Lee Edward Williams v. Tommy Williams

No. 5:25-cv-03188-JWL (D. Kan. Jan. 6, 2026) · United States District Court for the District of Kansas · January 6, 2026 · No. 5:25-cv-03188-JWL

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Kansas dismissed with prejudice Grounds Three and Four of Lee Edward Williams’s second amended 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition because the claims were unexhausted and subject to anticipatory procedural default. The court held that Williams had not established cause and prejudice or actual innocence sufficient to excuse the default. The court also denied his motion for appointment of counsel without prejudice and directed the respondent to answer the remaining ineffective-assistance and prosecutorial-misconduct claims.

Holdings

  1. A state-court presentation of a statutory speedy-trial claim does not fairly present and exhaust a separate Sixth Amendment constitutional speedy-trial claim.
  2. A constitutional claim not presented to the state appellate courts is unexhausted and may be subject to anticipatory procedural default when no procedural avenue remains for returning to state court.
  3. A petitioner cannot rely on ineffective assistance of counsel as cause for a procedural default unless the ineffective-assistance claim itself was presented to the state courts as an independent constitutional claim.
  4. The actual-innocence exception was unavailable because Williams did not assert actual innocence or submit new, reliable evidence supporting such a claim.
  5. Appointment of counsel was not required at this stage because Williams had no constitutional right to counsel in the habeas proceeding and the interests of justice did not warrant discretionary appointment.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Grounds Three and Four of the second amended § 2254 petition were unexhausted and subject to anticipatory procedural default.
  2. Whether Williams established cause and actual prejudice sufficient to excuse the procedural default of Grounds Three and Four.
  3. Whether Williams established actual innocence sufficient to invoke an exception to the procedural default doctrine.
  4. Whether appointment of counsel was warranted at the current stage of the federal habeas proceeding.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (22)

  • State v. Williams, 308 Kan. 1320, 1323 (2018)(followed)
  • Williams v. State, 2025 WL 573882, *1 (Kan. Ct. App. Feb. 21, 2025) (unpublished)(followed)
  • O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 844 (1999)(followed)
  • Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275 (1971)(followed)
  • Bland, 459 F.3d at 1011(followed)
  • Gray v. Netherland, 518 U.S. 152, 162 (1996)(followed)
  • Fontenot, 4 F.4th at 1028(followed)
  • Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 750 (1991)(followed)
  • James v. Wadas, 724 F.3d 1312, 1315 (10th Cir. 2013)(followed)
  • Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 22.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…