Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-05547/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-05547-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jimmie L. Bills
Petitioner
Joe A. Lizarraga
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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JIMMIE L. BILLS,

Petitioner,

v.

JOE A. LIZARRAGA,

Respondent.

Case No. 16-cv-5547-TEH 

ORDER FOR PETITIONER TO SHOW 

CAUSE

Dkt. No. 2

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

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

challenges a 1994 conviction in Contra Costa County, so venue is 

proper here. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). 

I

Court records indicate that Petitioner already filed a 

habeas petition in this court that appears to challenge the same 

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

Petitioner’s case was denied on the merits. This appears to be a 

successive petition. 

“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,

(A) the applicant shows that the claim 

relies on a new rule of constitutional law, 

made retroactive to cases on collateral 

Case 3:16-cv-05547-TEH Document 4 Filed 10/06/16 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 California

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). It does not appear that petitioner has received 

authorization from the Ninth Circuit to file this petition, 

therefore he will be ordered to show cause why this case should 

not be dismissed.

II

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

1. Leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 2) is 

GRANTED.

2. Petitioner must show cause within twenty-one (21) days, 

why this case should not be dismissed as successive. Failure to 

file a response will result in this case being dismissed.

3. Petitioner is reminded that all communications with the 

Court must be served on Respondent by mailing a true copy of the 

document to Respondent’s counsel. Petitioner also must keep the 

Court and all parties informed of any change of address by filing 

a separate document entitled “Notice of Change of Address.”

Case 3:16-cv-05547-TEH Document 4 Filed 10/06/16 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 California

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 10/6/2016

________________________

THELTON E. HENDERSON

United States District Judge

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

Case 3:16-cv-05547-TEH Document 4 Filed 10/06/16 Page 3 of 3