Mitchell v. Mulligan ( 1997 )

USCA1 Opinion

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT





                                 ____________________



        No. 97-1737



                                  ROSS E. MITCHELL,



                                Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                          v.



                ROBERT A. MULLIGAN, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS CHIEF

                   JUSTICE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS,



                                 Defendant, Appellee.



                                 ____________________



                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS



                    [Hon. Richard G. Stearns, U.S. District Judge]
___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                 Selya, Circuit Judge,
_____________

                           Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
____________________

                              and Lynch, Circuit Judge.
_____________



                                 ____________________



            Ross E. Mitchell on brief pro se.
________________

            Scott Harshbarger,  Attorney General  of Massachusetts, and  Peter
_________________                                            _____

        Sacks, Assistant Attorney General on brief for appellee.
_____

            Robert  L.  Oakley, Washington  Affairs  Representative,  American
__________________

        Association of  Law Libraries,  Georgetown University  Law Center,  on

        brief for appellant, amici curiae.





                                 ____________________



                                  December 12, 1997

                                 ____________________



























                 Per Curiam.   We have carefully reviewed the  record and
__________



            briefs  and  conclude   that  dismissal  was  proper.     The



            Constitution does not require governmental decision-makers to



            treat all individuals identically.  Differences in  treatment



            which  are rationally  related to legitimate  state interests



            are permissible unless they trammel fundamental rights or are



            drawn  upon inherently  suspect distinctions.    City of  New
____________



            Orleans v. Dukes, 427 U.S.  297, 303 (1976)(per curiam).  The
_______    _____



            rational  basis for the  Superior Court's policy  is manifest



            from the complaint  and accompanying documents.    The policy



            engenders  no   suspect  classification   and  deprives   the



            appellant  of no fundamental right.  Under the circumstances,



            the district  court did not  abuse its discretion  by denying



            the appellant leave to amend.1
1



                 The  judgment below  is affirmed.    See 1st  Cir.Loc.R.
________     ___



            27.1.




































____________________



               1 Appellant's motion for oral argument is hereby denied.
1



                                         -1-