FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T APRI L2, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 15 43 7 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 1 :1 0- cv -2 00 46 -J AL ISRAEL RODRIGUEZ VELAZQ UEZ, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us BETH W EINMAN, JOHN BAXTER, HARLEY LAPPIN, al l i n t he ir i nd iv idua l capa ci ti es , Defen da nt s- App el le es .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ap ril 2, 2 01 2) Befo re TJ OFLAT, BARKETT an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Is rael Ro dr ig ue z Vel azque z b ro ug htth is act io n u nd er Bivi ns v. Si x Unk no wn Na rc ot ic s Ag en ts , 40 3 U.S. 3 88 (19 71 ) , ag ai ns t Fe de ral Bu reauof P ris on s pe rs on ne l cl ai m in g t ha t the y de ni edhi m

th e equa l p ro te ct io n o f th e la ws i n vi ol at io n o f th e Due Pro ces s C laus e o f th e Fi fth Am en dm en t wh enth ey eli m in at ed th e Sp an is h l an gu ag e fro m th e Res id en ti al Drug Abu se Pro gr am so th atth e Pro gr am wou ldbe de li ve redon ly in En gl is h. He al so cla im edth atth ey de ni ed hi m hi s Fi rs t Am en dm en t ri gh t t o s pe akth e o ffi ci al lan gu ag e o f Pu ert o R ic o. (Val azque z, who li ve d a ndres id edinPu ert o R ic o u nt il hi s arres t an d c on vi ct io n fo r tr affi ck in g n arco ti cs , sp eak s o nl y Sp an is h.) The di stric t co urt re ferr edVala zque z’s co m pl ai ntto a m ag is tra te jud ge who is su eda Rep ort & Reco m m en da ti on reco m

m en di ng th atth e d is tri ctco urt d is m is s th e co m pl ai ntforfai lu re t o s ta te a cl ai m forrel ie f. OverVala zque z’s ob jecti on , th e d is tri ctco urt ad op te d t he reco m m en da ti on an d d is m is se d t he co m pl ai nt , ag reei ng with the m ag is tra te jud ge th atVala zque z “ ha s n o c on st itut io na l ri gh t t o
vo cat io na l, re habi li ta ti ve or e du cat io na l p ro gr am s. Fra nkli n v . Dis tr ic t o f Co lu mbi a , 96 0 F . Sup p. 3 94 , [43 1] (D.D.C. 19 97 ) (v acat edinpart o n o th er gr ou nd s, [1 63 F.3d62 5 (D.C . Cir . 19 98 )]) (“ The pl ai nt iff s [,i .e., pri so n i nm at es ,] cl earl y ha ve no co ns ti tu ti on al rig htto vo cat io na l, re habi li ta ti ve or e du cat io na l pr og ram s. Se e, e.g ., W

ome n Pr is on er

s [ of th e D.C. Dep ar tmen t o

f Co rr ect io ns v.
2Dis tr ic t o

f Co lu mbi a] , 93 F.3d[91 0], 92 7 [( D.C. Cir . 19 96 ]; In mat es of Occo qu an v. Bar ry , 84 4 F .2d82 8, 8 36 (D.C. Cir .19 88 ); Gar za v. Mil le r , 68 8 F .2d48 0, 4 85 (7 th Cir .19 82 ); Hop to wi t [ v. Ray ], 68 2 F .2d[12 37 ,] 12 55 [9 Cir . 19 82 ]. Se e th ge ne ra ll y Palmer , [ Co ns ti tu ti on al Right s o f Pr is on er

s § 1 0.3 , at 1 88 (5t h ed .19 96 )], supr a § 10 .2, at17 8.” ) Vala zque z ap pe al s t he di st ric t co urt’s d is m is sa l o f hi s co m pl ai nt . For t he
reas on s s ta te d i n t he cas es an d aut ho rit ie s re li edon by the di st ric t co urt an d quo te d in th e ab ov e p aren th et ic al , we agr ee wi th th e d is tri ctco urt tha t Val azque z fai le d t o st at e a ca se forth e d en ia l o f equa l p ro te ct io n u nd er the Due P ro ces s C laus e o r th e de ni al of h is Fir stAm en dm en t ri gh t t o s pe ak
. AFFIR MED.

3