[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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,

(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-