Mitchell v. Mulligan

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT No. 97-1737 ROSS E. MITCHELL, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. ROBERT A. MULLIGAN, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS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-