Recall prior D&D cases in NinjaLaw
– Thompson v Dixon
– Meyer v Branker
– Singer v. Raemisch

This case below, like the Singer case, is about obtaining D&D books in prison, and cites to Meyer and Thompson:

Defendant also cites several cases that have recognized the dangerous influence Dungeons and Dragons can have on its participants. See Meyer v. Branker, 506 F.3d 358, 370 (4th Cir. 2007) (noting that defendant was obsessed with Dungeons and Dragons and that this obsession caused him to retreat into a fantasy world of ninja warriors); Thompson v. Dixon, 987 F.2d 1038, 1039 (4th Cir. 1993) (affirming the conviction of one of two men who brought a Dungeons and Dragons adventure to life by entering the home of an elderly couple and assassinating them);

going on to mention

Watters v. TSR, Inc., 904 F.2d 378, 380 (6th Cir. 1990) (describing a teenager who committed suicide as a devoted Dungeons and Dragons player who became absorbed by the game to the point of losing touch with reality).

These citations are from the case:

JAMES YATES, et al.,


CASE NO. 1:08-cv-01485-OWW-SKO PC
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10075
February 1, 2011, Decided
February 2, 2011, Filed

The opinion is by US Magistrate Judge Sheila Oberto, writing:

Plaintiff alleges he is a prisoner at Pleasant Valley State Prison (“PVSP”) in Coalinga, California, at the time of the events relevant to this lawsuit. Plaintiff claims his First Amendment right to free speech was violated because PVSP officials prohibited inmates from possessing publications related to role-playing games, such as Dungeons and Dragons.

Specifically, Plaintiff alleges his copy of “The Forgotten Temple of Tharizdun” was confiscated by PVSP officials in the mailroom sometime around June 21, 2006. On June 27, 2006, Plaintiff received a notification informing him that the publication was banned because it violated Operational Procedure 59, § RR(14), which bans any materials containing “[c]oded messages or any other item that may be deemed a threat to the safety or security of the prison.”


The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to come forward with evidence seriously challenging Defendant’s contention that the prohibition against Dungeons and Dragons materials is rationally related to legitimate security interests. Accordingly, the Court will recommend that Defendant’s motion for summary judgment be granted.