That is the standard the district court applied, and it is the standard that other district courts in this circuit have applied to constitutional claims by civil detainees. Smego v. Ashby, No. 10–CV–3240, 2011 WL 6140661, at *3 (C.D.Ill. Dec. 9, 2011); Hedgespeth v. Bartow, No. 09–cv–246, 2010 WL 2990897, at *6 (W.D.Wis. July 27, 2010). Because Turner tells courts to consider the challenged regulation in relation to the government's legitimate interests, it would not be too difficult to adapt its standard for claims by civil detainees.
Plaintiff also does not allege he was denied access to television or other media in a common area. See i.e. Smego v. Ashby, 2011 WL 6140661, at *3 (C.D.Ill.Dec. 9, 2011)(finding Rushville residents “have access to media through newspapers, magazines, television and radio” and “[t]hey are not constitutionally required to have access to all media” such as personal computers); citing Singer v. Raemisch, 593 F.3d 529, 539 (7th Cir.2010) (banning of fantasy role playing games was rationally related to legitimate penological interests and prisoner had alternative means of exercising right, such as possessing other reading materials or playing allowable games).
However, the Court has previously advised the lead Plaintiff "a violation of state law is not, by itself, a violation of federal law." Smego v. Ashby, 2011 WL 6140661, at *1 (C.D.Ill. Dec. 9, 2011); see also Guarjardo-Palma v. Martinson, 622 F.3d 801, 806 (7th Cir.2010) ("[A] violation of state law is not a ground for a federal civil rights suit.").
In Pegue v. Kibby, 2011 WL 6179207 (C.D.Ill.), the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois determined that a civilly-detained SVP had no First Amendment or Fourteenth Amendment equal protection right to own a personal computer. See also Smego v. Ashby, 2011 WL 6140661 (C.D.Ill.) (no constitutional claim arising from regulation banning personal computers for civilly-detained SVPs).