granted. See State v. Butler, Case
No. 123,742, records available on the Kansas Appellate Courts Public Access Portal. In an opinion
filed on August 11, 2023, the KSC reversed the KCOA’s decision vacating the aggravated
kidnapping conviction and reinstated the conviction and accompanying sentence. Butler II, 317
Kan. at 606. Petitioner advises that he is not sure whether a petition for writ of certiorari was filed
1 In Kansas, a motion for new criminal trial generally must be filed within 14 days after the verdict. K.S.A. 22-3501(1).
When a motion for new trial is filed outside of that window but seeks a new trial based on alleged ineffective assistance
of counsel, the state district court may “treat it as a collateral attack on the conviction—like a K.S.A. 60-1507 motion.”
See Butler I, 2022 WL 3692866 at *17 (citing State v. Jarmon, 308 Kan. 241, 250 (2018)).
Case 5:25-cv-03280-DDC-JBW Document 8 Filed 01/22/26 Page 2 of 9

3
on his behalf in the United States Supreme Court. (Doc. 1, p. 4.)
Petitioner then filed a motion for state habeas relief under K.S.A. 60-1507, which the state
district court summarily dismissed. Butler v. State, 2025 WL 7333370, * (Kan. Ct. App. Mar. 7,
2025) (unpublished) (Butler III), rev. denied July 31, 2025. Petitioner appealed and, on March 7,
2025, the KCOA issued an opinion affirming the dismissal. Id. at *1. The KSC denied Petitioner’s
petition for review on July 31, 2025.
On December 31, 2025, Petitioner filed in this Court the petition for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 that began this case. (Doc. 1.) He asserts three grounds for relief,
which are discussed in greater detail below. As relief in this federal habeas matter, Petitioner asks
this Court to vacate his sentence with prejudice or award whatever relief the Court deems
appropriate. The Court has now conducted the initial review required by Rule 4 of the Rules
Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts.
Rule 4 Standards of Review
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts
requires the Court to 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. 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).
Case 5:25-cv-03280-DDC-JBW Document 8 Filed 01/22/26 Page 3 of 9

4
Analysis
Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts
provides:
The petition must:
(1) specify all the grounds for relief available to the petitioner;
(2) state the facts supporting each ground;
(3) state the relief requested;
(4) be printed, typewritten, or legibly handwritten; and
(5) be signed under penalty of perjury by the petitioner or a person
authorized to sign it for the petitioner under 28 U.S.C. § 2242.
The United States Supreme Court has explained that “[a] prime purpose of Rule 2(c)’s
demand that habeas petitioners plead with particularity is to assist the district court in determining
whether the [respondent] should be ordered to ‘show cause why the writ should not be granted’”
or whether the petition should be summarily dismissed under Habeas Corpus Rule 4. See Mayle v.
Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 656 (2005) (citation omitted). “If the court orders the [respondent] to file an
answer, that pleading must ‘address the allegations in the petition.’” Id. (citation omitted). This
requires the allegations to be clear enough that the respondent will be able to address them.
To assist petitioners in meeting the requirements of Rule 2(c), form petitions are required.
Requiring the use of the form “aids the court by requiring petitioners to set forth each individual
claim, the supporting facts, and the facts relating to exhaustion” and the failure to use the form as
instructed “prevents this court from readily determining the basis of [a petitioner’s] claims and
whether they have been properly exhausted.” See Justice v. Meyer, 2020 WL 7481673, *2 (D. Kan.
Oct. 15, 2020) (unpublished) (citing Smith v. Sedgwick Cty. Dist. Court, 244 F. App’x 199, 200
(10th Cir. 2007)).
Case 5:25-cv-03280-DDC-JBW Document 8 Filed 01/22/26 Page 4 of 9

5
Ground One
As Ground One, Petitioner asserts that his rights under the Sixth Amendment were violated.
(Doc. 1, p. 6-7.) In the portion of the required form petition for stating the “specific facts that
support” Ground One, Petitioner has written: 	“Exhibit A Results withheld From Jurors”; “Trial
counsel rendered deficient performance when she failed to review discovery”; and “Trial counsel
failed to conduct a reasonable investigation.” Id. at 7. A handwritten page inserted just prior to
this, however, states:
GROUND ONE: 	Sixth Amendment
(A) Trial counsel rendered deficient performance when she failed to review
discovery.
The state made discoverable materials available to defense counsel. These materials
included Forensic medical domestic violence assessment and video footage from
Corporal Johnson’s patrol care of interview from alleged victim L.K., and Bank
Statement that was excluded from Jury.
(B) Trial Counsel Failed to conduct a reasonable investigation on the relevant
material.
(C) Right of Confrontation of witnesses.
Id. at 6.
Due to the differences in these pages, the Court cannot determine the precise basis of
Petitioner’s claims in Ground One. Liberally construing the pro se petition, Ground One appears
to contend that trial counsel was ineffective by failing to review discovery made available by the
State and thus not discovering and presenting to the jury a forensic medical domestic violence
assessment, video footage from Corporal Johnson’s patrol car, and a bank statement. Id. But
Petitioner does not explain how counsel failed to conduct a reasonable investigation. He does not
argue what counsel failed to investigate or what a reasonable investigation would look like. And
his bald statement “Right of Confrontation of witnesses” further muddies the waters. It is unclear
Case 5:25-cv-03280-DDC-JBW Document 8 Filed 01/22/26 Page 5 of 9

6
whether Petitioner intends by this statement to assert that trial counsel was ineffective because of
a failure to confront certain witnesses or whether this statement is intended to assert that
Petitioner’s Sixth Amendment rights under the Confrontation Clause were violated.
Thus, the portions of Ground One that refer to confrontation and to the failure to conduct
a reasonable investigation do not comply with Rule 2(c) and are subject to dismissal. Petitioner
will be granted time in which to file an amended petition that clarifies these parts of Ground One.
If Petitioner wishes to argue that his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel was
violated and his Sixth Amendment rights under the Confrontation Clause, he should assert those
as two separate grounds for relief and he must explain in more detail how his confrontation rights
were violated.
Ground Two
In Ground Two, Petitioner asserts the violation of his Fourteenth Amendment Due Process
rights, claiming that insufficient evidence supported his aggravated kidnapping convictions, that
three convictions of rape and two convictions of aggravated criminal sodomy are multiplicitous,
and that the trial attorney “didn’t bring [the] rape kit. It was excluded from [the] jury.” (Doc. 1, p.
8.) Although the first two arguments are clear, it is unclear how Petitioner believes that trial
counsel’s failure to admit the rape kit at trial violated his due process rights. Thus, this portion of
Ground Two fails to comply with Rule 2(c). If Petitioner wishes to proceed on a due process claim
involving the rape kit, he must clarify in an amended petition the basis for this claim. To the extent
that Petitioner intends to argue that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel when trial
counsel failed to admit the rape kit into evidence at trial, his argument is more appropriately
included as part of Ground One, along with his other claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.
Case 5:25-cv-03280-DDC-JBW Document 8 Filed 01/22/26 Page 6 of 9

7
Ground Three
As Ground Three, Petitioner asserts the violation of his rights under the Equal Protection
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (Doc. 1, p. 11-12.) In the space on the form petition for
setting forth the facts that support Ground Three, Petitioner has written three statements: 	“Exhibit
A results Forensic Medical Domestic Violence Assessment withheld from Jurors. Confronted The
Courts stated Alleged Victim was inconsistent. The compulsory process.” Id. at 12 (all errors in
original). He has written the same on a page inserted prior to this page of the form. Id. at 11.
Ground Three of the petition fails to comply with Rule 2(c). Even liberally construing the
petition, the Court cannot determine the nature of Ground Three or the facts on which it is based.
Although Petitioner asserts an equal protection violation, he does not identify any other person or
group similarly situated to him that was treated differently than he was. See Requena v. Roberts,
893 F.3d 1195, 1210 (10th Cir. 2018) (quoting City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S.
432, 439 (1985), and holding that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
“‘commands that no state shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of
the laws,” which is essentially a direction that all persons similarly situated should be treated
alike.’”). It is similarly unclear what Petitioner means by his bald reference to the compulsory
process or how the Kansas courts’ stating that the victim was inconsistent violated Petitioner’s
constitutional rights. Petitioner also has not explained who “withheld” the forensic medical
domestic violence assessment from the jury or how doing so violated Petitioner’s constitutional
rights.
Ground Three’s failure to comply with Rule 2(c) means that the Court is unable to
determine the precise claims Petitioner wishes to assert in Ground Three of this matter. Thus, the
Court cannot determine whether “petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court,” and it is
Case 5:25-cv-03280-DDC-JBW Document 8 Filed 01/22/26 Page 7 of 9

8
unable to conduct a meaningful Rule 4 review of Ground Three. Ground Three is therefore subject
to dismissal. Rather than immediately imposing such a harsh consequence however, Petitioner will
be given time in which to file an amended petition that clarifies Ground Three and complies with
Rule 2(c).
Conclusion
The Court has begun the required initial Rule 4 review of petition and concludes that
Ground Three and parts of Grounds One and Two fail to comply with Rule 2(c) and are subject to
dismissal. Petitioner will be granted time in which to file a complete and proper amended petition
that complies with Rule 2(c). The Court will direct the clerk to send Petitioner the appropriate form
and, if Petitioner wishes to do so, he may submit a complete and proper amended petition
containing the claims for which relief may be sought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 	If Petitioner
submits an amended petition, it must be on the court-approved forms and must be complete in and
of itself; it may not refer back to an earlier version of the petition or attempt to incorporate by
reference other filings with this Court. Any grounds for relief not included in the amended petition
will not be considered before the Court. Petitioner must include the case number of this action (25-
3280) on the first page of the amended petition.
If Petitioner timely files an amended petition, the Court will review the amended petition
under Rule 4 and issue further orders as necessary. If Petitioner fails to timely file an amended
petition, the Court will dismiss the portions of Ground One that refer to confrontation and a failure
to conduct a reasonable investigation, the portion of Ground Two that refers to the rape kit, and all
of Ground Three. It will then continue the Rule 4 review of the remaining portions of the current
petition
Case 5:25-cv-03280-DDC-JBW Document 8 Filed 01/22/26 Page 8 of 9

9
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner is granted until and including February
23, 2026, to submit a complete and proper amended petition that complies with this order. The
clerk is directed to send to Petitioner the required forms for filing an amended petition.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion (Doc. 7) is denied without
prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: 	This 22nd day of January, 2026, at Kansas City, Kansas.
S/ John W. Lungstrum
JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM
United States District Judge
Case 5:25-cv-03280-DDC-JBW Document 8 Filed 01/22/26 Page 9 of 9