govinfo:USCOURTS-caed-1_25-cv-00585-2

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 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
CARLOS ALFONSO BOLANOS, 
Petitioner, 
v. 
PATRICK CORVELOO, et al., 
Respondents. 
No. 1:25-cv-00585-KES-EPG (HC) 
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 
RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING 
RESPONDENTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS, 
DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF 
HABEAS CORPUS, DIRECTING CLERK OF 
COURT TO CLOSE CASE, AND 
DECLINING TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF 
APPEALABILITY 
Docs. 11, 13 
 
Petitioner Carlos Alfonso Bolanos is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for 
writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This matter was referred to a United States 
Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 
On February 2, 2026, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 
that recommended granting respondents’ motion to dismiss and dismissing the petition without 
prejudice based on Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). Doc. 13. The findings and 
recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any objections thereto 
were to be filed within thirty days (30) after service. To date, no objections have been filed, and 
the time for doing so has passed. 
/// 

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 
 
 
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court has conducted a de 
novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the Court determines the findings 
and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 
Having found that petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief, the Court now turns to 
whether a certificate of appealability should issue. A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus 
has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is 
allowed only in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003); 28 
U.S.C. § 2253. The Court should issue a certificate of appealability if “reasonable jurists could 
debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a 
different manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed 
further.’” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 
880, 893 & n.4 (1983)). 
In the present case, the Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s 
determination that the petition should be dismissed debatable or wrong, or that petitioner should 
be allowed to proceed further. Therefore, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 
Accordingly: 
1. The findings and recommendations issued on February 2, 2026, Doc. 13, are adopted 
in full; 
2. Respondents’ motion to dismiss, Doc. 11, is granted; 
3. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed without prejudice; 
4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case; and 
5. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 
 
 
 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
 
 Dated: June 9, 2026 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
 

Passage view · GavelSight