Polk v. Parker
3:24-cv-06460
N.D. Cal.Jun 5, 2025Background
- Susan Polk was convicted of murder in 2006 for killing her husband and sentenced to sixteen years to life in prison.
- California later enacted Senate Bill 1437, amending rules regarding felony murder and accomplice liability, and established Penal Code § 1170.95 (now § 1172.6) as a resentencing remedy for affected inmates.
- Polk petitioned under § 1170.95 for resentencing, but the Contra Costa Superior Court denied her request, finding her ineligible because she was not convicted under a qualifying theory.
- The California Court of Appeal affirmed the denial, ruling that Polk’s conviction did not arise under any theory amended by SB 1437.
- Polk sought federal habeas relief, advancing several constitutional claims related to her resentencing denial.
- The District Court granted her leave to proceed in forma pauperis, but summarily dismissed the habeas petition and denied a certificate of appealability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Judge Bias Due to Disqualification Process | Judge was automatically disqualified and lacked jurisdiction, making order void | No evidence of actual bias or jurisdictional defect | No federal claim; presumption that judges are unbiased |
| Ineffective Assistance by Postconviction Counsel | Appellate counsel deprived Polk of equal protection and due process during resentencing appeal | No federal right to postconviction counsel for resentencing | Not cognizable; no federal right to counsel post-appeal |
| Due Process Violations in Ruling & Fact-Finding | Court failed to consider evidence and relied on misstatements, violating due process | State law claim, not federal constitutional error | No federal claim; no arbitrary or capricious error shown |
| Applicability of Amended Felony Murder Theories | Instructions relieved prosecution of proof requirements; conviction based on outdated theories | Polk was not convicted under felony murder or imputed malice | Law did not apply; claim not cognizable |
Key Cases Cited
- Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216 (No federal right to postconviction relief or federal review of state law resentencing denial)
- Richmond v. Lewis, 506 U.S. 40 (State law errors must be arbitrary or capricious to violate due process)
- Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551 (No federal right to counsel for postconviction proceedings)
- Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (No federal claim for ineffective assistance where no right to counsel exists)
- Langford v. Day, 110 F.3d 1380 (Due process claims cannot convert state law errors into federal ones)