clarke - i'm not a cyberbully hiding behind ANYTHING. just because i leave negative comments re: you does not make me a cyberbully. In my opinion, it makes me INFORMED. Take the "cyber" out of bully and that crime is what put you on death row,Bitch.
while i DO have empathy for those TRULY remorseful for their crimes...you don't make my list.
I'll (personally) be looking forward to your complete disclosure of the other homicides.
Just thought I would mention, at the time inmate was murdered, you Mr Riker were pretty much a white supremacist and your 2 star witnesses were black men. Come on like you really would have hung out in the prison yard with 2 black men for the purpose other than to frame an innocent man for that murder. And to top it off 1 if those key witnesses were not even in the yard when the murder occurred. Records show that at the time one if the witnesses had worked in the kitchen so there could of been no way to witness the murder. After all the facts I cannot believe an innocent man is doing your time. I went to this trial and it was the saddest form of injustice I seen in many, many, years. If the man who got convicted for mr rulers crime was only allowed to bring his proof to the jury. The judge denied 90% of evidence that would if proved him innocent . Was told it would confuse the jury.. I hope one day Mr Jordan gets exonerated and the truth comes out. Mr Riker you are a real piece of work,
With all the sincerity I can muster SAH... honestly... Fuck Off!
The rubbish you post here is so misguided... what are you even talking about "the Innocence Project" Jeremy is not innocent of the crimes he is serving time for (he has said that himself), nor is he on death row so the Innocence Project is of no relevance to him whatsoever. As for Mr Clarke, I left one response, on one blog about his education and that is all.
As Jeremy said in this post, to people like you... "one injustice deserves another". It is clear that we are on opposite sides of the fence as far as our views on justice go. You come here from a retributive stand point, where as my views are aligned with restorative justice. How about we just leave it at that. Personal attacks are childish and unwarranted.
I don't understand why you insist on attacking me, when I come here from a place of learning and friendship, and I have no need for your ridiculous advice or misguided insight into who I am as a person. The noise you create here is just that. Something I read this morning actually made me think of you & this is my parting advice to you...
Only speak if what you say is more beautiful than silence.
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
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
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
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
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.
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,
RSS
while i DO have empathy for those TRULY remorseful for their crimes...you don't make my list.
I'll (personally) be looking forward to your complete disclosure of the other homicides.
Until then, happy holidays.
The rubbish you post here is so misguided... what are you even talking about "the Innocence Project" Jeremy is not innocent of the crimes he is serving time for (he has said that himself), nor is he on death row so the Innocence Project is of no relevance to him whatsoever. As for Mr Clarke, I left one response, on one blog about his education and that is all.
As Jeremy said in this post, to people like you... "one injustice deserves another". It is clear that we are on opposite sides of the fence as far as our views on justice go. You come here from a retributive stand point, where as my views are aligned with restorative justice. How about we just leave it at that. Personal attacks are childish and unwarranted.
I don't understand why you insist on attacking me, when I come here from a place of learning and friendship, and I have no need for your ridiculous advice or misguided insight into who I am as a person. The noise you create here is just that. Something I read this morning actually made me think of you & this is my parting advice to you...
Only speak if what you say is more beautiful than silence.
(Please excuse my language Jeremy)
“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
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
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
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.
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,