Jason Wayne Hachmeister v. Thomas Williams

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Kansas denies Jason Wayne Hachmeister’s motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to alter or amend the judgment dismissing his federal habeas petition as untimely. The court holds that Hachmeister’s Kansas collateral-review motion was filed after the federal habeas limitations period had expired and therefore did not statutorily toll that period under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2). The court grants his motions for leave to file excess pages and orders that the matter remain closed.

Holdings

1. The motion to alter or amend the judgment was denied because Hachmeister identified no intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, clear error, or manifest injustice.
2. A state post-conviction application filed after the one-year federal habeas limitations period has expired does not toll or revive that limitations period under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2).
3. Kansas administrative orders affecting the timeliness of state K.S.A. 60-1507 filings did not alter the federally prescribed one-year limitations period for filing a § 2254 petition.
4. Jimenez v. Quarterman did not postpone or restart Hachmeister's federal habeas limitations period because no state court reopened his direct appeal and a K.S.A. 60-1507 proceeding is collateral review rather than a direct appeal.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Hachmeister satisfied the requirements for altering or amending the prior judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).
2. Whether Hachmeister's K.S.A. 60-1507 motion statutorily tolled the federal habeas limitations period under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2) even though it was filed after the federal limitations period had expired.
3. Whether Kansas pandemic-related filing orders or the reasoning of Jimenez v. Quarterman altered the date on which Hachmeister's federal habeas limitations period began or restarted.

Disposition

other