Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01152/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01152-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Vikram Gill Billa
Petitioner
Ron Davis
Respondent

Document Text:

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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

VIKRAM GILL BILLA, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

RON DAVIS, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:15-cv-1152-EFB P 

ORDER 

 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel on a petition for a writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.1 The court has reviewed the petition as required by Rule 4 

of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings, and finds that the petition is second or 

successive and must therefore be dismissed. 

 A petition is second or successive if it makes “claims contesting the same custody 

imposed by the same judgment of a state court” that the petitioner previously challenged, and on 

which the federal court issued a decision on the merits. Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147 (2007); 

see also Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 485-86 (2000). Before filing a second or successive 

petition in a district court, a petitioner must obtain from the appellate court “an order authorizing 

the district court to consider the application.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Without an order from 

 1

 This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1) and is before the undersigned pursuant to petitioner’s consent. See 28 U.S.C. § 636; 

see also E.D. Cal. Local Rules, Appx. A, at (k)(4). 

Case 2:15-cv-01152-EFB Document 6 Filed 07/06/15 Page 1 of 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 

2

the appellate court, the district court is without jurisdiction to consider a second or successive 

petition. See Burton, 549 U.S. 147. 

In the present action, petitioner challenges a judgment of conviction of second degree 

murder, insurance fraud, and arson, entered by the Placer County Superior Court on November 

27, 2000, and resulting in a sentence of fifteen years to life. ECF No. 1. Court records reveal that 

petitioner previously challenged this judgment of conviction in an earlier action. See Billa v. 

Kane, No. 2:05-cv-1554-GEB-CMK (E.D. Cal.), ECF No. 1. That earlier action was dismissed as 

untimely. See Billa, ECF. No. 29 (magistrate judge’s November 20, 2006 findings and 

recommendations to dismiss petition as untimely); ECF No. 31 (district judge’s January 5, 2007 

order adopting findings and recommendations and dismissing petitioner’s application for a writ of 

habeas corpus as untimely). “[D]ismissal of a habeas petition as untimely constitutes a 

disposition on the merits and [ ] a further petition challenging the same conviction [is] ‘second or 

successive’ for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b).” McNabb v. Yates, 576 F.3d 1028, 1029 (9th 

Cir. 2009); see also Murray v. Greiner, 394 F.3d 78, 81 (2d Cir. 2005) (dismissal of habeas 

petition as time barred constitutes an adjudication on the merits that renders future petitions under 

§ 2254 challenging the same conviction ‘second or successive’ petitions under § 2244(b).”). 

Petitioner challenges here the same judgment that he previously challenged and which was 

adjudicated on the merits. Accordingly, his current petition is second or successive. 

Petitioner offers no evidence that the appellate court has authorized this court to consider 

a second or successive petition. Since petitioner has not demonstrated that the appellate court has 

authorized this court to consider a second or successive petition, this action must be dismissed for 

lack of jurisdiction. See Burton, 549 U.S. 147; Cooper v. Calderon, 274 F.3d 1270, 1274 (9th 

Cir. 2001) (per curiam). 

 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that this action is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction 

and no certificate of appealability shall issue. 

DATED: July 2, 2015. 

Case 2:15-cv-01152-EFB Document 6 Filed 07/06/15 Page 2 of 2