Clark #222915 v. Lindemuth et al, No. 2:2012cv00159 - Document 6 (W.D. Mich. 2012)
Court Description: OPINION ; signed by Judge R. Allan Edgar (Judge R. Allan Edgar, cam)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION AARON CLARK, Plaintiff, Case No. 2:12-cv-159 v. Honorable R. Allan Edgar T. LINDEMUTH, et al., Defendants. ____________________________________/ OPINION This is a civil rights action brought by a state prisoner pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court has granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis without payment of an initial partial filing fee. Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, PUB. L. NO. 104-134, 110 STAT. 1321 (1996), the Court is required to dismiss any prisoner action brought under federal law if the complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A; 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c). The Court must read Plaintiff s pro se complaint indulgently, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), and accept Plaintiff s allegations as true, unless they are clearly irrational or wholly incredible. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992). Applying these standards, Plaintiff s action will be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Factual Allegations Plaintiff Aaron Clark, an inmate currently confined at the Baraga Maximum Correctional Facility (AMF), filed this prisoner civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against 160 employees of the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC). Plaintiff s complaint is written in an incomprehensible stream-of-consciousness fashion, with a paucity of factual development. Plaintiff s complaint concerns his treatment by prison employees while he was confined at the Alger Maximum Correctional Facility (LMF). Plaintiff recites a litany of grievances against prison employees at LMF, but fails to flesh out any of his claims. Instead, Plaintiff appears to be asserting that every prison employee who came into contact with him at LMF from March 18, 2010, until the time he filed this complaint, have violated his rights in one form or another. Plaintiff seeks to be transferred to the Oaks Correctional Facility and seeks damages from each of the named Defendants in the amount of 25,000 in compensatory damages, $50,000 in punitive damages, and $1,000 in nominal damages. Discussion I. Failure to state a claim A complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it fails to give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)). While a complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff s allegations must include more than labels and conclusions. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555; Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) ( Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice. ). The court must determine whether the complaint contains enough -2- facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. Although the plausibility standard is not equivalent to a probability requirement, . . . it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). [W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged but it has not show[n] that the pleader is entitled to relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (quoting FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2)); see also Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470-71 (6th Cir. 2010) (holding that the Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard applies to dismissals of prisoner cases on initial review under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1) and 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)). To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the federal Constitution or laws and must show that the deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Dominguez v. Corr. Med. Servs., 555 F.3d 543, 549 (6th Cir. 2009). Because § 1983 is a method for vindicating federal rights, not a source of substantive rights itself, the first step in an action under § 1983 is to identify the specific constitutional right allegedly infringed. Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 271 (1994). Plaintiff appears to be asserting that Defendants failed to protect him in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff claims that on March 18, 2010, he refused to go into the general population at LMF because of the fact that he had been threatened by many prisoners in the past and present. Plaintiff states that he repeatedly requested a transfer to protective custody at the Oaks -3- Correctional Facility, but that Defendants refused, stating that he could be transferred to a level V prison instead. Plaintiff also claims that numerous prison officials have labeled him a rat. Inmates have a constitutionally protected right to personal safety grounded in the Eighth Amendment. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833 (1994). Thus, prison staff are obliged to take reasonable measures to guarantee the safety of the inmates in their care. Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 526-27 (1984). To establish a violation of this right, Plaintiff must show that Defendant was deliberately indifferent to the Plaintiff s risk of injury. Walker v. Norris, 917 F.2d 1449, 1453 (6th Cir.1990); McGhee v. Foltz, 852 F.2d 876, 880-881 (6th Cir.1988). While a prisoner does not need to prove that he has been the victim of an actual attack to bring a personal safety claim, he must at least establish that he reasonably fears such an attack. Thompson v. County of Medina, Ohio, 29 F.3d 238, 242-43 (6th Cir.1994) (holding that plaintiff has the minimal burden of showing a sufficient inferential connection between the alleged violation and inmate violence to justify a reasonable fear for personal safety. ) Plaintiff fails to allege any specific facts showing that he was ever in any danger of being assaulted or that Defendants ignored a specific threat to Plaintiff s safety. Plaintiff states in a conclusory fashion that he was attacked and called a rat by inmates, but Plaintiff fails to allege the nature of any such attack, including whether it was verbal or physical, the specific date of any attack, and whether Plaintiff suffered any injuries as a result. None of the assertions in Plaintiff s complaint show that he was under any imminent threat of physical attack by prisoners at LMF. The court concludes that Plaintiff s allegations are insufficient to show that Plaintiff s fear of an attack was reasonable. Therefore, Plaintiff s failure to protect claims are properly dismissed. -4- Plaintiff also claims that the totality of the conditions of his confinement violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff makes conclusory assertions that he was harassed, deprived of hygiene items, that his dinnertime trays were taken out of spite, that he was given bedding which was stained and dirty, that his writing materials were taken, that he was denied recreation opportunities and that his plumbing was defective. The court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to allege that Defendants have subjected him to an objectively serious deprivation. As the Supreme Court has observed, extreme deprivations are required to make out a conditions-of-confinement claim. Hudson, 503 U.S. at 9. Plaintiff s allegations are wholly conclusory and allege no harm caused or aggravated by the conditions. As a result, Plaintiff s allegations create no inference of a serious risk to inmate health or safety. Moreover, absent physical injury, a Plaintiff s claim for emotional injuries is barred by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e), which precludes any claim by a prisoner for mental or emotional injury suffered while in custody without a prior showing of physical injury. Id. See also Hardin-Bey v. Rutter, 524 F.3d 789, 795-96 (6th Cir. 2008); Taylor v. United States, 161 F. App x 483, 486-87 (6th Cir. 2007); Jarriett v. Wilson, 162 F. App x 394, 400 (6th Cir. 2005); Oliver v. Sundquist, No. 006372, 2001 WL 669994, at *1 (6th Cir. June 7, 2001); Siller v. Dean, No. 99-5323, 2000 WL 145167, at *2 (6th Cir. Feb. 1, 2000). Plaintiff alleges no physical injury. As a consequence, his claim for emotional damages is barred. Furthermore, Plaintiff has been transferred out of LMF and is now incarcerated at AMF in Baraga, Michigan. Therefore he is no longer under the control or custody of the named Defendants. In unreported opinions, the Sixth Circuit has repeatedly held that transfer to another prison facility moots prisoner injunctive and declaratory claims. See for example, Mowatt v. Brown, -5- No. 89-1955, 1990 WL 59896 (6th Cir. May 9, 1990); Tate v. Brown, No. 89-1944, 1990 WL 58403 (6th Cir. May 3, 1990); Howard v. Heffron, No. 89-1195, 1989 WL 107732 (6th Cir. September 20, 1989); see also Williams v. Ellington, 936 F.2d 881 (6th Cir. 1991). These Sixth Circuit opinions contain only brief explanation of the reasoning supporting this rule. Underlying the rule is the premise that injunctive relief is appropriate only where a plaintiff can show a reasonable expectation or demonstrated probability that he is in immediate danger of sustaining direct future injury as the result of the challenged official conduct. Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983). Past exposure to an isolated incident of illegal conduct does not, by itself, sufficiently prove that the plaintiff will be subjected to the illegal conduct again. For example see Lyons, 461 U.S. at 102; Alvarez v. City of Chicago, 649 F. Supp. 43 (N.D. Ill. 1986); Bruscino v. Carlson, 654 F. Supp. 609, 614, 618 (S.D. Ill. 1987), aff'd, 854 F.2d 162 (7th Cir. 1988). See also O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 495-496 (1974). A court should assume that, absent an official policy or practice urging unconstitutional behavior, individual government officials will act constitutionally. Lyon, 461 U.S. at 102; O'Shea, 414 U.S. at 495-496. In the present action, the possibility that Plaintiff will be subjected to the same alleged unconstitutional activity is too speculative to warrant injunctive relief. There has been no showing of a reasonable expectation nor a demonstrated probability that plaintiff will be returned to Kinross Correctional Facility and be subjected to these allegedly unconstitutional conditions by the same defendants. Thus, there is no evidence of immediate danger of injury. Accordingly, Plaintiff s claims for injunctive relief are properly dismissed. Plaintiff also claims that he was denied impartial misconduct hearings in violation of his right to due process. A prisoner s ability to challenge a prison misconduct conviction depends -6- on whether the convictions implicated any liberty interest. In the seminal case in this area, Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974), the Court prescribed certain minimal procedural safeguards that prison officials must follow before depriving a prisoner of good-time credits on account of alleged misbehavior. The Wolff Court did not create a free-floating right to process that attaches to all prison disciplinary proceedings; rather the right to process arises only when the prisoner faces a loss of liberty, in the form of a longer prison sentence caused by forfeiture of good-time credits: It is true that the Constitution itself does not guarantee good-time credit for satisfactory behavior while in prison. But here the State itself has not only provided a statutory right to good time but also specifies that it is to be forfeited only for serious misbehavior. Nebraska may have the authority to create, or not, a right to a shortened prison sentence through the accumulation of credits for good behavior, and it is true that the Due Process Clause does not require a hearing in every conceivable case of government impairment of private interest. But the State having created the right to good time and itself recognizing that its deprivation is a sanction authorized for major misconduct, the prisoner s interest has real substance and is sufficiently embraced within Fourteenth Amendment liberty to entitle him to those minimum procedures appropriate under the circumstances and required by the Due Process Clause to insure that the state-created right is not arbitrarily abrogated. Wolff, 418 U.S. at 557 (citations omitted). Plaintiff does not allege that his major misconduct convictions resulted in any loss of good-time credits, nor could he. The Sixth Circuit has examined Michigan statutory law, as it relates to the creation and forfeiture of disciplinary credits1 for prisoners convicted for crimes occurring after April 1, 1987. In Thomas v. Eby, 481 F.3d 434 (6th Cir. 2007), the court determined that loss of disciplinary credits does not necessarily affect the duration of a prisoner s sentence. 1 For crimes committed after April 1, 1987, Michigan prisoners earn disciplinary credits under a statute that abolished the former good-time system. MICH. COMP. LAWS § 800.33(5). -7- Rather, it merely affects parole eligibility, which remains discretionary with the parole board. 481 F.3d at 440. Building on this ruling, in Nali v. Ekman, 355 F. App x 909 (6th Cir. 2009), the court held that a misconduct citation in the Michigan prison system does not affect a prisoner s constitutionally protected liberty interests, because it does not necessarily affect the length of confinement. 355 F. App x at 912; accord, Wilson v. Rapelje, No. 09-13030, 2010 WL 5491196, at * 4 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 24, 2010) (Report & Recommendation) (holding that plaintiff s disciplinary hearing and major misconduct sanction does not implicate the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause ), adopted as judgment of court, 2011 WL 5491196 (Jan. 4, 2011). In the absence of a demonstrated liberty interest, Plaintiff has no due-process claim based on the loss of disciplinary credits. See Bell v. Anderson, 301 F. App x 459, 461-62 (6th Cir. 2008). Even in the absence of a protectible liberty interest in disciplinary credits, a prisoner may be able to raise a due-process challenge to prison misconduct convictions that result in a significant, atypical deprivation. See Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472 (1995). Plaintiff has not identified any significant deprivation arising from his misconduct conviction. At various points in his complaint, Plaintiff states that he requested to be kept in segregation for his own protection. Plaintiff has failed to make any allegations which show that his segregation is atypical and significant. Unless a prison misconduct conviction results in an extension of the duration of a prisoner s sentence or some other atypical hardship, a due-process claim fails. Ingram v. Jewell, 94 F. App x 271, 273 (6th Cir. 2004). Plaintiff claims that Defendants retaliated against him for his use of the grievance system by failing to pick up kites for law books and other items, screening him at a higher security level than he should have been, giving him misconduct tickets, and harassing him in various ways. -8- Retaliation based upon a prisoner s exercise of his or her constitutional rights violates the Constitution. See Thaddeus-X v. Blatter, 175 F.3d 378, 394 (6th Cir. 1999) (en banc). In order to set forth a First Amendment retaliation claim, a plaintiff must establish that: (1) he was engaged in protected conduct; (2) an adverse action was taken against him that would deter a person of ordinary firmness from engaging in that conduct; and (3) the adverse action was motivated, at least in part, by the protected conduct. Thaddeus-X, 175 F.3d at 394. Moreover, a plaintiff must be able to prove that the exercise of the protected right was a substantial or motivating factor in the defendant s alleged retaliatory conduct. See Smith v. Campbell, 250 F.3d 1032, 1037 (6th Cir. 2001) (citing Mount Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 287 (1977)). Filing a grievance is constitutionally protected conduct under the First Amendment. See Smith v. Campbell, 250 F.3d 1032, 1037 (6th Cir. 2001); Noble v. Schmitt, 87 F.3d 157, 162 (6th Cir. 1996). Plaintiff, however, cannot show that Defendants alleged misconduct was an adverse action taken against him for filing grievances. Temporal proximity may be significant enough to constitute indirect evidence of a causal connection so as to create an inference of retaliatory motive. Muhammad v. Close, 379 F.3d 413, 417-18 (6th Cir. 2004) (quoting DiCarlo v. Potter, 358 F.3d 408, 422 (6th Cir. 2004)). However, [c]onclusory allegations of temporal proximity are not sufficient to show a retaliatory motive. Skinner v. Bolden, 89 F. App x 579, 580 (6th Cir. 2004). Moreover, Muhammad does not stand for the proposition that temporal proximity alone is sufficient to create an issue of fact as to retaliatory motive. In Muhammad the Sixth Circuit did not resolve the issue, but merely observed that temporal proximity alone may be significant enough to constitute indirect evidence of a causal connection so as to create -9- an inference of retaliatory motive. Id. at 418 (quoting DiCarlo v. Potter, 358 F.3d 408, 422 (6th Cir.2004) (emphasis added). Even if temporal proximity may in some cases create an issue of fact as to retaliatory motive, it would only be sufficient if the evidence was significant enough. Plaintiff s conclusory and ambiguous evidence is not significant enough to create an issue of fact as to retaliatory motive. Brandon v. Bergh, 2010 WL 188731, slip op. at 1 (W.D. Mich., Jan. 16, 2010). In this case, as in Brandon v. Bergh, Plaintiff s allegations of retaliatory motive are entirely conclusory. Therefore, Plaintiff s retaliation claims are properly dismissed. Plaintiff makes a conclusory assertion that he was discriminated against because of his race. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that a state may not deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, which is essentially a direction that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike. U.S. CONST., amend. XIV; City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985). Plaintiff in this case fails to allege any specific facts showing that he was treated differently from similarly situated individuals. Therefore, Plaintiff s equal protection claims are properly dismissed. Plaintiff claims that prison officials at LMF improperly seized property from his cell, including copies of old grievances and legal materials. Plaintiff also claims that he was denied access to the law library. In Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977), the Supreme Court recognized a prisoner s fundamental right of access to the courts. While the right of access to the courts does not allow a State to prevent an inmate from bringing a grievance to court, it also does not require the State to enable a prisoner to discover grievances or litigate effectively. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996). Thus, Bounds did not create an abstract, free-standing right to a law library, litigation tools, or legal assistance. Id. at 351 (1996). Further, the right may be limited by legitimate penological - 10 - goals, such as maintaining security and preventing fire or sanitation hazards. See Acord v. Brown, No. 91-1865, 1992 WL 58975 (6th Cir. March 26, 1992); Hadix v. Johnson, No. 86-1701, 1988 WL 24204 (6th Cir. March 17, 1988); Wagner v. Rees, No. 85-5637, 1985 WL 14025 (6th Cir. Nov. 8, 1985). To state a claim, an inmate must show that any shortcomings in the library, litigation tools, or legal assistance caused actual injury in his pursuit of a legal claim. Lewis, 518 U.S. at 351; Talley-Bey, 168 F.3d at 886; Kensu v. Haigh, 87 F.3d 172, 175 (6th Cir. 1996); Pilgrim v. Littlefield, 92 F.3d 413, 416 (6th Cir. 1996); Walker v. Mintzes, 771 F.2d 920, 932 (6th Cir. 1985). An inmate must make a specific claim that he was adversely affected or that the litigation was prejudiced. Vandiver v. Niemi, No. 94-1642, 1994 WL 677685, at *1 (6th Cir. Dec. 2, 1994). Particularly, an inmate cannot show injury when he still has access to his legal materials by request, Kensu, 87 F.3d at 175, when he fails to state how he is unable to replicate the confiscated documents, Vandiver, 1994 WL 677685, at *1, or when he could have received the material by complying with the limits on property, e.g., where he had the opportunity to select the items that he wanted to keep in his cell, or when he had an opportunity to purchase a new footlocker that could hold the property. Carlton v. Fassbender, No. 93-1116, 1993 WL 241459, at *2 (6th Cir. July 1, 1993). Because Plaintiff cannot show actual injury or that he has suffered any litigation-related detriment, Plaintiff fails to state a claim for denial of access to the courts. Nor does the alleged seizure of property from Plaintiff s cell violate the Due Process Clause. Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 (1981), overruled in part by Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (1986). Under Parratt, a person deprived of property by a random and unauthorized act of a state employee has no federal due process claim unless the state fails to afford an adequate post- 11 - deprivation remedy. If an adequate post-deprivation remedy exists, the deprivation, although real, is not without due process of law. Parratt, 451 U.S. at 537. This rule applies to both negligent and intentional deprivation of property, as long as the deprivation was not done pursuant to an established state procedure. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 530-36 (1984). Because Plaintiff s claim is premised upon allegedly unauthorized negligent acts of a state official, he must plead and prove the inadequacy of state post-deprivation remedies. See Copeland v. Machulis, 57 F.3d 476, 479-80 (6th Cir. 1995); Gibbs v. Hopkins, 10 F.3d 373, 378 (6th Cir. 1993). Under settled Sixth Circuit authority, a prisoner s failure to sustain this burden requires dismissal of his § 1983 due-process action. See Brooks v. Dutton, 751 F.2d 197 (6th Cir. 1985). Plaintiff has not sustained his burden in this case. Plaintiff has not alleged that state post-deprivation remedies are inadequate. Moreover, numerous state post-deprivation remedies are available to him. First, a prisoner who incurs a loss through no fault of his own may petition the institution s Prisoner Benefit Fund for compensation. MICH. DEP T OF CORR., Policy Directive 04.07.112, ¶ B (effective Nov. 15, 2004). Aggrieved prisoners may also submit claims for property loss of less than $1,000 to the State Administrative Board. MICH. COMP. LAWS § 600.6419; Policy Directive, 04.07.112, ¶ B. Alternatively, Michigan law authorizes actions in the Court of Claims asserting tort or contract claims against the state and any of its departments, commissions, boards, institutions, arms, or agencies. MICH. COMP. LAWS § 600.6419(1)(a). The Sixth Circuit specifically has held that Michigan provides adequate post-deprivation remedies for deprivation of property. See Copeland, 57 F.3d at 480. Plaintiff does not allege any reason why a state-court action would not afford him complete relief for the deprivation, either negligent or intentional, of his personal property. - 12 - Plaintiff appears to be asserting that the seizure of his mail violated his First Amendment rights to freely associate with others and to free speech. The First Amendment provides that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 1. While prisoners do retain their First Amendment rights upon incarceration, those rights must yield to the legitimate penological objectives of the corrections system, such as order, security, or rehabilitation. Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987); Bazzetta v. McGinnis, 124 F.3d 774, 780 (6th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 953 (1998). The court notes that Plaintiff s First Amendment claims are entirely conclusory. Plaintiff fails to specify the nature of any mail seized and how such a seizure affected his First Amendment rights. Therefore, the court will dismiss Plaintiff s First Amendment claims. To the extent that Plaintiff is claiming his state law rights were violated, the court will refuse to exercise pendent jurisdiction over such claims. Claims raising issues of state law are best left to determination by the state courts, particularly in the area of prison administration. In addition, pendent jurisdiction over state law claims cannot be exercised after all federal claims have been dismissed. United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 726-727 (1966); Smith v. Freland, 954 F.2d 343, 348 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 504 U.S. 915 (1992). - 13 - Conclusion Having conducted the review required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the Court determines that Plaintiff s action will be dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b), and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c). The Court must next decide whether an appeal of this action would be in good faith within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). See McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 611 (6th Cir. 1997). For the same reasons that the Court dismisses the action, the Court discerns no good-faith basis for an appeal. Should Plaintiff appeal this decision, the Court will assess the $455.00 appellate filing fee pursuant to § 1915(b)(1), see McGore, 114 F.3d at 610-11, unless Plaintiff is barred from proceeding in forma pauperis, e.g., by the three-strikes rule of § 1915(g). If he is barred, he will be required to pay the $455.00 appellate filing fee in one lump sum. This is a dismissal as described by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). A Judgment consistent with this Opinion will be entered. Dated: 10/19/2012 /s/ R. Allan Edgar R. Allan Edgar United States District Judge
]]>
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.
