Mitchell v. Mulligan
Case Date: 12/16/1997
Court: United States Court of Appeals
Docket No: 97-1737
|
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT ____________________ No. 97-1737 ROSS E. MITCHELL, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. ROBERT A. MULLIGAN, IN HIS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- |