# Garnica > District Court, E.D. California · February 2, 2026 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11369737 ## Case - **Full name:** Carlos Alfonso Bolanos v. Luis Garnica - **Court:** District Court, E.D. California - **Decided:** February 2, 2026 - **Opinion:** 100trialcourt - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11369737 ## Opinion text 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CARLOS ALFONSO BOLANOS, Case No. 1:25-cv-00585-KES-EPG-HC 12 Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO 13 v. DISMISS AND DISMISS FIRST AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 14 LUIS GARNICA,1 CORPUS WITHOUT PREJUDICE 15 Respondent. (ECF Nos. 7, 11) 16 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO SUBSTITUTE RESPONDENT 17 18 Petitioner Carlos Alfonso Bolanos is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for 19 writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. For the reasons stated herein, the 20 undersigned recommends granting Respondent’s motion to dismiss and dismissing the first 21 amended petition without prejudice based on Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). 22 I. 23 BACKGROUND 24 Petitioner was convicted of various sex crimes for which he was sentenced to serve 25 multiple terms of life in prison without parole and multiple terms of life in prison with parole. 26 27 1 Luis Garnica is the warden of Mule Creek State Prison, where Petitioner is currently housed. (ECF No. 11 at 1 n.1.) Accordingly, Luis Garnica is substituted as Respondent in this matter. See Ortiz-Sandoval v. 1 (LDs2 1, 2.) On January 26, 2023, the California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District 2 reversed the judgment on count 8, vacated the terms imposed on counts 4, 5, 6, and 7, and 3 directed the trial court to enter judgment of acquittal on count 8 and pronounce judgment on 4 counts 4, 5, 6, and 7 consistent with the opinion. The judgment was otherwise affirmed. (LD 2.) 5 The California Supreme Court granted Petitioner’s petition for review and on January 22, 2025, 6 transferred the matter to the California Court of Appeal “with directions to vacate its decision 7 and reconsider the cause in light of In re Vaquera (2024) 15 Cal.5th 706.” (LD 4.) On March 24, 8 2025, the California Court of Appeal issued a second opinion with the same disposition. (LD 5.) 9 A sentencing hearing was scheduled in the Madera County Superior Court for September 5, 10 2025, (LD 6), and it was rescheduled to October 31, 2025, (ECF No. 11 at 23). 11 On May 19, 2025, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court. (ECF 12 No. 1.) The Court granted Petitioner leave to amend the petition, and on August 27, 2025, 13 Petitioner filed a first amended petition (“FAP”). (ECF Nos. 6, 7.) On October 24, 2025, 14 Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition on abstention grounds. (ECF No. 11.) To date, 15 no opposition or statement of non-opposition has been filed, and the time for doing so has 16 passed. 17 II. 18 DISCUSSION 19 In Younger v. Harris, the Supreme Court held that when there is a pending state criminal 20 proceeding, federal courts must refrain from enjoining the state prosecution absent special or 21 extraordinary circumstances. 401 U.S. at 45. 22 We have articulated a four-part test to determine when Younger requires that federal courts abstain from adjudicating cases that 23 would enjoin or risk interfering with pending state-court proceedings. “Younger abstention is appropriate when: (1) there is 24 ‘an ongoing state judicial proceeding’; (2) the proceeding ‘implicate[s] important state interests’; (3) there is ‘an adequate 25 opportunity in the state proceedings to raise constitutional challenges’; and (4) the requested relief ‘seek[s] to enjoin’ or has 26 ‘the practical effect of enjoining’ the ongoing state judicial 27 2 “LD” refers to the documents lodged by Respondent. (ECF No. 12.) 1 proceeding.” Arevalo v. Hennessy, 882 F.3d 763, 765 (9th Cir. 2018) (alterations in original) (quoting ReadyLink Healthcare, Inc. 2 v. State Compensation Ins. Fund, 754 F.3d 754, 758 (9th Cir. 2014)). 3 4 Duke v. Gastelo, 64 F.4th 1088, 1094 (9th Cir. 2023). “Abstention is only appropriate when all 5 four requirements are met.” Id. The Court “must conduct the Younger analysis in light of the 6 facts and circumstances existing at the time the federal action was filed.” Id. at 1093 (internal 7 quotation marks and citations omitted). 8 “But even where the Younger factors are satisfied, ‘federal courts do not invoke it if there 9 is a showing of bad faith, harassment, or some other extraordinary circumstance that would make 10 abstention inappropriate.’” Bean v. Matteucci, 986 F.3d 1128, 1133 (9th Cir. 2021) (some 11 internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Arevalo v. Hennessy, 882 F.3d 763, 765–66 (9th Cir. 12 2018)). Extraordinary circumstances include “cases of proven harassment or prosecutions 13 undertaken by state officials in bad faith without hope of obtaining a valid conviction,” or 14 situations “where irreparable injury can be shown.” Brown v. Ahern, 676 F.3d 899, 903 (9th Cir. 15 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Carden v. Montana, 626 F.2d 82, 84 (9th Cir. 16 1980)). 17 The question of whether a federal court should abstain from exercising jurisdiction over a 18 habeas petition challenging a conviction when there is no final decision regarding the sentence 19 has been addressed in Phillips v. Vasquez, 56 F.3d 1030 (9th Cir. 1995), and Edelbacher v. 20 Calderon, 160 F.3d 582 (9th Cir. 1998). In Phillips, it had been fifteen years since Phillips “was 21 convicted of murder and first sentenced to death, and ten years since the state supreme court 22 affirmed his conviction and vacated his sentence.” 56 F.3d at 1032. Phillips was resentenced to 23 death and there was “no end in sight” or “indication that Phillips’ appeal from his [re]sentence 24 [would] be decided anytime in the near future.” Id. at 1038, 1032. The Ninth Circuit held that 25 “[i]n light of the extraordinary delay . . . Phillips may bring his habeas petition regarding the 26 constitutionality of his conviction despite the fact that the state has not yet made a final ruling on 27 his sentence.” Id. at 1033. In Edelbacher, the Ninth Circuit held that “[w]hen there is a pending state penalty retrial and no unusual circumstances, we decline to depart from the general rule that 1 a petitioner must await the outcome of the state proceedings before commencing his federal 2 habeas corpus action.” 160 F.3d at 582–83. In so holding, the Ninth Circuit emphasized the 3 “narrow holding in Phillips,” and found Phillips distinguishable “in several material respects”: 4 (1) a retrial of the penalty phase in state court is ongoing; (2) there is no assignment of the necessary capital or non-capital status in 5 this case; (3) there are no “unusual circumstances” which might suggest that “no end is in sight” to the state court proceedings and 6 (4) the delay in question is not attributable to an “ineffective” state process, but primarily to the extended proceedings relating to the 7 guilt issue. 8 Edelbacher, 160 F.3d at 584. 9 Here, the Court finds that the instant matter is more akin to Edelbacher than Phillips. At 10 the time the petition was filed, Petitioner’s resentencing was pending, there are no unusual 11 circumstances suggesting “no end is in sight” to the state court proceedings, and there has not 12 been any extraordinary delay in the state court proceedings attributable to an ineffective state 13 process. Accordingly, “we decline to depart from the general rule that a petitioner must await the 14 outcome of the state proceedings before commencing his federal habeas corpus action.” 15 Edelbacher, 160 F.3d at 583. See Washington v. Shirley, No. 1:21-cv-01504-JLT-SAB, 2022 16 WL 721669, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2022) (finding Younger abstention warranted where 17 petitioner was awaiting a remand hearing in superior court), report and recommendation adopted, 18 2022 WL 1017894 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2022); Suares v. Johnson, No. CV 19-10555 MWF (PVC), 19 2020 WL 5665664, at *6 (C.D. Cal. June 11, 2020) (collecting cases), report and 20 recommendation adopted, 2020 WL 5658713 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 22, 2020). As Petitioner had an 21 ongoing resentencing in state court pending when he filed the FAP, the undersigned recommends 22 finding that the FAP is premature and should be dismissed without prejudice. 23 III. 24 RECOMMENDATION & ORDER 25 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned HEREBY RECOMMENDS that: 26 1. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 11) be GRANTED; and 27 2. The first amended petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 7) be DISMISSED ] Further, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to SUBSTITUTE Luis Garnica as Respondent 2 | in this matter. 3 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District 4 | Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local 5 | Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 6 | THIRTY (30) days after service of the Findings and Recommendation, any party may file 7 | written objections, no longer than fifteen (15) pages, including exhibits, with the Court and 8 | serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 9 | Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” The assigned United States District Court Judge will 10 | then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are 11 | advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the 12 | District Court’s order. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. 13 | Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16) Dated: _ February 2, 2026 [sf heey — 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11369737. Public record. Not legal advice.