Golson v. Narvaez et al, No. 3:2018cv01966 - Document 76 (N.D. Cal. 2023)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' 72 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; ORDER REFERRING THE ACTION FOR SETTLEMENT; ORDER STAYING ACTION. This matter is referred to the Honorable Robert Illman for purposes of settlement of the remaining excessive force claims against Narvaez, Alvarado, Akins, and Aranda. The parties will be advised of the date, time and place of the next appearance by notice from Judge Illman. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 12/1/2023. (jmd, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/1/2023)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JAMAR BRANDON GOLSON, Plaintiff, 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 Case No. 18-cv-01966-WHO (PR) v. J. NARVAEZ, et al., Defendants. ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; ORDER REFERRING THE ACTION FOR SETTLEMENT; ORDER STAYING ACTION Dkt. No. 72 14 15 INTRODUCTION 16 Plaintiff Jamar Brandon Golson alleges in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action that Salinas 17 Valley State Prison correctional officers used excessive force against him and that medical 18 staff were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs, thereby violating his Eighth 19 Amendment rights. Defendants move for summary judgment on grounds that Golson did 20 not exhaust his administrative remedies against medical staff, and on grounds that the 21 correctional officers used force in a good-faith effort to restore and maintain discipline. 22 Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED regarding the claims 23 against medical staff and DENIED regarding the claims against the correctional officers. 24 Defendants have shown that Golson failed to exhaust his administrative remedies against 25 medical staff, and Golson has not shown a genuine dispute of material fact on this issue. 26 However, he has shown a genuine dispute of material fact that defendant correctional 27 officers used excessive force. According to him, after finding possible contraband, a 28 prison guard slammed him against a wall and jumped on top of him, along with other 1 officers, which was excessive under the circumstances. Defendants have a different story, 2 creating the material dispute. The matter is REFERRED to the Honorable Judge Illman for settlement of the 3 4 excessive force claims. BACKGROUND 5 Golson is a California state prisoner who was housed at Salinas Valley State Prison United States District Court Northern District of California 6 7 when the events giving rise to this suit occurred. 8 i. Excessive Force Claim 9 Golson alleges that on April 23, 2017 he was at an x-ray screening with defendant J. 10 Narvaez, a correctional officer. (Am. Compl., Dkt. No. 49-1 at 5-6.) Narvaez conducted a 11 clothed pat-down search of Golson. (Id. at 6.) As Golson put out his hands for an 12 additional search, he removed a candy bar from his shirt pocket and placed it in front of 13 him. (Id.) Narvaez asked him, “What did you throw?” and grabbed Golson’s “penis 14 genital area” causing him “unb[e]arable pain.” (Id. at 6-7.) Golson grabbed Narvaez’s 15 hand to remove it and stop the pain. (Id. at 7.) Narvaez let go and then “slammed” him 16 against the wall, causing him to fall to the ground, whereupon Narvaez jumped on top of 17 Golson, which caused his shoulder to separate. (Id.) Other correctional officers — 18 defendants Alvarado, Akins, and Aranda — arrived on the scene and then also jumped on 19 top of him, which caused the pain to worsen. (Id. at 8.) Narvaez threatened to cause more 20 pain and encouraged other defendants to do the same. (Id. at 9.) Golson later received 21 medical treatment for his injuries. (Id. at 10.) 22 Defendants offer a different version of events. Narvaez and Alvarado were 23 assigned as visiting room officers to the x-ray examination room on April 23, 2017. 24 (Defs.’ Mot. for Summ. J. (MSJ), Dkt. No. 72 at 10-11.) Their duties included providing 25 security, searching prisoners for contraband, and putting prisoners through a low-dose x- 26 ray machine. (Id. at 11.) When Golson’s x-ray scan showed that he had a foreign object in 27 the front pocket of his shirt, Narvaez directed him to prepare for a clothed-body search, 28 which he did. (Id. at 12.) After feeling a hard object in the shirt pocket during the search, 2 United States District Court Northern District of California 1 Narvaez asked Golson what it was. (Id.) He said it was a candy bar and reached for it. 2 Narvaez said he would take it, but then Golson pinned Narvaez’s hands and arms under his 3 own. (Id.) He ordered Golson to stop resisting and get on the floor, but he “ducked down 4 and lunged forward” towards the wall, in what was a likely “an attempt to break free from 5 Narvaez,” and kicked backwards with his right foot, striking Narvaez’s knee. (Id.) 6 Another officer, defendant Alvarado-Solorio, who had seen “most of this,” 7 activated her alarm, and arrived about ten seconds later. (Id. at 13.) Officer Akins, who 8 was 100 feet away in another office, responded and arrived a few seconds after the alarm 9 sounded. (Id.) Narvaez, following his training and experience on best practices, put 10 Golson on the ground and got on top of him. (Id.) He saw Golson reach under his body 11 with his right hand, which led Narvaez to think he was reaching for contraband or a 12 weapon, which necessitated having to cuff him. (Id.) Golson testified at his deposition 13 that this was the moment when his shoulder separated. (Id.) 14 Golson then threw his right elbow back, whereupon Narvaez temporarily secured 15 Golson’s right arm. (Id.) He then saw Golson attempt to use his left hand to reach under 16 his body. (Id.) Alvarado-Solorio then secured Golson’s legs by placing her knees and 17 hands over them to prevent him from kicking. (Id.) Officer Akins arrived to see Narvaez 18 on Golson’s back, telling him to stop resisting and to put his hands behind his back. (Id. at 19 14.) Akins also saw that Golson had his hands under his body, near his waist. (Id.) He 20 secured Golson’s right arm, and pulled it behind his back. (Id.) 21 Golson continued to resist and in fact tried to get back on his feet, while Narvaez 22 continued to tell him to stop resisting. (Id.) At this time Aranda arrived, but before he 23 entered the room, he heard staff yelling “stop resisting.” (Id.) When he entered the room, 24 he saw Narvaez and Akins attempting to put him into a handcuffing position while they 25 were on top of the face-down Golson. (Id.) Aranda saw that Akins had Golson’s right arm 26 behind his back and under control, and that Narvaez was attempting to pull Golson’s left 27 arm from underneath Golson’s waist area. (Id.) Aranda observed that Golson was 28 resisting and was in fact attempting to get off the floor. (Id.) 3 Narvaez then got control of Golson’s left arm and placed it behind his back. (Id.) 1 2 Aranda handcuffed Golson while placing his left knee on his right shoulder to keep him on 3 the floor. (Id.) Narvaez states that he did not “inappropriately touch Golson during the 4 incident, nor did he use force until after Golson did not comply with orders to get down 5 and started becoming combative.” (Id.) Two candy bars belonging to Golson were found. (Id.) Both tested positive for United States District Court Northern District of California 6 7 heroin and were therefore contraband. (Id.) Golson pleaded no contest in the Monterey 8 County Superior Court to state criminal charges of possessing a controlled substance and 9 delaying a peace officer. (Id.) Golson admitted at his deposition that he possessed a 10 controlled substance and delayed peace officers. (Id.) 11 ii. 12 Medical Care Claim Golson alleges that doctors at Salinas Valley State Prison were deliberately 13 indifferent to his serious medical needs when they denied his request to be seen by an 14 orthopedic specialist and when they refused to renew his pain medication prescription. 15 The defendants are Erguiza, a nurse practitioner; Dr. D. Bright, Chief Physician and 16 Surgeon at Salinas Valley; and Dr. K. Kumar, Chief Medical Executive at Salinas Valley. 17 a. 18 According to Golson, on the same day that the above incident occurred he was sent 19 to an outside hospital for treatment for his shoulder injury. (Am. Compl., Dkt. No. 49-1 at 20 13.) When he returned to the prison, Erguiza referred Golson to an orthopedic specialist in 21 response to a recommendation from a doctor who treated Golson at the hospital. (Id. at 22 14.) He also gave Golson a five-day prescription for acetaminophen with codeine 23 phosphate as pain treatment. (Id.) Golson alleges that defendants Drs. K. Kumar and D. 24 Bright denied Erguiza’s April 26 and June 22 specialist referrals, thereby violating his 25 Eighth Amendment rights. (Id.) He also alleges that Kumar, Bright, and Erguiza for a 26 month denied his requests to have his medication prescription renewed. (Id. at 16.) 27 28 Medical Care Defendants present a different version of events. On April 23 Golson was sent to Navidad Medical Center at Erguiza’s request, where he was x-rayed and determined to 4 1 have an AC separation. (MSJ, Dkt. No. 72 at 15.) On April 26, Erguiza submitted a 2 request to prison authorities on Golson’s behalf for a referral to an orthopedic specialist. 3 (Id.) On May 30, he sent Golson for a second x-ray because Golson stated that he 4 continued to have pain. (Id. at 16.) On July 2 Erguiza submitted a request on Golson’s 5 behalf for physical therapy. (Id.) Defendants assert Erguiza could submit a request but 6 had no authority to grant one. (Id. at 15-16.) Golson submitted two health care appeals 7 related to his shoulder. (Id. at 16.) Erguiza interviewed Golson as part of the appeal 8 process. (Id.) United States District Court Northern District of California 9 On May 16 Bright denied the April 26 referral request. (Id. at 17.) He determined 10 that an orthopedic consult and surgery were not necessary because Golson’s x-rays showed 11 only a mild grade separation. (Id.) Bright denied the June 22 request on June 26. (Id.) 12 Golson’s second round of x-rays showed a moderate separation, which was an upgrade in 13 seriousness from the prior diagnosis, but an orthopedic consult was still not medically 14 necessary. (Id.) In Bright’s medical opinion a “moderate separation is initially treated 15 non-operatively and consisted of rest, ice, immobilization, and analgesics, and the initial 16 treatment can take up to twelve weeks before a patient can return to normal activity.” (Id.) 17 Bright also reviewed and denied Golson’s medical care appeals. (Id.) 18 Kumar was involved only as a second-level grievance reviewer — it is not her 19 responsibility to approve or deny referral requests unless Bright is out. (Id. at 18.) As a 20 second-level reviewer Kumar did not make a medical decision to grant or deny; rather she 21 reviewed the medical evidence, determined what medical guidelines were appropriate, 22 whether there was any missing information or inconsistency, and whether an approval or 23 denial was consistent with the guidelines. (Id.) She concluded that the denial of the 24 referral was consistent with medical guidelines for treating Golson’s Grade 3 left AC 25 separation. (Id.) 26 b. 27 Golson filed only two medical grievances related to his shoulder injury. In the first, 28 Exhaustion SVSP HC 17057516, he asked for renewal of his pain medication prescription. (MSJ, 5 1 Gates Decl., Dkt. No. 72-2 ¶ 9.). In the second, SVSP HC 17057939, he asked to see a 2 specialist, for additional pain medication, and for a for a waist chain chronology. (Id.) 3 Bright and Kumar are never mentioned nor are their actions described in either grievance. 4 Erguiza is mentioned in the first, but Golson says only that she confirmed that his 5 prescription had expired. (Id., 602 Grievance Form, Dkt. No. 72-2 at 12.) He does 6 complain about Erguiza in his June 2 response to the denial of his first grievance at the 7 first level. (Id. at 13.) Because this complaint about Erguiza does not appear in the initial 8 grievance, it cannot serve to satisfy the exhaustion requirement. United States District Court Northern District of California 9 STANDARD OF REVIEW 10 Summary judgment is proper where the pleadings, discovery and affidavits 11 demonstrate that there is “no genuine dispute as to any material fact and [that] the movant 12 is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Material facts are those 13 which may affect the outcome of the case. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 14 248 (1986). A dispute as to a material fact is genuine if there is sufficient evidence for a 15 reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Id. 16 The party moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden of identifying 17 those portions of the pleadings, discovery and affidavits which demonstrate the absence of 18 a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). 19 Where the moving party will have the burden of proof on an issue at trial, it must 20 affirmatively demonstrate that no reasonable trier of fact could find other than for the 21 moving party. On an issue for which the opposing party by contrast will have the burden 22 of proof at trial, as is the case here, the moving party need only point out “that there is an 23 absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case.” Id. at 325. 24 Once the moving party meets its initial burden, the nonmoving party must go 25 beyond the pleadings and, by its own affidavits or discovery, set forth specific facts 26 showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The Court is 27 concerned only with disputes over material facts and “[f]actual disputes that are irrelevant 28 or unnecessary will not be counted.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. It is not the task of the 6 1 court to scour the record in search of a genuine issue of triable fact. Keenan v. Allan, 91 2 F.3d 1275, 1279 (9th Cir. 1996). The nonmoving party has the burden of identifying, with 3 reasonable particularity, the evidence that precludes summary judgment. Id. If the 4 nonmoving party fails to make this showing, “the moving party is entitled to a judgment as 5 a matter of law.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323 (internal quotations omitted). DISCUSSION 6 7 8 United States District Court Northern District of California 9 i. Exhaustion of Medical Care Claims The Prison Litigation Reform Act provides that “[n]o action shall be brought with respect to prison conditions under [42 U.S.C. 1983], or any other Federal law, by a 10 prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility until such administrative 11 remedies as are available are exhausted.” 42 U.S.C. 1997e(a). Compliance with the 12 exhaustion requirement is “mandatory,” Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 524 (2002), and is 13 “no longer left to the discretion of the district court,” Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 84 14 (2006). Exhaustion can be excused only if the administrative process is unavailable or not 15 capable of use. Ross v. Blake, 578 U.S. 632, 642-644 (2016) (“aside from that exception, 16 the PLRA’s text suggests no limits on an inmate’s obligation to exhaust—irrespective of 17 any ‘special circumstances.’”). To exhaust administrative remedies properly, inmates must 18 comply with the applicable procedural rules because administrative exhaustion is governed 19 by the prison grievance process itself, not by the PLRA. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 218 20 (2007). A grievant must use “all the steps the agency holds out” and must do so 21 “properly.” Woodford, 548 U.S. at 90 (citation omitted). 22 Under the California regulations that applied at the time the incidents at issue in this 23 action occurred, a grievant may “appeal any policy, decision, action, condition, or 24 omission by the department or its staff that the inmate or parolee can demonstrate as 25 having a material adverse effect upon his or her health, safety, or welfare.” 15 Cal. Code 26 Regs. § 3084.1(a). The appeal must “describe the specific issue under appeal and the relief 27 requested,” id. § 3084.2(a), and it must list all staff member(s) involved and shall describe 28 their involvement in the issue, id. § 3084.2(a)(3). To exhaust an appeal, a grievant must 7 1 pursue his appeal through three levels of administrative review, and an appeal is not 2 exhausted until an inmate receives a decision from the third level of review. Id. §§ 3084.7; 3 3084.1(b). Defendants Erguiza, Bright, and Kumar have presented evidence that plaintiff did United States District Court Northern District of California 4 5 not administratively exhaust his claims against them. He filed two medical grievances 6 related to his shoulder injury. In the first, SVSP HC 17057516, he asked to have his pain 7 medication prescription renewed. (MSJ, 602 Grievance, Dkt. No. 72-2 at 12.) He 8 submitted it on the same day he ran out of his medication (May 4, 2017). (Id.) He does 9 not mention Kumar or Bright. He does refer to Erguiza in the original 602 grievance, but 10 only to say that she confirmed that his prescription had expired.1 (Id.) Also, because the 11 appeal was submitted on the day his medication ran out, he cannot have been grieving any 12 delay in receiving a renewal. In the second, SVSP HC 17057939, Golson asks to see a specialist and to receive 13 14 medication for his shoulder injury. (MSJ, 602 Grievance, Dkt. No. 72-2 at 22, 24.) He 15 does not mention Erguiza, Bright, or Kumar. He says only that on “7-6-17 I was informed 16 by the doctor that his request of me seeing a specialist was denied.” (Id. at 22.) This 17 cannot be construed as grieving that (or any) specific person’s action. Rather, he merely 18 states that he was informed by the (unnamed) requesting doctor that the referral was 19 denied. Against the evidence presented by defendants, Golson asserts in a conclusory 20 fashion that he exhausted his administrative remedies. (Opp., Dkt. No. 74 at 4.) Golson did not exhaust his administrative remedies. It is undisputed that the initial 21 22 grievances fail to complain of the actions of Erguiza, Bright, or Kumar, or even to mention 23 them in connection with insufficient medical treatment. Because the grievance fails to list 24 all staff members involved and describe their involvement in the issue, it fails to satisfy the 25 prison’s exhaustion requirement under 15 Cal. Code Regs. § 3084.2(a)(3). Golson’s 26 27 28 1 Golson raises a complaint about Erguiza in his June 2 response to the denial of his grievance at the first level. (MSJ, Dkt. No. 72-2 at 13.) Because this complaint does not appear in the original grievance, it cannot serve to satisfy the exhaustion requirement. 8 1 conclusory allegation that he exhausted does not create a genuine issue of material fact. 2 Also, he has made no allegation or offered any evidence that the exhaustion process was 3 unavailable or not capable of use. Nor can he — he used the process. On this record, he 4 has offered no evidence that he exhausted his administrative remedies before bringing this 5 civil rights action, and he offers no reason that the exhaustion requirement should be 6 excused. He has not shown evidence that precludes summary judgment. Accordingly, 7 defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED in favor of Erguiza, Bright, and 8 Kumar. 9 ii. United States District Court Northern District of California 10 Excessive Force Claims When prison officials stand accused of using excessive force in violation of the 11 Eighth Amendment, the core judicial inquiry is whether force was applied in a good-faith 12 effort to maintain or restore discipline, or maliciously and sadistically to cause harm. 13 Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6-7 (1992); Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 320-21 14 (1986); Jeffers v. Gomez, 267 F.3d 895, 912-13 (9th Cir. 2001) (applying “malicious and 15 sadistic” standard to claim that prison guards used excessive force when attempting to 16 quell a prison riot, but applying “deliberate indifference” standard to claim that guards 17 failed to act on rumors of violence to prevent the riot). In determining whether the use of 18 force was for the purpose of maintaining or restoring discipline, or for the malicious and 19 sadistic purpose of causing harm, a court may evaluate the need for application of force, 20 the relationship between that need and the amount of force used, the extent of any injury 21 inflicted, the threat reasonably perceived by the responsible officials, and any efforts made 22 to temper the severity of a forceful response. Hudson, 503 U.S. at 7. 23 Golson asserts that defendants used excessive force in violation of the Eighth 24 Amendment. He states that after Narvaez asked him, “What did you throw?” Narvaez 25 grabbed Golson’s genitals, causing great pain. Golson then grabbed Narvaez hand to 26 remove it. Narvaez let go, slammed him against the wall, and jumped on top of him. 27 When other officers arrived, they also jumped on him, causing pain. 28 Defendants offer a different version of events. Narvaez asserts that after he found 9 1 suspected contraband, he attempted to restrain Golson, who strenuously resisted, kicked 2 Narvaez’s knee, and attempted to break free. United States District Court Northern District of California 3 I am presented with two diametrically opposed sets of facts, the differences between 4 which directly relate to whether the force used against Golson was a constitutional 5 violation. If Golson’s version of facts is true, defendants applied force to cause harm, not 6 to restore order. According to Golson, Narvaez threw Golson against a wall and jumped 7 on top of him in response to Golson trying to remove Narvaez’s hand from his genitals. 8 According to Golson, the other officers joined in the excessive force. If defendants’ 9 version of facts is true, they applied force in a good-faith effort to maintain or restore 10 discipline in the face of a resisting Golson. Golson has shown a triable issue of material 11 fact against defendants. To this extent, defendants’ motion for summary judgment is 12 DENIED. 13 Defendants contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity. (MSJ, Dkt. No. 72 14 at 29.) The defense of qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for 15 civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or 16 constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. 17 Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). To determine whether an official is entitled to 18 qualified immunity, the court must decide whether the facts alleged show that the official’s 19 conduct violated a constitutional right; and, if so, whether it would be clear to a reasonable 20 officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted. See Saucier v. Katz, 21 533 U.S. 194, 201-02 (2001); see also Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) 22 (overruling Saucier’s requirement that qualified immunity analysis proceed in a particular 23 sequence). “[I]f no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations 24 established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.” 25 Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201. 26 Regarding the first prong, the threshold question must be: Taken in the light most 27 favorable to the party asserting the injury, do the facts alleged show the officer’s conduct 28 violated a constitutional right? Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201; see Martin v. City of Oceanside, 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 1 360 F.3d 1078, 1082 (9th Cir. 2004) (in performing the initial inquiry, court is obligated to 2 accept plaintiff’s facts as alleged, but not necessarily his application of law to the facts; the 3 issue is not whether a claim is stated for a violation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights, but 4 rather whether the defendants actually violated a constitutional right) (emphasis in 5 original). “If no constitutional right would have been violated were the allegations 6 established, there is no necessity for further inquiries concerning qualified immunity.” 7 Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201. 8 Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. When the facts are seen in the 9 light most favorable to Golson, they show that defendants violated a constitutional right. 10 According to Golson, Narvaez, in response to finding contraband, touched Golson’s 11 genitals and then after Golson attempted to remove his hand, threw him against a wall and 12 jumped on top of him. Furthermore, it would have been clear to a reasonable officer that 13 his conduct of touching Golson’s genitals, throwing him against a wall, and then jumping 14 on top of him would be unlawful when confronting the situation of Golson having a 15 contraband candy bar in his possession. It also would have been clear to a reasonable 16 officer that piling on top of a face down inmate when another officer already is on top of 17 him would be unlawful. CONCLUSION 18 19 Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED in part and DENIED in 20 part. The motion is GRANTED as the claims against medical staff (Erguiza, Bright, and 21 Kumar) and DENIED as to the claims against the correctional officers (Narvaez, Alvarado, 22 Akins, and Aranda). 23 Pursuant to Local Rule 72-1, this matter is referred to the Honorable Robert Illman 24 for purposes of settlement of the remaining excessive force claims against Narvaez, 25 Alvarado, Akins, and Aranda. The parties will be advised of the date, time and place of 26 the next appearance by notice from Judge Illman. 27 28 Plaintiff must attend all conferences scheduled by Judge Illman. Failure to attend even one conference, or a failure to comply with Judge Illman’s instructions and orders in 11 1 every respect, may result in the dismissal of this action with prejudice pursuant to Federal 2 Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. 3 4 5 6 The Clerk shall forward a copy of this order to all parties and to Judge Illman, and terminate all pending motions. This action is STAYED until further order of this Court. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 1, 2023 _________________________ WILLIAM H. ORRICK United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 12
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
