Susan Polk v. Molly Hill
700 F. App'x 688
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Susan Polk, a California prisoner convicted of second-degree murder, filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging her conviction.
- AEDPA imposes a one-year limitations period beginning when a state conviction becomes final; Polk’s conviction became final June 28, 2011.
- Polk filed her § 2254 petition on November 7, 2012, making it 132 days late absent tolling.
- Polk filed a state habeas petition in the California Supreme Court on June 28, 2012, denied October 31, 2012; with statutory tolling this still left her federal petition seven days late.
- Polk asserted equitable tolling based on lack of access to legal papers, writing supplies, and the prison law library, and alternatively claimed actual innocence.
- The district court denied relief; the Ninth Circuit affirmed, finding no basis for equitable tolling or the actual-innocence gateway.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness under AEDPA | Polk argued her § 2254 was timely when accounting for tolling | Government argued petition was filed after AEDPA deadline | Petition was untimely by 132 days without tolling and 7 days with statutory tolling; still late absent equitable tolling |
| Statutory tolling under § 2244(d)(2) | Polk relied on her California Supreme Court habeas being "properly filed" to toll AEDPA | Government conceded or disputed but showed tolling insufficient to make petition timely | Even assuming statutory tolling applied, petition remained seven days late |
| Equitable tolling | Polk claimed lack of access to legal materials and library prevented timely filing | Government argued Polk’s filings in other cases showed she had access and that delay was routine notice timing, not extraordinary | Equitable tolling denied: delays were not "extraordinary" or beyond Polk’s control; routine late notice did not justify tolling |
| Actual innocence gateway | Polk contended actual innocence excused procedural default/timeliness | Government argued Polk produced no new reliable evidence of innocence | Actual innocence claim rejected: Polk produced no new evidence sufficient under Schlup |
Key Cases Cited
- Bowen v. Roe, 188 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 1999) (finality of state convictions for AEDPA start date)
- Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (2005) (protective/Stay-and-abey petitions when tolling uncertain)
- Bills v. Clark, 628 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2010) (equitable tolling requires extraordinary circumstances beyond prisoner’s control)
- Spitsyn v. Moore, 345 F.3d 796 (9th Cir. 2003) (equitable tolling standard)
- Ramirez v. Yates, 571 F.3d 993 (9th Cir. 2009) (state court delay in sending notice can toll AEDPA)
- Diaz v. Kelly, 515 F.3d 149 (2d Cir. 2008) (state delay in notifying prisoner may justify tolling)
- Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995) (actual innocence gateway standard)