Opinion
C.A. No. 03-353 T
January 22, 2004
Report and Recommendation
Jose Franco, pro se, incarcerated at the Adult Correctional Institutions, Cranston, Rhode Island, filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and named as a defendant Michael Reynolds, an employee at the R.I. Department of Corrections. After a review of the Complaint, I find that it should be sua sponte dismissed, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). My reasoning follows.
Discussion
The substance of plaintiff's Complaint is as follows: Plaintiff alleges that on July 6, 2003, he received a letter from a Lieutenant Getter regarding the Avatar rehabilitative program offered at the Adult Correctional Institutions. Plaintiff alleges that he has not been allowed to participate in Avatar, and that the refusal of prison officials to place him in such a program is causing him economic hardship. As relief, Franco seeks an order from this Court directing prison officials to allow him to participate in the Avatar program.
Title 28, Section 1915 A, and Title 42, Section 1997(e)(c)(1), of the United States Code directs the Court to review prisoner complaints and dismiss those that are frivolous or malicious, or those that fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and 42 U.S.C. § 1997(e)(c)(1). Pursuant to this directive, I find that plaintiff's Complaint should be dismissed. Plaintiff's complains that he is not permitted to participate in the Avatar rehabilitative program offered at the ACI and seeks relief on that basis. However, inmates have no right to participate in rehabilitation or vocational programs while incarcerated. See Moody v. Daggett, 429 U.S. 78, 88 n. 9 (1976);Lovell v. Brennan, 566 F. Supp. 672, 688 (D. Me. 1983)aff'd 728 F.2d 560 (1st Cir. 1984). Thus, plaintiff's claim fails to rise to a level of a constitutional violation and his Complaint should be dismissed. I so recommend.
Conclusion
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, I recommend that the instant complaint be dismissed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Any objection to this report and recommendation must be specific and must be filed with the clerk of the court within ten days of receipt. Failure to file timely, specific objections to this report constitutes a waiver of both the right to review by the district court and the right to appeal the district court's decision. United States v. Valencia-Copete, 792 F.2d 4 (1st Cir. 1986) (per curiam); Park Motor Mart, Inc. v. Ford Motor Company, 616 F.2d 603 (1st Cir. 1980).