Lipsig

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 PAUL C. BOLIN, Case No. 2:25-cv-1552-DJC-JDP (P) Petitioner, ORDER; FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

v.

JOLIE LIPSIG, et al., Respondents. 16 On September 5, 2025, I recommended that petitioner’s first amended petition, ECF No. 8, be dismissed without leave to amend. ECF No. 9. I found that petitioner’s claim, that defendant attorneys were falsely representing him and that the California Supreme Court had denied him the opportunity to proceed pro se, was not a cognizable habeas or section 1983 claim. I noted that the abstention doctrine in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 45 (1971), precluded this court’s interference with state court proceedings. I recommended that the action be dismissed, and petitioner filed objections, ECF No. 10. After review of those objections, I withdraw the previous recommendations and substitute the ones that follow. In his objections, petitioner argues that the court has misconstrued both his current…