Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-05547/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-05547-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JIMMIE L. BILLS, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

JOE A. LIZARRAGA, 

Respondent. 

Case No. 16-cv-5547-TEH 

ORDER DISMISSING CASE AND 

DENYING CERTIFICATE OF 

APPEALABILITY 

Dkt. No. 3 

Petitioner, Jimmie L. Bills, filed a pro se Petition for a 

Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He challenges a 

1994 conviction in Contra Costa County. 

I 

Court records indicated that Petitioner already filed a 

habeas petition in this court that appeared to challenge the same 

conviction. See Bills v. Pliler, Case No. 00-cv-2275-TEH. That 

case was denied on the merits. This case appeared to be a 

successive petition so the court ordered petitioner to show cause 

why the case should not be dismissed. Petitioner has filed a 

response. 

“A claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus 

application under section 2254 that was not presented in a prior 

application shall be dismissed . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2). 

This is the case unless, 

Case 3:16-cv-05547-TEH Document 7 Filed 11/07/16 Page 1 of 3
2 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

(A) the applicant shows that the claim 

relies on a new rule of constitutional law, 

made retroactive to cases on collateral 

review by the Supreme Court, that was 

previously unavailable; or 

 (B) (i) the factual predicate for the 

claim could not have been discovered 

previously through the exercise of due 

diligence; and 

 (ii) the facts underlying the claim, if 

proven and viewed in light of the evidence as 

a whole, would be sufficient to establish by 

clear and convincing evidence that, but for 

constitutional error, no reasonable 

factfinder would have found the applicant 

guilty of the underlying offense. 

28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2). 

“Before a second or successive application permitted by this 

section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall move 

in the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the 

district court to consider the application.” 28 U.S.C. § 

2244(b)(3)(A). Petitioner presents arguments why he should be 

permitted to proceed with this successive petition; however, he 

must present those arguments to the Ninth Circuit. This case is 

dismissed without prejudice and Petitioner may proceed with a 

successive petition if he obtains permission from the Circuit. 

II 

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, 

1. Petitioner’s motion for discovery (Docket No. 3) is 

DENIED. 

2. The petition is DISMISSED without prejudice for the 

reasons stated above. Because reasonable jurists would not find 

the result here debatable, a certificate of appealability (“COA”) 

is DENIED. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000) 

Case 3:16-cv-05547-TEH Document 7 Filed 11/07/16 Page 2 of 3
3 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

(standard for COA). The clerk shall close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 11/7/2016 

________________________ 

THELTON E. HENDERSON 

United States District Judge 

G:\PRO-SE\TEH\HC.16\Bills5547.dis.docx

Case 3:16-cv-05547-TEH Document 7 Filed 11/07/16 Page 3 of 3