# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted May 11, 2018 *

Decided May 22, 2018

Before

DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Judge

DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge

ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

No. 17-2867

J AMES A. TANKSLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant

,

v

.

J ON E. LITSCHER, et al., Defendants-Appellees

. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.

No. 15-cv-126-jdp

J ames D. Peterson, Chief Judge

.

O R D E R

James Tanksley, an inmate at Waupun Correctional Institution convicted of sexually assaulting a nine-year-old boy, is a practitioner of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn—an occult religion recognized by the prison. He says that a particular set of tarot cards, the Initiatory Tarot Deck of the Golden Dawn, is essential to his religious practice. The cards contain drawings of v arious scenes that include nude women and boys. He submitted two requests for the deck, but prison officials denied them. Seeking a court order that the prison allow him to use the cards, Tanksley sued the Wisconsin

* We have agreed to decide this case without oral argument because the briefs and record adequately present the facts an d legal arguments, and oral argument would not significantly aid the court. F ED

. R. A PP

. P. 34(a)(2)(C). NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited onl y in accordance with Fed. R. A pp . P. 32.1No. 17-2867 Page 2

Department of Corrections, its secretary, an d the prison’s warden under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000. Under the Act, if an inmate shows that an institutional policy substantially burd ens his religious exercise, then that policy may not be applied unless the institution shows that the policy is the least restrictive means for advancing a compelling stat e interest. 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000cc-1; Holt v. Hobbs

, 135 S. Ct. 853, 863 (2015). The district judge entered summary judgment for the defendants. Because the undisputed record sh ows that prohibiting Tanksley’s access to the cards is necessary to advance the prison’s compelling interest in his rehabilitation, we affirm the judgment.
The Initiatory Tarot Deck contains 78 cards. Eleven show women’s breasts, nipples, and buttocks; one card, for example, entitled “The Lovers,” depicts a nude woman bound in chains as she watches an arm ored man in the clouds raise a sword to a sea monster. Two cards show naked, prepub escent boys: “El Loco” shows a nude boy sitting outside with his legs spread and genitalia displayed, reaching for a flower as a wolf lurks behind him, and “The Sun” sh ows two naked children, one of whom has visible male genitalia, holding hands and splashing in a puddle.
Tanksley submitted a request for the Init iatory Deck in 2011. Officials denied his request because the deck has “inappropriate nude images.” Officials denied his second request two years later. He then filed this suit.
During discovery the defendants offered a declaration from Dr. Jonathan Dickey, a psychologist for the Wisconsin Departme nt of Corrections and a specialist in sex-offender treatment. Based on his knowledge, experience, and his review of Tanksley’s records, Dr. Dickey said that im ages like those on the cards “tend[] to feed offense-related sexual fantasies and reinfo rce offense-supportive beliefs and deviant sexual behaviors.” He opined that a ccess to the Initiatory Deck would be “counter-therapeutic” and “detrimental” to Tanksley’s rehabilitation and possibly increase his risk of re-offending. Dr. Dickey also opined that, although normal adults might be able to view the images without ill effects, Tanksley would be harmed because the images in the deck tend to encourage rather than discourage the deviant behavior that led to Tanksley's incarceration.

The defendants also submitted a decl aration from Waupun’s security director, stating that the tarot cards would pose a se curity risk if they were available in the prison. The director explained that pornograph ic content is not permitted in the prison and that the cards, bearing images of nu de women and children, would be valuable commodities. “Having [unique items] in the inst itution,” he continued, “tends to lead to theft, bartering, strong-arming, inma te exploitation, violence, and fights.”No. 17-2867 Page 3

For his part, Tanksley submitted pictur es and drawings of nude women and children that he photocopied from the art and medical books in the prison library.
The defendants moved for summary judgme nt on grounds that Tanksley could not succeed under the Act, given the evidence that denying him access to the cards was necessary to advance the state’s compelling in terests in his rehabilitation and prison security. See Cutter v. Wilkinson , 544 U.S. 709, 725 n. 13 (2005) (prison security is compelling state interest); O'Lone v. Estate of Shabazz , 482 U.S. 342, 348 (1987) (rehabilitation listed among “valid penological objectives”).
The district judge entered summary ju dgment for the defendants. The judge determined that denying Tanksley the c ards substantially burdens his religious exercise. But the judge accepted Dr. Dickey ’s opinion that the cards would impede Tanksley’s rehabilitation, and so prohibitin g them altogether was necessary. The judge also concluded that the defendants had sh own that the cards posed a security risk. Other depictions of nudity might be accessible at the institution, he explained, but the images in the Initiatory Deck had a level of “erotic realism” not otherwise available.
On appeal Tanksley asserts generally that banning the deck is not necessary to advance the prison’s interests—either in his rehabilitation or in security. The parties do not dispute for the purposes of summary judgment that the ban on the cards substantially burdens Tanksley’s religious practice, so the burden shifts to the defendants to show that the ban was nece ssary to further a compelling governmental
interest. Holt , 135 S. Ct. at 863.
The defendants have shown that the pris on’s ban on the cards was necessary to advance the interest in Tanksley’s rehabilitat ion. The defendants rely on Dr. Dickey’s statement—rooted in his knowledge, extens ive experience, and review of Tanksley’s record—that the images on the cards would hinder Tanksley’s rehabilitation because nude images of the sort in the deck enco urage offense-related fantasies and beliefs. Tanksley responds that the pictures will not inhibit his rehabilitation because other pictures of naked children can be viewed in the prison’s library books. But the library images are not lewd or erotic like the draw ings on the cards. And Tanksley’s view of which images will obstruct his own re habilitation is hardly objective. See Borzych v. Frank , 439 F.3d 388, 391 (7th Cir. 2006) (inmate’s opinion on security not objective). He provided no other evidence to counter the pr ison psychologist’s opinion that the cards would be counter-therapeutic to his rehab ilitation, and thus summary judgment was properly granted. See Payton v. Cannon , 806 F.3d 1109, 1110 (7th Cir. 2015) (affirming summary judgment for prison where inmate did not present evidence to rebut prison official’s opinion on security matter). Because the prison’s ban on the cards is necessaryNo. 17-2867 Page 4

to support Tanksley’s rehabilitation, the ba n is permissible under the Act, and we need not consider whether the prison’s security interest also justifies it.
Finally, Tanksley also claimed that he had a right to the cards under the First Amendment. But the Act provides greater prot ections than the First Amendment, so the judge properly entered summary judgment fo r the defendants on the constitutional claim, too. See Schlemm v. Wall , 784 F.3d 362, 363 (7th Cir. 2015).

AFFIRMED