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-DJC-JDP (P) 12 Petitioner, ORDER; FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 v.

14 JOLIE LIPSIG, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 On September 5, 2025, I recommended that petitioner’s first amended petition, ECF No. 18 8, be dismissed without leave to amend. ECF No. 9. I found that petitioner’s claim, that 19 defendant attorneys were falsely representing him and that the California Supreme Court had 20 denied him the opportunity to proceed pro se, was not a cognizable habeas or section 1983 claim. 21 I noted that the abstention doctrine in Younger v. Harris,

(1971), precluded this 22 court’s interference with state court proceedings. I recommended that the action be dismissed, 23 and petitioner filed objections, ECF No. 10. After review of those objections, I withdraw the 24 previous recommendations and substitute the ones that follow. 25 In his objections, petitioner argues that the court has misconstrued both his current and 26 initial filing as a habeas matter and that he intended to seek only correction of the “false 27 representation” undertaken by defendants, especially Lipsig. Id. at 3. At bottom, this claim fails 28 regardless of what theory it is pursued under, because even if it were construed as a section 1983 1 | claim, the defendants named would not be viable. “[A] public defender does not act under color 2 | of state law when performing a lawyer’s traditional functions as counsel to a defendant in a 3 | criminal proceeding.” Polk Cty. v. Dodson,

(1981). And, to the extent 4 | petitioner alleges that any of the defendants were not employed or acting on behalf of the public 5 | defender, private attorneys are not state actors subject to suit under section 1983. See Wood v. 6 | Cnty. of Contra Costa, No. 21-16183,

, *1 (9th Cir. 2022) (“The 7 | district court properly dismissed plaintiffs’ claims against defendant Carey because an attorney is 8 | nota state actor under § 1983.”). 9 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the findings and recommendations at ECF No. 9 are 10 | VACATED and withdrawn. The ones in this filing are substituted, and it is RECOMMENDED 11 | that the amended petition, ECF No. 8, construed now as a section 1983 action, be DISMISSED 12 || without leave to amend for failure to name a viable defendant. 13 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 14 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of

(b)(). Within fourteen days 15 | after service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with 16 | the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such document should be captioned “Objections to 17 | Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response shall be served and filed 18 | within fourteen days of service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file 19 | objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s 20 | order. Turner v. Duncan,

, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist,

(9th 21 | Cir. 1991). 22 73 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 ( q Sty — Dated: _ October 7, 2025 ow—— 25 JEREMY D,. PETERSON 26 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27 28