
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                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                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-
