Boddie v. State of Connecticut, Civ. No. 12513.
| Court | United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Connecticut) |
| Writing for the Court | SMITH, Circuit , and BLUMENFELD and CLARIE |
| Citation | 286 F. Supp. 968 |
| Parties | Gladys BODDIE, Bertha Barker, Ann De Nicola, Maryann Dozier, Betty Ann Perez, Catherine Strain, Mary Wierzbicki, Mamie Williams, Mary Yeaton, and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. The STATE OF CONNECTICUT; Edward Horwitz, Clerk of the Superior Court of Connecticut for New Haven County; Judge Joseph S. Longo, Superior Court of Connecticut; Justice John P. Cotter, Court Administrator, Supreme Court of Connecticut, Defendants. |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 12513. |
| Decision Date | 17 July 1968 |
286 F. Supp. 968
Gladys BODDIE, Bertha Barker, Ann De Nicola, Maryann Dozier, Betty Ann Perez, Catherine Strain, Mary Wierzbicki, Mamie Williams, Mary Yeaton, and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v.
The STATE OF CONNECTICUT; Edward Horwitz, Clerk of the Superior Court of Connecticut for New Haven County; Judge Joseph S. Longo, Superior Court of Connecticut; Justice John P. Cotter, Court Administrator, Supreme Court of Connecticut, Defendants.
Civ. No. 12513.
United States District Court D. Connecticut.
July 17, 1968.
Arthur B. LaFrance and Joseph M. Shortall, New Haven Legal Assistance Assn., Inc., New Haven, Conn., for plaintiffs.
Jack Greenberg, Leroy D. Clark and Philip G. Schrag, New York City, for plaintiffs.
Samuel W. Bowlby, New Haven, Conn., for New Haven Civil Liberties Counsel, amicus curiae.
Robert K. Killian, Atty. Gen., State of Connecticut, Raymond J. Cannon, and Edward J. Peters, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Hartford, Conn., for defendants.
Before SMITH, Circuit Judge, and BLUMENFELD and CLARIE, District Judges.
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON MOTION TO DISMISS
J. JOSEPH SMITH, Circuit Judge.
This case presents the question whether a state denies the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment when it requires indigent persons seeking divorce to pay filing fees and costs which they are unable to pay before allowing them the access to the state courts which is necessary to obtaining a divorce.
The plaintiffs have brought this class action on behalf of those women in the State of Connecticut receiving welfare assistance from the State who wish to obtain divorce, but are allegedly barred from doing so by reason of their inability to pay the court fees and costs incident to a divorce proceeding. They seek a declaratory judgment that C.G.S.A. § 52-259 (as amended by Sec. 3, Public Act #628, 1967 Legislature), requiring payment of court fees, is unconstitutional as applied to the class they represent, and an injunction requiring the defendants to permit these plaintiffs (and other members of the class in future proceedings) to proceed with their divorce actions without payment of any fees and costs, and requiring the defendants to effect all necessary service and notice incident to the divorce actions without cost to the plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs rely upon 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and 1988 for a cause of action, upon 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3) for this court's jurisdiction, and upon 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 for the remedy of declaratory judgment and further relief based upon any declaratory judgment which might issue. Since plaintiffs seek an injunction restraining the enforcement of a State statute, a three-judge District Court has been convened. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2281, 2284.
The named defendants are the State of Connecticut; Edward Horwitz, Clerk of the Superior Court for New Haven County; Hon. Joseph S. Longo, a Judge of the Superior Court; and Hon. John P. Cotter, a Justice of the Connecticut Supreme Court and the Chief Court Administrator of Connecticut's judicial system. The plaintiffs allege in their complaint that on March 13, 1968 they applied to the Superior Court for New Haven County, asking that they be permitted to prosecute divorce proceedings without payment of filing or service fees, and submitting financial affidavits; that on March 14 the defendant Horwitz rejected the applications and accompanying papers on the ground that he could not accept them until an entry fee had been paid; and on April 2 the defendants Longo and Cotter declined to grant the applications or allow the papers to be filed. It is further alleged that court costs and expenses incident to a divorce proceeding are normally in excess of sixty dollars, the entry fee being forty-five dollars and the cost of service being ten to fifteen dollars by sheriff and one hundred dollars or more by publication, and that the plaintiffs are unable to pay the fees and costs. It is claimed that the State of Connecticut is denying the plaintiffs the equal protection of the laws by barring them from seeking a divorce because of their indigency, and is denying them due process of law by infringing their right to "petition the Government for a redress of grievances", U.S.Const. Am. I.
The defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint upon the following grounds: (1) the complaint does not draw into question the constitutionality of any state statute, and therefore it was improper to convene a three-judge court (although the motion papers do not request that the three-judge court be dismissed, we assume that it is that, and not dismissal of the complaint, which defendants request on the basis of this argument); (2) the notice provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2284(2) have not been complied with; (3) the State of Connecticut may not be sued, and the individual defendants are immune from suit as judicial officers acting in a judicial capacity; and (4) failure to state a cause of action.
The first three issues raised by the defendants can be disposed of briefly.
(1) Defendants argue that since the general constitutionality of the Connecticut statute (C.G.S.A. § 52-259, as amended) is not questioned, plaintiffs only attacking the statute as it applies to indigents, there should be no three-judge panel in this case. They rely upon the language in Benoit v. Gardner, 351 F.2d 846, 848 (1 Cir. 1965), stating that no three-judge court is required where an injunction is sought on the ground that a valid statute is being executed in an unconstitutional manner. The argument misconceives the issue. Where an injunction is sought against enforcement of a state statute in a manner unquestionably expressive of the legislative intent, a three-judge court is required, even if the statute might be perfectly constitutional in some of its intended applications. As the Supreme Court succinctly put it in Phillips v. United States, 312 U.S. 246, 251, 61 S.Ct. 480, 483, 85 L.Ed. 800 (1941), "The crux of the business is procedural protection against an improvident state-wide doom by a federal court of a state's legislative policy." See also Evergreen Review, Inc. v. Cahn, 230 F. Supp. 498, 502 (E.D.N.Y.1964); and Poindexter v. Louisiana Financial Assistance Commission, 258 F.Supp. 158, 165 (E.D.La.1966). There is no question but that the Connecticut legislature intends the statute to apply to indigents as well as non-indigents; indeed, that is the thrust of the defendants' argument on the merits. The defendants have no discretion in the enforcement of the statute —as they point out, there is no statutory provision for the waiver of entry fees in a divorce action.
(2) 28 U.S.C. § 2284(2) provides, in relevant part: "If the action involves the enforcement, operation or execution of State statutes or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marty's Adult World of New Britain, Inc. v. Guida, Civ. A. No. N-76-364.
...three judge court had ruled that a court clerk was not a judicial officer and therefore was not immune from suit. Boddie v. Connecticut, 286 F.Supp. 968, 971 (D.Conn. 1968), rev'd on other grounds, 401 U.S. 371, 91 S.Ct. 780, 28 L.Ed.2d 113 Other federal courts have explicitly refused to ex......
-
Brown v. Chastain, No. 26848.
...Cf. City of Altus, Oklahoma v. Carr, 255 F.Supp. 828 (W. D.Tex., 1966) (three-judge court). But cf. Boddie v. State of Connecticut, 286 F.Supp. 968, 973 (D.Conn., 1968) (three-judge court) cert. granted 395 U.S. 974, 89 S.Ct. 2138, 23 L.Ed.2d Appellees' final argument grounded on the princi......
-
Boddie v. Connecticut, No. 27
...court fees and costs, access to its courts to indigents who, in good faith, seek judicial dissolution of their marriage. Pp. 374—383. 286 F.Supp. 968, reversed. Arthur B. LaFrance, New Haven, Conn., for appellants. Raymond J. Cannon, Hartford, Conn., for appellees. Page 372 Mr. Justice HARL......
-
Jeffreys v. Jeffreys
...v. Towns, 63 Ga. 237; Shearman v. Pope, 106 N.Y. 664, 12 N.E. 713; Irving v. Garrity, 13 Abb. N.C. 182; cf. Boddie v. Connecticut, D.C., 286 F.Supp. 968). II. Do the service by publication statutes (CPLR 308(4), 315, 316, 317; Cf. Domestic Relations Law § 221) invidiously discriminate again......
-
Jeffreys v. Jeffreys
...v. Towns, 63 Ga. 237; Shearman v. Pope, 106 N.Y. 664, 12 N.E. 713; Irving v. Garrity, 13 Abb. N.C. 182; cf. Boddie v. Connecticut, D.C., 286 F.Supp. 968). II. Do the service by publication statutes (CPLR 308(4), 315, 316, 317; Cf. Domestic Relations Law § 221) invidiously discriminate again......
-
Misurelli v. City of Racine, Civ. A. No. 71-C-316
...required "even if the statute might be perfectly constitutional in some of its intended applications." Boddie v. State of Connecticut, 286 F.Supp. 968, 971 (D.Conn.1968), rev'd on other grounds 401 U.S. 371, 91 S.Ct. 780, 28 L. Ed.2d 113 (1971); Turner v. Fouche, 396 U.S. 346, 353 n. 10, 90......
-
Marty's Adult World of New Britain, Inc. v. Guida, Civ. A. No. N-76-364.
...three judge court had ruled that a court clerk was not a judicial officer and therefore was not immune from suit. Boddie v. Connecticut, 286 F.Supp. 968, 971 (D.Conn. 1968), rev'd on other grounds, 401 U.S. 371, 91 S.Ct. 780, 28 L.Ed.2d 113 Other federal courts have explicitly refused to ex......
-
Wheeler v. Adams Company, Civ. No. 70-1087-K.
...payment of double rent in the event of an adverse judgment. Sanks remains pending in the Supreme Court along with Boddie v. Connecticut, 286 F. Supp. 968 (D.Conn.1968), in which the question of whether an indigent plaintiff has a constitutional right to be relieved of payment of a court fil......