Mitchell v. Mulligan ( 1997 )

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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-