Boddie v



Case Study Report:

Boddie v. Connecticut

Public Interest Law and Policy

Due: October 7, 2007

Professor. Staudt

Elizabeth Monterrosa

Jessica Galant

Introduction

Access to the courts proves a fundamental right in the United States, protecting procedural due process guarantees under the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. However, the many fees imposed on filing a court case can encumber the constitutional right to litigate. In the past, even insignificant fees imposed on court filings virtually barred indigent litigants from access to the courts because such fees caused substantial economic burden on indigent households.

The landmark 1971 Boddie v. Connecticut Supreme Court case successfully challenged the constitutionality of filing fee requirements for indigent plaintiffs seeking a divorce. 401 U.S. 371 (1971). In striking down State filing fee requirements for divorce cases as unconstitutional, Justice Harlan stated that “given the basic position of the marriage relationship in this society's hierarchy of values and the concomitant state monopolization of the means for legally dissolving this relationship, due process does prohibit a State from denying, solely because of inability to pay, access to its courts to individuals who seek judicial dissolution of their marriages.” Id. at 374. The Supreme Court noted the “fundamental” nature of the marriage relationship and held that divorce filing fees as applied to indigent plaintiffs violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it denied access to the judicial process. Id. at 379-80; Christopher E. Austin, Due Process, Court Access Fees, and the Right to Litigate, 57 N.Y.U.L. Rev. 768, *770-71 (Oct. 1982).

Historical Context of Boddie

Prior to Boddie, the Supreme Court recognized and addressed obstruction of access to the courts for criminal indigent defendants. Arthur B. LaFrance, Constitutional Law Reform for the Poor: Boddie v. Connecticut, 1971 Duke LJ 487, 492 (1971). The 1955 Griffin v. Illinois Supreme Court case held that an indigent litigant must be afforded a transcript for a criminal appeal. Id. Griffin established the constitutional imperative that the quality of one’s trial cannot depend on how much money one makes. Id. However, the decision limited the right to access to the courts via fee waivers to criminal appeals. Id.

Moreover, even after Griffin, half of the states lacked provisions for waiving court costs, effectively denying indigent litigants access to the courts. Id. at 491. Unfortunately, indigent litigants often face a plethora of urgent problems, often inhibiting their ability to dissolve disputes via litigation and see litigation to an end. Id. 494. However, 1971, when the Supreme Court decided Boddie, proved a year ripe for law reform through litigation. Interview with Arthur B. LaFrance, Professor of Law at Louis and Clark Law School, Attorney at Law (September 24, 2007). When federal funding became available under the Economic Opportunity Act of 1966, many legal services programs sprouted into existence across the nation. LaFrance, 1971 Duke LJ at 490. For example, at this time, the Boddie appellants’ attorney, Arthur B. LaFrance (“LaFrance”), worked for the New Haven Legal Assistance Association (“New Haven”) under a Ford Foundation Grant. Interview with LaFrance. Funded by newly available federal monies, legal services programs nation-wide embraced and promoted a fundamental value for adjudication as the alternative to self-help in American society. LaFrance, 1971 Duke LJ at 490. With the advent of these new legal services programs, public interest advocates seeking law reform via litigation brought and argued an unprecedented number of cases before the Supreme Court. Interview with LaFrance.

In addition to federal funds, §1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, which provided a civil action for deprivation of rights, emerged from dormancy in the 1961 Monroe v. Pape Supreme Court case. Limiting the Section 1983 Action in the Wake of Monroe v. Pape, 82 Harv. L. Rev. 1486, 1486 (1969). Monroe granted private litigants a federal court remedy to inadequate state remedies. Id. at 1487. After Monroe, §1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 played a pivotal role in Fourteenth Amendment claims of due process violations. Id. And only 10 years after the Monroe decision, the case provided the Boddie appellants with a new means, federal litigation, to seek law reform.

The Boddie Parties and Attorney

Ms. Gladys Boddie (“Ms. Boddie”) served as the main named plaintiff in Boddie. Interview with Reginald Boddie, Attorney at Law (October 2, 2007). As a mother on welfare and in public housing, a free attorney at New Haven provided her only option to obtain the divorce she sought. Id. LaFrance took on Ms. Boddie’s divorce case and Ms. Boddie lasted the entire four year case as a named plaintiff. Id.

Today, Ms. Boddie resides in Florida. Id. Ms. Boddie’s two daughters pursued careers as nurses. Id. One works as a Registered Nurse and one works as a Licensed Practical Nurse. Id. Ms Boddie’s two sons pursued careers as attorneys. Id. One son serves as a judge in the District of Columbia and the other son, Mr. Reginald Boddie (“Mr. Boddie”), currently has his own private practice and is working on a judgeship. Id.

At the time of Boddie, after working as a criminal specialist for New Haven, LaFrance found his plaintiffs while managing the legal assistance association. Interview with LaFrance. New Haven began as a criminal law organization and later evolved into a primarily civil litigation organization. Interview with Patricia Kaplan, Executive Director of the New Haven Legal Assistance Association (September 25, 2007). LaFrance encountered the many untouched divorce cases that, unlike criminal cases, lacked fee waiver procedures for indigent plaintiffs. Interview with LaFrance. In fact, New Haven had forty open divorce case files and had not heard from the plaintiffs for two to three months. Id. LaFrance contacted the plaintiffs and discovered that they were unable to proceed with their divorces because they could not afford the requisite filing fees. Id. LaFrance launched the difficult process of selecting plaintiffs and bringing Boddie from the state district court to the Supreme Court in a valiant effort to transform the law for indigent civil plaintiffs. Id.

Today, LaFrance is a professor of law at Lewis and Clark Law School, specializing in criminal law and procedure, bioethics, health delivery systems, and poverty, health, and the law. Id. He also engages in pro bono public interest litigation concerning healthcare issues. Id.

Launching Boddie

As the architect behind Boddie, LaFrance launched the class action lawsuit to expand fee waivers from the criminal to the civil realm, specifically to divorce cases. Interview with Kaplan. For LaFrance, the process of finding the right plaintiffs posed one of the first challenges in the lawsuit. LaFrance, 1971 Duke LJ at 502. In order to secure the most far-reaching policy changes, LaFrance sought indigent plaintiffs because court costs most often impede indigent plaintiffs’ efforts to commence civil litigation. Id. LaFrance also wanted African-American welfare recipient plaintiffs to highlight that access to justice often proves a racial issue. Id. LaFrance sought non-contested divorce cases where the grounds for divorce and the indigents’ interest for divorce had persisted for several months due to their inability to pay initial filing fees. Id. Such cases demonstrated the need for law reform for indigent plaintiffs seeking divorce adjudication via the only available means, lengthy litigation proceedings, and ensured that the class action stood on strong cases that could endure the long judicial process. Id. Finally, LaFrance wanted a class action case so that any member of the class could take advantage of the judgment and to ensure the preservation of the case over the many years of the litigation. Id.

Choosing the right defendants to sue proved another challenge because LaFrance faced problems of sovereign and judicial immunity. Id. at 503. LaFrance sued two judges, including the judge who claimed he could not overrule the court clerk who refused to accept the fee waiver that LaFrance tried to file for his plaintiffs. Id. He also sued the state of Connecticut and the court clerk who initially denied the fee waiver form. Interview with LaFrance. The District Court excluded the state from suit due to Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity. LaFrance, 1971 Duke LJ at 504. However, immunity did not shield the judges from suit because the case involved an administrative, rather than a judicial, attack. Id.

Boddie: The District Court Decision

While the Boddie Supreme Court Justices upheld fee waivers for divorce proceedings in an eight-to-one decision, the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut held differently. The court held that “a state may limit access to its civil courts and divorce courts” via required “filing fee or other fees which effectively bar persons on relief from commencing actions therein.” Boddie v. Connecticut, 286 F.Supp. 968, 972 (D. Conn. 1968). The court held that such State-mandated filing fees do not offend the Equal Protection or Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. at 973. Rather than analogizing the plight of criminal indigent defendants to that of civil indigent plaintiffs, thus expanding fee waivers from the criminal to the civil sphere, the District Court deferred to the state legislature to decide the political issue. Id. at 973-74.

Boddie: The Supreme Court Decision

Reversing the District Court judgment below, the Supreme Court held that filing fee requirements for divorce proceedings are unconstitutional, stating that “given the basic position of the marriage relationship in this society's hierarchy of values and the concomitant state monopolization of the means for legally dissolving this relationship, due process does prohibit a State from denying, solely because of inability to pay, access to its courts to individuals who seek judicial dissolution of their marriages.” 401 U.S. 371, 374 (U.S. 1971). In reaching the holding, the Court expanded the Griffin holding to the civil filing fee case at hand. Id. at 382 (Griffin waived a transcript requirement beyond the means of indigent criminal defendants to provide indigents access to the judicial process).

The Court reasoned that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that a State afford to all individuals a meaningful opportunity to be heard in the judicial process. Id. at 379. Second, the Court reasoned that a facially-valid cost requirement offended due process because it impeded individuals’ opportunity to be heard when applied to indigents. Id. at 380. Therefore, given the fundamental right to marriage, a State may not “pre-empt the right to dissolve this legal relationship without affording all citizens access to the means it has prescribed for doing so.” Id. at 383; Austin, 57 N.Y.U.L. Rev. at *778. Because the judicial proceedings serve “as the only effective means of resolving the dispute,” a State cannot constitutionally deny indigent plaintiffs access to the courts via filing fees in divorce proceedings. 401 U.S. at 376.

Justice Douglas concurred in the Boddie judgment but found that indigent divorce plaintiffs fell within a protected class under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. at 385-86. Therefore, he claimed that the Equal Protection Clause more properly shielded such plaintiffs from required filing fees and other fees. Id. Justice Brennan also concurred in the judgment because a State’s fee requirement as applied to indigent plaintiffs in any civil case makes a “mockery” of the Equal Protection principle by denying access to the judicial process. Id. at 389. Justice Black, the sole dissenter, found no basis for expanding criminal fee waivers from criminal defendants mandated to appear before the court to civil plaintiffs in divorce cases under either the Due Process or Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. at 391-94.

Effects of Boddie: Parties and Attorney

Because the Boddie litigation spanned three to four years, the holding had only an inconsequential effect on the plaintiffs. Interview with LaFrance. However, it pleased all plaintiffs that they had played a pivotal role in changing the law for future divorce litigants. Id. Out of the nine plaintiffs, only two remained until the Supreme Court handed down the Boddie decision. Id. The seven others had found ways to get the filing fee money and proceed with their divorce cases. Id.

Ms. Boddie finally received her long-sought divorce. Interview with Boddie. However, by the time of the judicial victory, Ms. Boddie had to pay the divorce filing fee because she was working as a nurse’s aid and did not qualify for the fee waiver. Id. Unfortunately, Ms. Boddie did not understand the significance of the case until her son attended law school and encountered the case and playful bantering from fellow law students. Id. Mr. Reginald Boddie (“Mr. Boddie”), Ms. Boddie’s son and a practicing civil rights attorney, believes attorneys should fully explain the meaning and extent of a judicial victory to affected plaintiffs. Id.

Mr. Boddie’s desire to engage in public interest law stems from his mother’s mission against injustice and the dilapidated public housing conditions that the Boddie family endured during the time of the Boddie case. Id. Although the legal community credits Ms. Boddie for her participation in the landmark divorce fee waiver case, the local New Haven community remembers Ms. Boddie for her tenant advocacy. Id. As an ardent fighter for tenant rights, Ms. Boddie’s efforts forced the New Haven Housing Authority to create a numbered-system for its housing waiting list so that individuals on the list could track their placement number from year to year. Id. Among her many efforts as a tenant advocate, Ms. Gladys Boddie also fought for improved maintenance and fought the New Haven Housing Authority’s attempts to evict the Boddie family for owning a dog against the housing policy because, she argued, the family needed the dog for security purposes. Id. Following in the footsteps of his mother, Mr. Boddie has accumulated an impressive track-record in the public interest legal services community. Id.

Mr. Reginald Boddie attended Northeastern University School of Law, a public interest law school, and has dedicated his career to the public interest generally. Id. Mr. Reginald Boddie has worked at legal assistance organizations, where he initially focused on low-income housing issues and policy and then expanded into civil rights. Id. Interestingly, Mr. Boddie spent at least three quarters during his law school career working at New Haven. Id. Mr. Boddie has worked at the Neighborhood Legal Services in Hartford, Rhode Island Legal Services, the Legal Aid Society in New York City, Harlem Legal Services, and the Center for Law and Social Justice. Id. He has also worked with Mr. Dicker, the attorney who attempted to expand the fee waiver established in Boddie to bankruptcy cases in U.S. v. Kras (see below). Id. For over nine years, Mr. Boddie has had his own private practice in which he now engages in civil rights litigation and other criminal and civil cases. Id. While Mr. Boddie does not credit his mother’s participation in Boddie as the catalyst for his legal advocacy, he credits his mother for instilling a sense of social consciousness and responsibility within each of her children. Id.

The effect of Boddie on LaFrance has been personally satisfying because he obtained the significant legal reform he set out to achieve. Interview with LaFrance. Several articles were published about the case across the country. Id. Due to the Boddie success, LaFrance received many letters from people asking for legal help and LaFrance provided them with the number to their local legal aid services. Id. Unfortunately, within the legal professional realm, members of the Connecticut Bar Association who did not value access to justice for indigents through fee waivers ostracized LaFrance. Id.

From the Boddie case, New Haven learned that attorneys with expertise in a particular area of law can apply their knowledge to subsequent areas to create real change. Interview with Kaplan. During the 1960s and 1970s, New Haven had several attorneys engaged in disassembling the law, taking the law in one area to expand the law in other areas. Id. Similar to LaFrance’s successful efforts in expanding the criminal fee waiver reasoning to civil divorce cases, legal services attorneys of that era did not accept the law as it stood, but rather seized opportunities to reform the law and create a more just system for indigent clients. Id.

Effects of Boddie: Law and Society

As a result of the Boddie decision, indigent plaintiffs no longer have to pay court fees in divorce cases. LaFrance, 1971 Duke LJ at 532. Furthermore, courts must arrange service of process or publication of appropriate notice of divorce claims to defendants. Id. If not, the plaintiff may mail notice to the defendant’s last address or post notice in the appropriate place. Id. However, even though pro se divorce proves practically infeasible in practice, no relief for hiring counsel exists for indigent plaintiffs. Id. Few clerks’ offices can provide appropriate forms to divorce plaintiffs and clerks offices cannot advise plaintiffs in filling out the forms or serving notice to defendants. Id. In addition, although many divorce plaintiffs may need a psychiatrist or social worker to testify, no economic relief exists to compensate experts or investigators. Id. However, the Boddie decision lends strong support to the prospect of requiring state provision of transcripts in civil cases. Id. at 534.

The Boddie decision greatly impacted subsequent Connecticut state law. Interview with Kaplan. With 28 USCS § 1915 providing for federal court proceeding in forma pauperis and the Boddie decision, the Connecticut legislature followed suit, passing an in forma pauperis statute providing fee waivers for all state civil cases. Id.; David B. Sweet, J. D., Supreme Court's Construction and Application of 28 USCS § 1915, Providing for Federal Court Proceedings in Forma Pauperis, 121 L. Ed. 2d 817, *7 (2006). Today, public defenders, legal assistance organizations, and the courts usually address the 125% of federal poverty guidelines for plaintiffs to qualify as indigent litigants entitled to fee waivers in civil cases. Interview with Kaplan. If the litigant happens to receive public assistance, the court infers presumptive eligibility for fee waivers. Id. Overall, indigent clients in Connecticut have benefited tremendously from fee waivers in civil cases. Id.

Furthermore, nationwide, Boddie set the standard for fee waivers in non-criminal cases. Id. For example, fee waivers may apply to cases where the state requires a person to go into court for relief. LaFrance, 1971 Duke LJ at 534. Waiving fees may also extend to suits against the state and suits between private individuals, although this area was limited by Justice Harlan’s decision in Boddie. Id. at 537.

Boddie did not have an immediate expansive effect on subsequent Supreme Court case law. In the 1973 U.S. v. Kras decision, the Supreme Court held that the interest in obtaining a discharge in bankruptcy does not rise to the same constitutional level as the Boddie appellants’ interest in ending the fundamental marriage relationship. 409 U.S. 434, 445 (1973); Austin, 57 NYU L. Rev. at 770. The Court reasoned that gaining or not gaining a discharge in bankruptcy would effect no change with respect to basic necessities. Id.

In Ortwein v. Schwab, the Supreme Court also rejected the basic necessities approach, holding that the interest in maintaining a given level of welfare benefits was not fundamental even though it would likely affect basic necessities. 410 U.S. 656, 659 (1973); Austin, 57 NYU L. Rev. at 770. The Court upheld a filing fee against a challenge by indigents seeking judicial review of administrative decisions to approve a cut in their welfare benefits. Id. The Court also upheld an administrative hearing as a sufficient alternative to court access. Austin, 57 NYU L. Rev. 770. Finally, in Mathews v. Eldridge, the Supreme Court developed a three factor test the Court should apply in analyzing fee waiver requests in disputes between private parties: (1) consider the nature of the private interest involved; (2) weigh the risk of erroneous decisions against the value of additional procedural safeguards to prevent those errors, and; (3) consider the state’s interest in the request for a waiver. 424 U.S. 319, 335 (U.S. 1976); Austin, 57 NYU L. Rev. at 781-783.

While Boddie has not expanded civil fee waivers beyond divorce cases in the Supreme Court, many lower state courts have held that the State cannot deny indigent plaintiffs seeking divorce access to the courts for inability to pay filing fees and other costs. Marc L. Carmichael, Right of Indigent to Proceed in Marital Action without Payment of Costs, 52 A.L.R.3d 844, *3 (2007); see for ex. Robertson v. Robertson 261 So. 2d 336 (La. App. 1972); Worsley v. Worsley, 419 A2d.135 (Pa. Super 1980); Thompson v. Thompson, 286 N.E.2d 657 (Ind. 1972). Therefore, Boddie has greatly impacted access to the courts for indigent divorce plaintiffs nationwide.

Law reform through litigation has waned in the current legal era. Interview with LaFrance. Lack of funding for legal services has muzzled many of the attorneys practicing public interest law. Id. Moreover, recently, law reform via legislation has dominated as legislators have become more favorable to legislative law reform that often provides a quicker alternative to litigation. Id.

Conclusion

In the realm of public interest law, Boddie proves a pivotal case in which an attorney expanded the criminal fee waiver policy to the civil realm via a carefully constructed and executed class action suit that secured greater justice for indigent plaintiffs nationwide. Boddie serves as an inspirational example for all aspiring public interest advocates, demonstrating the value of creatively applying the law and policy from one legal area to other legal areas in an effort to create a more just judicial system. While law reform via litigation has subsided since the tumultuous 1960s and 1970s, litigation continues to play an important role in promoting justice and equality in American society. Public interest advocates have invaluable examples of law reform via litigation such as Boddie to study and apply in paving the way for future law reform.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

U.S. SUPREME COURT CASES

Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976)

Ortwein v. Schwab, 410 U.S. 656 (1973)

U.S. v. Kras, 409 U.S. 434 (1973)

Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371 (1971)

STATE SUPREME COURT CASES

Thompson v. Thompson, 286 N.E.2d 657 (Ind. 1972)

STATE APPELLATE COURT CASES

Worsley v. Worsley, 419 A2d.135 (Pa. Super 1980)

Robertson v. Robertson 261 So. 2d 336 (La. App. 1972)

STATE DISTRICT COURT CASES

Boddie v. Connecticut, 286 F.Supp. 968 (D. Conn. 1968)

INTERVIEWS

Interview with Reginald Boddie, Attorney at Law (October 2, 2007)

Interview with Patricia Kaplan, Executive Director of the New Haven Legal Assistance Association, Attorney at Law (September 25, 2007)

Interview with Arthur B. LaFrance, Professor of Law at Louis and Clark Law School, Attorney at Law (September 24, 2007)

SECONDARY SOURCES

Christopher E. Austin, Due Process, Court Access Fees, and the Right to Litigate, 57 N.Y.U.L. Rev. 768 (Oct. 1982)

Marc L. Carmichael, J.D., Right of Indigent to Proceed in Marital Action without Payment of Costs, 52 A.L.R.3d 844 (2007)

Arthur B. LaFrance, Constitutional Law Reform for the Poor: Boddie v. Connecticut. 1971 Duke LJ 487, 492 (1971)

Limiting the Section 1983 Action in the Wake of Monroe v. Pape, 82 Harv. L. Rev. 1486 (1969)

David B. Sweet, J. D., Supreme Court's Construction and Application of 28 USCS § 1915, Providing for Federal Court Proceedings in Forma Pauperis, 121 L. Ed. 2d 817 (2006)

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download