Court Opinion

ID: 2965026
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:34:20.159516+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:43:04.323205
License: Public Domain

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                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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-