Israel Rodriguez Velazquez v. Beth Weinman, et al

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
APRIL 2, 2012
JOHN LEY
CLERK
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 11-15437
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 1:10-cv-20046-JAL
ISRAEL RODRIGUEZ VELAZQUEZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
BETH WEINMAN,
JOHN BAXTER,
HARLEY LAPPIN,
all in their individual capacities,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(April 2, 2012)
Before TJOFLAT, BARKETT and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

-- 1 of 3 --

Israel Rodriguez Velazquez brought this action under Bivins v. Six Unknown
Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), against Federal Bureau of Prisons
personnel claiming that they denied him the equal protection of the laws in
violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment when they eliminated
the Spanish language from the Residential Drug Abuse Program so that the
Program would be delivered only in English. He also claimed that they denied
him his First Amendment right to speak the official language of Puerto Rico.
(Valazquez, who lived and resided in Puerto Rico until his arrest and conviction
for trafficking narcotics, speaks only Spanish.)
The district court referred Valazquez’s complaint to a magistrate judge who
issued a Report & Recommendation recommending that the district court dismiss
the complaint for failure to state a claim for relief. Over Valazquez’s objection,
the district court adopted the recommendation and dismissed the complaint,
agreeing with the magistrate judge that Valazquez “has no constitutional right to
vocational, rehabilitative or educational programs. Franklin v. District of
Columbia, 960 F. Supp. 394, [431] (D.D.C. 1997) (vacated in part on other
grounds, [163 F.3d 625 (D.C. Cir. 1998)]) (“The plaintiffs [,i.e., prison inmates,]
clearly have no constitutional right to vocational, rehabilitative or educational
programs. See, e.g., Women Prisoners [of the D.C. Department of Corrections v.
2

-- 2 of 3 --

District of Columbia], 93 F.3d [910], 927 [(D.C. Cir. 1996]; Inmates of Occoquan
v. Barry, 844 F.2d 828, 836 (D.C. Cir.1988); Garza v. Miller, 688 F.2d 480, 485
(7th Cir.1982); Hoptowit [v. Ray], 682 F.2d [1237,] 1255 [9 Cir. 1982]. Seeth
generally Palmer, [Constitutional Rights of Prisoners § 10.3, at 188 (5th
ed.1996)], supra § 10.2, at 178.”)
Valazquez appeals the district court’s dismissal of his complaint. For the
reasons stated in the cases and authorities relied on by the district court and quoted
in the above parenthetical, we agree with the district court that Valazquez failed to
state a case for the denial of equal protection under the Due Process Clause or the
denial of his First Amendment right to speak.
AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --