Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

07-3400 Singer v. Raemisch, et al.

By: dmc-admin//January 25, 2010//

07-3400 Singer v. Raemisch, et al.

By: dmc-admin//January 25, 2010//

Listen to this article

Prisoner Discipline
Dungeons & Dragons; free speech

The trial court did not err when it granted the state’s motion for summary judgment against plaintiff/prisoner’s civil rights claims alleging that the prohibition of a popular role-playing game, Dungeons & Dragons, and the confiscation of all material relating to it, violated his first Amendment right to free speech.

“It is true that Singer procured an impressive trove of affidavit testimony, including some from role-playing game experts, but none of his affiants’ testimony addressed the inquiry at issue here. The question is not whether D&D has led to gang behavior in the past; the prison officials concede that it has not. The question is whether the prison officials are rational in their belief that, if left unchecked, D&D could lead to gang behavior among inmates and undermine prison security in the future. Singer’s affiants demonstrate significant personal knowledge about D&D’s rules and gameplay, and offer their own assessments that D&D does not lead to gang behavior, but they lack the qualifications necessary to determine whether the relationship between the D&D ban and the maintenance of prison security is ‘so remote as to render the policy arbitrary or irrational.’ Turner, 482 U.S. at 89-90. In other words, none of them is sufficiently versed in prison security concerns to raise a genuine issue of material fact about their relationship to D&D. (Of course, many of Singer’s affiants are present or former inmates, but their experiential ‘expertise’ in prison security is from the wrong side of the bars and fails to match Muraski’s perspective.) The expertise critical here is that relating to prisons, their security, and the prevention of prison gang activity. Singer’s affiants conspicuously lack such expertise. …

“[W]e are not convinced that the ban is as unyieldingly categorical as Singer makes it out to be. He argues that the ban precludes him from playing D&D and therefore he has no alternative means to play D&D. That may be true, but, as the district court pointed out in discounting this circular argument, Singer still has access to other allowable games, reading material, and leisure activities.”

Affirmed.

07-3400 Singer v. Raemisch, et al.

Eastern District of Wisconsin, Stadtmueller, J., Tinder, J.

Full Text

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests