Recent Comments

sweetpea00 Posted 11 years, 2 months ago.   Favorite
There is so much I want to say here but I will keep this short and sweet. I am so sorry for being so stupid and blind! I can't believe that I actually thought he could be innocent. Please understand that when I seen the copy of the CPS report I realy thought that everything he was telling me was true. I just hope the children will be ok from now on. Thank you for posting all of this on here. Also, Mark Jordan is at Big Sandy in Inex, KY now right?? Well guess what? So is my new sweetie. He might even know him. I even talked to my sweetie about Sean and this whole case and he doesn't know any of you guys and isn't even able to read all this stuff about Sean but even he tried to tell me that there is no way Sean is innocent. There is no way they would hold a man on a milion dollar bond unless they really did have some real evidence that he did what he did. But I was stubborn and stupid and wanted to believe he was innocent. I honestly don't know how Angel died. her mother called me and told me what killed her and she didn't say it was suicide. I talked to Angel many times before this happened. I even asked Mr. Hart and his son both if they thought Sean was innocent. They told me they didn't even know anymore. This stuff is just VERY crazy and yet also VERY VERY sad. I am ashamed of the things I said and the way I acted towards you. When I called you a bitch and said you lied I thought for sure you called me a bitch first and I reacted to it. I understand about respecting your guys privacy BUT you already lost that when you talked to the media about all this. Otherwise none of us would of never known about any of this. But you did talk to the news and the media and then ofcourse Sean posted al kinds of stuff as well so it's no longer private. Know what I mean? Anyhow, I hope you & your children will forgive me for being so dumb! I am not kissing ass. I really mean it. I wish you & your children well. I will not be back on here anymore. Take care, Sweetpea

Posted on Interview Of An Innocent Man by Nathaniel Lindell Interview Of An Innocent Man
whoeveryouwantmetobe Posted 11 years, 2 months ago.   Favorite
Sean says above in his blog “Wisconsin Inmates are an Enigma to me” that he bombed a few places because of their ties to people in that area who were having sex with children. But in this piece from The Salt Lake Tribune it seems very different.
“I was totally out of control due to drugs,” Riker told Benson on Monday. …..”At the time I was heavily on methamphetamines.” The bombs exploded at Star Flag and Display on July 31, 1995; at Dixie Auto Sales on Aug .4, 1995; at Woodward Elementary School on Aug. 5, 1995; and at Agave bookstore on Sept. 23, 1995. Two bombs were set off at the school. (WAY TO PROTECT THOSE CHILDREN SEAN) The bookstore, badly damaged and no longer in business, was bombed to disguise a burglary, Riker admitted.
(ADMITTED! YOU ADMITTED IT WAS TO DISGUISE A BURGLARY. NOWHERE IN HERE DOES IT SAY YOU BOMBED THESE PLACES BECAUSE THEY WERE TIED INTO SOME CHILD SEX SCANDAL. YOU FUCKING LIAR AND PIECE OF SHIT SEAN RIKER. LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE!!!) – All pun intended since you really did blow your own dumb ass up and claim you thought you were on fire. Sean says he was heavily on drugs, stupidity was the reason he committed the crimes and he was covering up a burglary. So make up your mind Sean and quit telling people you bombed places because of Mormons having sex with children.
Full story available here http://www.sltrib.com/ci_13763369

Posted on Interview Of An Innocent Man by Nathaniel Lindell Interview Of An Innocent Man
whoeveryouwantmetobe Posted 11 years, 2 months ago.   Favorite
need to keep him segregated from the general population. Nor was Riker’s confinement cruel and
unusual. He was not deprived of any basic human need. The staff imposed very limiting conditions,
but these were done out of necessity due to Riker’s uncontrollable destructive and threatening
behavior. For these reasons, the court concludes that there was no violation of due process and
13
further concludes that the conditions of confinement did not constitute cruel and unusual
punishment.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the defendant’s motion for summary judgment,
(Docket No. 35), is granted. The clerk shall enter judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint and
this action.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 13th day of July, 2012.
______________________
AARON E. GOODSTEIN
U.S. Magistrate Judge

Posted on Interview Of An Innocent Man by Nathaniel Lindell Interview Of An Innocent Man
whoeveryouwantmetobe Posted 11 years, 2 months ago.   Favorite
Riker claims severe mental and physical injuries, but shows no evidence as to the existence
or severity of these alleged injuries. Injured or not, the jail staff did not act with deliberate
indifference to his conditions of confinement, but acted out of necessity and concerns for safety.
The planning and the diligence of the staff demonstrate that concerns for safety were taken into
account, not just for Riker, but everyone. The intent of the staff was never to harm Riker and the
actions taken were in accordance with legitimate penalogical policies. The irons and chains and
limited recreation time were conditions necessitated by Riker’s violent behavior and threats; they
were not imposed for the purpose of punishment.
The fact that Riker was uncomfortable and his living situation was not free from restraint
does not make the confinement conditions unconstitutional. The court finds that the staff acted for a
legitimate governmental purpose; the conditions were necessary to restrain the uncontrollable Riker,
and the conditions were not so severe as to constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the
Fourteenth Amendment.
V. CONCLUSION
The jail staff did not violate Riker’s liberty interest when they placed Riker in
administrative segregation, as his status and placement followed the procedures in the jail. Because
his placement was for a legitimate governmental goal, one which outweighed any liberty interest,
there was no due process violation. Neither were Riker’s continued placement and limiting
conditions a violation of due process because Riker was treated in accordance with an appropriate
review procedure. His continued administrative status was warranted due to his behavior and the

Posted on Interview Of An Innocent Man by Nathaniel Lindell Interview Of An Innocent Man
whoeveryouwantmetobe Posted 11 years, 2 months ago.   Favorite
but preventing access to the yard to protect prison staff from violent behavior is reasonable,
regardless of the time. Pearson v. Ramos, 237 F.3d 881, 885 (7th Cir. 2001). “To confine in
‘solitary’ a prisoner who behaves like a wild beast whenever he is let out of his cell is the least cruel
measure . . . for dealing with such a person.” Id.
In the case at hand, Riker was not completely deprived of his time out of his cell. At the
onset of administrative segregation, Riker was allowed his mandatory one hour per day recreation
time. (Docket No. 36, ¶ 5.) This privilege was slowly taken away because of Riker’s violent acts,
threats, and property damage any time he was let out of his cell. Although his recreation time was
diminished, it was never completely taken away. At the end of his stay in Racine County Jail, Riker
was still allowed out of his modified cell three days a week, Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays.
(Docket No. 36, ¶ 21.) He was to be in belly chain and leg irons while out of the dayroom. (Docket
No. 36, ¶ 17.) These conditions of confinement are fully compliant with the enunciated standards as
to what is, and is not, cruel and unusual. Riker was not denied any basic human need, as he was still
allowed out of his cell to shower and use the phone, and he makes no claims of lack of food, water,
or other basic necessity.

Posted on Interview Of An Innocent Man by Nathaniel Lindell Interview Of An Innocent Man
whoeveryouwantmetobe Posted 11 years, 2 months ago.   Favorite
Due
to the necessity and purpose of the stricter confinement, and the periodic reviews throughout his
segregations status, the court finds no violation of due process in Riker’s continued segregation
status.
The defendants have presented the measures taken to restrain Riker, but Riker claims that
the multiple incident reports and continued misconduct warranting the restrictions are “lies and half
truths.” (Docket No. 41.) Although he makes this conclusory assertion, he has not presented
anything specific to place these facts in dispute. The court concludes that the conditions imposed on
the plaintiff were not punishment and did not violate due process.
B. Plaintiff’s Cruel and Unusual Punishment Claim
The court now looks to whether or not the conditions of the Riker’s confinement in
administrative segregation amounted to cruel and unusual punishment. Riker claims that the
conditions of his confinement, most notably his restriction on recreation and yard time, subjected
him to cruel and unusual punishment as prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. As noted above,
because Riker was a pretrial detainee, his claim is to be analyzed under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The mere fact that pretrial detention interferes with a person’s desire to live comfortably and
free from restraint does not by itself make the conditions unconstitutional. Board v. Farnham, 394
F.3d 469, 477 (7th Cir. 2005). In order to be cruel and unusual, there must be a denial of “basic
11
human needs” or the “minimum measure of life’s necessity” Rhoades v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337,
347 (1981). Claims of cruel and unusual punishment require the plaintiff to show he has suffered an
objectively, sufficiently serious injury, and that prison staff inflicted the injury with deliberate
indifference. Framer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834 (1994). The standard for deliberate indifference
is that the defendant committed an act so dangerous that his knowledge of the risk can be inferred or
that the defendant knew of an impending harm. Antonelli, 81 F.3d at 1427 (citing Miller v.
Neathery, 52 F.3d 634, 638 (7th Cir. 1995)). In terms of length of confinement with recreation
restrictions, more than 90 days of confinement without yard time is considered cruel and unusual,

Posted on Interview Of An Innocent Man by Nathaniel Lindell Interview Of An Innocent Man
whoeveryouwantmetobe Posted 11 years, 2 months ago.   Favorite
Riker, along with his initial placement, also complains of his continued segregation status
with limiting conditions, and continued denials of requests to be in general population. Riker was
not deprived of any procedure since his status was reviewed periodically, every 10-14 days, and his
continued requests were read and considered. (Docket No. 36, ¶ 22.) Wearing instructed Brown to
conduct these reviews, and they were carried out. (Docket No. 38, ¶ 10.) As indicated, due process
requires only informal, non-adversarial, periodic reviews of status. The decisions made thereafter
not to return Riker to the general population are fully justified based on his actions damaging
property damage and his threats to staff and other inmates while in administrative segregation. (See
Docket No. 36, ¶ 23.) Continued placement in administrative segregation was warranted for the
same reasons he was initially placed there—safety risks to the prison community.
It is not difficult to see that Riker posed a threat to the general population, and his conduct
warranted his stricter limiting conditions within administrative segregation. These stricter
conditions were not punishment or retribution, but necessary measures to ensure the safety of the
staff and other inmates. Riker was able to destroy property and even escape from his cell and belly
chain, so the heightened conditions were necessary to make sure that Riker was physically unable to
continue the property damage and potentially carry out one of his many threats to staff and other
inmates. The restraint measures may have been a hardship for Riker, but they were necessary.

Posted on Interview Of An Innocent Man by Nathaniel Lindell Interview Of An Innocent Man
whoeveryouwantmetobe Posted 11 years, 2 months ago.   Favorite
Riker was not
deprived of any liberty interest he possessed because his placement was in accordance with the
policy governing all persons detained at the jail. Riker was dealt with in accordance with that policy
and therefore, his placement cannot be considered “atypical.”
9
Of course, Riker has a liberty interest in avoiding placement for no reason or for reasons that
are baseless. This is where adherence to the jail policy regarding placement in administrative
segregation is critical. Given the facts of this case, the policy was followed and Riker’s placement
was warranted. There is no due process violation because Riker’s placement and subsequent
conditions were reasonably related to a non-punitive governmental goal—safety to the general
prison community, staff and inmates alike. Riker’s placement was not punishment for any conduct,
but was done for his benefit and the benefit of his fellow inmates and the prison staff. The staff
recognized the potential security and safety risks that could result from Riker’s expression of his
racist attitudes within the ethnically and racially diverse general prison population. The staff was
legitimately concerned that Riker’s continued presence in the general population would be the fuel
to create an explosive situation, endangering the safety of inmates, staff, and Riker. The safety risks
to the prison community presented by Riker’s attitudes and behavior far outweigh any liberty
interest Riker may have had in avoiding placement. Since this is a legitimate goal and jail policy
was followed, there is no violation of due process.

Posted on Interview Of An Innocent Man by Nathaniel Lindell Interview Of An Innocent Man
whoeveryouwantmetobe Posted 11 years, 2 months ago.   Favorite
the jail staff identified during the preliminary internal investigations. (Docket No. 39, ¶ 4.) There is
a liberty interest in avoiding placement in a status that is atypical, but there is nothing atypical about
Riker’s placement. According to Racine County Jail policy, inmates are placed in administrative
segregation for a multitude of reasons, including potential safety risks to the general population.
(Docket No. 36, ¶ 25.) Also, according to the policy, a subjective evaluation of potential future risk
is a reason for placement in administrative segregation. (Id.) The Racine County Jail staff, which
identified and evaluated potential future risks regarding Riker in general population, acted in
accordance with the jail’s own policy in placing Riker in administrative segregation. Riker was not
deprived of any liberty interest he possessed because his placement was in accordance

Posted on Interview Of An Innocent Man by Nathaniel Lindell Interview Of An Innocent Man
whoeveryouwantmetobe Posted 11 years, 2 months ago.   Favorite
Id. (internal citations omitted). Although there is a distinction, it is of little significance in
application, and courts have found it appropriate to use the same standard for claims arising out of
both the Eighth Amendment (convicted prisoners) and the Fourteenth Amendment (pretrial
detainees). Id. (citing Henderson v. Sheahan, 195 F.3d 839, 845 (7th Cir. 1999)).
A. Plaintiff’s Due Process Claim
The court begins its analysis with Riker’s claim that his placement in administrative
segregation upon booking, without an initial hearing, and his continued segregation status
throughout his stay at the Racine County Jail, was a deprivation of due process. “A person has a
liberty interest in avoiding placement in a status that is atypical and imposes a significant hardship
on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.” Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472,
484 (1995). If a liberty interest exists, then due process requires informal, non-adversarial, but
8
periodic review of the confinement. Alston v. DeBruyn, 13 F.3d 1036, 1042 (7th Cir. 1994) (citing
Kentucky Dept. of Corrections v. Thompson, 490 U.S. 454, 462-63 (1989); Hewitt v. Helms, 459
U.S. 460, 472 (1983)). A condition of confinement may be imposed on a pretrial detainee without
violating the due process clause if it is reasonably related to a legitimate and non-punitive
governmental goal; it may not be arbitrary or purposeless. Antonelli v. Sheahan, 81 F.3d 1422, 1428
(7th Cir. 1996) (citing United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 747 (1987)). Safety and preventing
danger to the community are legitimate governmental goals that outweigh an individual’s liberty
interest, depending upon the circumstances. Id. A pretrial detainee has a right to due process before
conditions or restrictions are imposed upon him only if those restrictions or conditions amount to
punishment of the detainee. Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 536 (1979).
In the case at hand, Riker was placed in administrative, non-disciplinary segregation
immediately upon booking. (Docket No. 36, ¶ 3.) This was done for safety and security reasons that

Posted on Interview Of An Innocent Man by Nathaniel Lindell Interview Of An Innocent Man
More comments:

Subscribe

Get notifications when new letters or replies are posted!

Featured posts: RSS email me
All Between the Bars posts: RSS