Lipsig

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PAUL C. BOLIN, Case No. 2:25-cv-1552-JDP (P) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER; FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

14 JOLIE LIPSIG, et al.,

15 Respondents. 16 17 18 Petitioner, a state prisoner, brings this action under section 2254. In my previous 19 screening order, I found that the petition failed to state a federal habeas claim insofar as it did not 20 allege any substantive attack on the underlying conviction and, instead, impermissibly sought a 21 writ of mandamus. ECF No. 7 at 1. I offered petitioner a chance to file an amended petition, and 22 he has responded by filing what he presents as a section 1983 action. ECF No. 8. Changing the 23 type of action was not contemplated by my order, and, in any event, the complaint fails to state 24 any cognizable or comprehensible claim. Accordingly, I now recommend that this action be 25 dismissed. 26 The petition is before me for preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 27 Section 2254 Cases. Under…