De'lonta v. Johnson et al, No. 7:2011cv00257 - Document 26 (W.D. Va. 2011)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge James C. Turk on 10/28/2011. (kab)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
CLER : OFFI C:t/.*.DIS1' ,CQLIRI ATROANQKE,VA FILED 0CT 2 ! 2011 ' .' IN TH E U N ITED STATE S D ISTR IC T C O U R T FO R TH E W ESTER N D ISTR ICT O F VIR G IN IA R O A N O K E D IV ISIO N JULIA c). )'' 6 t-v,f zuzFk th t BY: O PH ELIA A ZR IEL DE 'L O N TA , Plaintiff, C ivilAction N o.7:11-cv-00257 V. M EM O R AN D UM O PIN IO N G ENE JO H N SO N ,etal., D efendants. By: DE tpn 'ct .qFtf <x ' H on.Jam es C.Turk Senior U nited States DistrictJudge Ophelia AzrielD e'lonta,a V irginia inm ate proceeding pro K ,tiled a civilrights . Complaintpursuantto42U.S.C.j 1983withjurisdictionvestedin28U.S.C.j 1343.Plaintiff nam esasdefendantsGeneJohnson,the fonnerDirectoroftheVirginia Departm entof Corrections(t$VDOC'');Fred Schilling,DirectoroftheVDOC'SHea1thServices;M eredithR. Cary,theVDOC'SChiefPsychiatrist;RobertL.Hulbert,theVDOC'SM entalHea1th Director; Gary L.Bass,theVDOC'SChiefofOperations;W .P.Rogers,the VDOC'SAssistantDeputy D irectorofO perations;G erald K .W ashington,a V D OC RegionalDirector;Eddie Pearson,the W ardenofPocahontasCorrectionalCenter(CTCC'');AnthonyScott,PCC'SChiefofSecurity; LarryEdmonds,W ardenofBuckingham CorrectionalCenter((çBCC'');M ajorC.Davis,BCC'S Chiefof Security;Lisa Lang,a BCC staffpsychologist;Toney,a B CC counselor;and Lou D ixon,the B CC'SRegistered N urse M anager. Plaintiffallegesthatthe defendants'm edical treatm entofherviolatestheEighth Amendmentand herplacem entin malecorrectionalfacilities violatesthe Fourteenth A m endm ent. This m atterisbefore the courtforscreening,pursuantto 28 De'lonta v. Johnson et al Doc. 26 U.S.C.j 1915A.Afterreviewingplaintiff'ssubmissions,thecourtdismissestheComplaint withoutprejudiceforpresently failingtostateaclaim uponwhichreliefmaybegranted. Dockets.Justia.com 1. Plaintiffpresents three claim s in her Com plaint:the defendants'deliberate indifference to her seriousm edicalneed violates the Eighth Am endm ent;one m issed dose ofhonnone therapy violatesthe Eighth A m endm ent;and the VD O C'Spolicy ofhousing m ale transsexualinm ates in malecorrectionalfacilitiesviolatestheFourteenthAmendment.Plaintiffrequestsinjunctive reliefto preventdefendantsfrom interferingwithm edicalprofessionalsand to makethem give herEsadequatem edicalcare.''Plaintiffalso requests$100,000 from each defendantand any other reliefto which shem ay beentitled. A. Plaintiff,bornasM ichaelA.Stokes,isdiagnosedwith genderidentitydisorder(;tGlD''). Thecnzx ofGID isafeeling ofbeingborn into the body ofthewrong sex;in plaintiffscase,she wasbornmalebutidentifiesasabeingapre-operative,transsexualfemale.(Compl.!21.) Plaintiffhassuffered from GlD formany years,causing ttconstantmentalanguish''and attempts tocastrateherself.(ld.!!24-25.) Plaintiff sprim ary caregiversw ithin the V D OC forherG ID are M eredith Carey,the VDOC ChiefPsychiatrist,andLisaLang,plaintiffsprimarytherapist.(Id.!!7,16.) The VDOC also contractswith adoctor,who isaGID specialist,to assistwith plaintiffstreatm ent. (J#=.!!31,36,37.) Partofhertreatmenthasbeentoreceivehonnonetreatmentsand(éregular psychologicalcounseling.''(ld.!!26,28,36.)Thehormonetreatmentscausedphysical changes,includingbreastdevelopment,decreasedbodyhair,andahigher-pitchedvoice.(J#=. !27.) Despiteacknowledgingthesetreatments,plaintiffallegesthatûsdefendantshave persistentlydenied (plaintiffjtreatment''and 'ûthefailuretoprovidemedicaltreatmenttoherwill lead to serious bodily harm ,untreated m entalillness,depression,self-m utilation,and suicide.'' (ld.!! 31-32.) PlaintiffarguesthattheStandardsofCare,publishedbytheHarryBenjaminInternational GenderDysphoriaAssociation(ésAssociation'),arethegenerallyacceptedtreatmentforGID. TheStandardsofCareestablishaCstriadictreatmentsequence''comprisedof(1)hormone therapy,(2)areal-lifeexperienceoflivingasamemberoftheoppositesex,andfinally(3)sex reassignmentsurgery.(Compl.!33.)HormonetherapyisCtoftenmedicallynecessary''for tdproperlyselectedadults''withGID.(ld.!34.) ttlnsomepatients,hormonetherapyalonemay providesufficientsymptomaticreliefto (ojbviatetheneedforcrosslivingorslzrgery.''(Id.) The Standards ofCare provide thatçsafteratleastone yearofreal-life experience, includinghormones,sexreassignmentsurgeryismedicallyindicatedin someindividuals.''(Id. !35.) Plaintiffnotesthatthesurgeryisnotexperimental,investigational,elective,cosmetic,or optionalbutisinsteadan effectiveandappropriateGID treatmentandaSttherapeuticregimenl) whenprescribedorrecommendedbyqualifiedpractitioners.''(ld.) PlaintiffhasreceivedtreatmentinaccordancewiththeStandardsofCaresince2004.(J#=. !37.) Plaintiffreceivedthehormonetreatmentsin2004andbegantheone-yeartsreal-life''test, albeitconfined in a correctionalfacility,by dressing and living asa w om an to the extent permittedby theVDOC.However,plaintiffbelievesthatshebecam eeligibleforsurgery after one yearofherûtreal-life''test. Plaintiffw ants to receive a m edicalevaluation forslzrgery,but Cary and Hubertallegedly are unw illing to give plaintiffinfonnation abouthertreatm entplan. PlaintiffsupportsthisallegationwiththelettersheallegedlywrotetoHubert.(ld.Ex.A-1.) ln this letterdated M ay 2010,plaintiffdescribeshow herfrustration to lem' n m ore abouther future 3 treatm entm akes herw antto castrate herself. She also notesthatthe treatm entshe has received forthepriorfiveyearstûproducledqgrowthandstability.''(ld.)Plaintiffconcludesthatthe defendants'apparentdecisiontonotyetevaluateherforsurgeryconstitutesthe(tdenigal)lotl adequatemedicalcare''andttplacedheratasubstantialriskofseriousmedicalhann.''(Compl. !40.) Plaintiffalsoconcludeswithoutsupportthattheresultsofhermedicaltreatmentarebased Sdon a choice m ade forpoliticalratherthan m edicalreasons''and are notbased on legitim ate penologicalconcerns.(Id.!43.)However,plaintiffacknowledgesin agrievancethatshehas recentlymutilatedherselfandhasurgestomutilateherselfagain.(ld.Ex.E.) Plaintiffalso attached a letterfrom Cary,w ho conoboratesthatplaintiffconsultsw ith Lang,receiveshormonetreatments,andreceivesvariousûsfeminizingarticles.''(Id.Ex.C.) Cary tinishestheletterby stating,çslsastly,in regardsto genderreassignm entsurgery,Iwould request thatyoucontinuetoworkwithM s.Langin individualtherapyatthistime.''(1d.) B. OnM arch 14,2011,LouDixondeniedplaintiffonedoseofhormonetherapy.(Ld=!65.) Plaintiffarguesthatm issing thisonedoseviolatedtheEighth Amendment'sprohibition ofcruel andunusualpunishment.(1d.!66.) Dixon respondedtotheaccusation inagrievanceby allegingthatplaintiffdid notpickuphermedicationatthescheduledtime.(Compl.Ex.G.) Plaintiffishoused in a m ale-correctionalfacility butw antsto be housed in a fem ale correctionalfacility. Plaintiffarguesthatthe VD O C'Spolicy ofhousing m aletranssexualsin a m ale facility constitutes discrim ination,in violation ofthe Fourteenth A m endm ent,on the bases ofsexanddisability.(ld.!53.) PlaintiffspeciouslyarguesthatStnon-transsexualinmatesare 4 placed in prisonsin accorda'nce w ith theiranatom icalsex and their gender. Transsexualinm ates, however,areplaced inaccordancewiththeiranatomicalsex,butnottheirgender.''(Id.!54.) Thispolicy,sheconcludes,islthighlyimpressionistic,''diprejudicial,''andbasedonStfearand misinfonnation.''(1d.! 55.) Plaintiffconcludesthattttranssexualsintransition''whoareliving as m em bersofthe opposite sex should be considered as the opposite sex;ttpre-operative m ale to femaletranssexualsshouldbetreatedaswomenandhousedaccordingly.''(Id.!57.) D. ln 1999,plaintifffiled a civilrightsaction aboutherG lD treatm entbecause ofa change inVDOC policy.De'Lontav.Anaelone,No.7:99-cv-00642(W .D.Va.Oct.7,2004).See UnitedStatesFidelitv& Guar.Co.v.Lawrenson,334 F.2d464,467 (4thCir.1964)(quoting Lowev.M cDonald,15Alaska510,221F.2d228,230-31(9th Cir.1955))(statingadistrictcourt maytakejudicialnoticeofrecordsofarelated,priorproceedingbetweenthesnmeparties).The policy change prohibited an inm ate from receiving m edicalor surgicalintervention to treatGID , and the V D O C leftplaintiffuntreated and atseriousrisk to continue m utilating herself. lndeed, once the V DO C prom ptly stopped the horm one therapy,plaintiffm utilated herm ale genitalia m ore than twenty tim es Over fouryears. Plaintiffunsuccessfully requested the V D OC staffto resum e horm one therapy, and she filed suitin 1999.1 Thatcivilaction ultim ately settled in 2004, and she resum ed herm edicaltreatm entas she describes in the instantCom plaint. lDuring those proceedings, thedefendantsinthecasefiledaPsychosexualEvaluation Reportofplaintiff,and the A ssociation filed anam icusbrief,by which thecourtbecamefam iliarwith theStandardsofCare. Sim ilarto plaintiff'sinstantdescription,theAssociationdescribedtheStandardsofCareaspsychiatricassessm ents,horm one therapy,real-lifeassessm entsand,whereappropriate,surgery;overall,itisalengthyprocess,even forsomeonenot incarcerated. I1. The courtm ustdism iss any action orclaim filed by an inm ate ifthe courtdeterm inesthat the action orclaim isfrivolousorfails to state a claim on w hich reliefm ay be granted. See 28 U.S.C.jj 1915(e)(2),1915A(b)(1);42U.S.C.j1997e(c).Thefirststandardincludesclaims based upon ttan indisputably m eritlesslegaltheoly ''Ctclaim sofinfringem entofa legalinterest which clearly doesnotexist,''orclaim s w here the ttfactualcontentionsare clearly baseless.'' Neitzkev.W illiams,490U.S.319,327(1989).Thesecond standardisthefnmiliarstandardfor amotiontodismissunderFederalRuleofCivilProcedurel2(b)(6),acceptingtheplaintiffs factualallegationsastrue. A com plaintneedsç$a shortand plain statem entofthe claim show ing thatthepleaderisentitledtorelief'and sufficientdtgflactualallegations...toraisearightto reliefabovethespeculativelevel....''BellAtl.Corp.v.Twomblv,550U.S.544,555(2007) (internalquotationmarksomitted).A plaintiffsbasisforreliefCirequiresmorethanlabelsand conclusions ....'' ld. Therefore,a plaintiffm usttdallege facts sufficientto state allthe elem ents of(the)claim.''Bassv.E.I.DupontdeNemours& Co.,324F.3d761,765(4thCir.2003). H ow ever,determ ining w hethera com plaintstates a plausible claim forreliefis $ta context-specitictaskthatrequiresthereviewingcourttodraw on itsjudicialexperienceand com m on sense.'' A shcroftv.Iclbal, - U .S. - , 129S.Ct.1937,1950(2009).Thus,acourt screeningacomplaintunderRule12(b)(6)canidentifypleadingsthatarenotentitledtoan assumptionoftruthbecausetheyconsistofnomorethanlabelsandconclusions.J.Z Although the eourtliberally construespro >tcomplaints,Hainesv.Kem er,404U. S.519,520-21(1972), - the courtdoesnotad asthe inm ate's advocate,sua sponte developing statutory and constitutionalclaim sthe inm ate failed to clearly raise on the face ofthe com plaint. See Brock v. 6 Carroll,107F.3d241,243(4thCir.1997)(Luttig,J.,concurringl;Beaudettv.CityofHampton, 775F.2d 1274,1278(4thCir.1985).SeealsoGordonv.Leeke,574F.2d 1147,1151(4thCir. 1978)(recognizingthatadistrictcourtisnotexpectedtoassumetheroleofadvocateforaproK plaintifg. To stateaclaim underj 1983,aplaintiffmustallegeçstheviolationofarightsecuredby theConstitution and lawsoftheUnited States,and mustshow thatthe alleged deprivation was committedby apersonactingundercolorofstatelaw.''W estv.Atkins,487U.S.42,48(1988). H ow ever,plaintifffails to presently state a d aim upon w hich reliefm ay be granted,and the court dismissestheComplaintwithoutprejudice. A. A plaintiffm ustshow thatadefendantactedwith deliberate indifferenceto aserious m edicalneed in orderto statean Eighth Am endmentclaim forunconstitutionalm edical assistance.Estellev.Gamble,429U.S.97,104(1976).A medicalneed seriousenoughtogive rise to a constitutionalclaim involvesa condition thatplacesthe inm ate ata substantialrisk of serioushan' n,usually lossoflifeorperm anentdisability,oracondition forwhich lack of treatmentperpetuatesseverepain.Sosebeev.Murphy,797F.2d 179,181-83 (4th Cir.1986). In orderto show deliberate indifference,a public officialm usthave been personally aw are offactsindicating a substantialrisk ofseriousharm ,and the officialm usthave actually recognizedtheexistenceofsucharisk.Fannerv.Brennan,511U.S.825,838(1994). Cr eliberate indifference m ay be dem onstrated by eitheractualintentorrecklessdisregard.'' M iltierv.Beorn,896F.2d848,851(4thCir.1990).SeeParrishex rel.Leev.Cleveland,372 F.3d294,303(4th Cir.2004)(ût(T)heevidencemustshow thattheofficialinquestion subjectivelyrecognizedthathisactionsweretinappropriateinlightofthatrisk.''').Theprisoner mustshow thatadefendant'sactionwasCtgslogrosslyincompetent,inadequate,orexcessiveas to shocktheconscienceorto beintolerableto fundam entalfairness.''1d.Non-m edicalprison em ployeescan be found to have acted w ith deliberate indifference ifthey intentionally delay or deny an inm ate access to m edicalcare orintentionally interfere w ith the prescribed treatm ent. Estelle,429 U .S.104-05. Plaintifffailsto establish a defendant'sdeliberate indifference. Plaintiffconcludesthat the defendantsare ttpersistently denying hertreatm ent,''butplaintiff s ow n allegations contradict this conclusion. Plaintiffrepeatedly acknow ledges that,since the 1999 action,she continuesto receivem edicaltreatmentforherGID from theVDOC ChiefPsychiatrist,a staffpsychologist, and a counselor,w ho are advised by a doctorwho specializesin GID . In conform ity w ith the Standards ofCare,plaintiffreceives m entalhealth consultations,receiveshonnone therapy,and ispennitted to dressand liveasa woman to theextentpossiblein a correctionalfacility. The only treatm entdescribed by the Standards ofCare thatshe has notyetreceived isthe sex reassignm entsurgery. H ow ever,plaintiffisnotentitled to the surgery,sim ply eitherbecause she has GID orbecause she hasbeen living as a w om an in a m ale correctionalfacility. See M accel'tv.Hanks,131F.3d670,671(7thCir.1997)(t(A prisonisnotrequiredbytheEighth Amendm entto give aprisonerm edicalcare thatisasgood ashe would receive ifhewereafree person,1etaloneanaffluentfreeperson.Heisentitledonlytominimum care.'') (citations omitted).lndeed,plaintiffacknowledgesthatthesttrgeryistdmedicallyindicatedin some individuals....when prescribedorrecommendedbyqualifiedpractitioners.''(Compl.!35 (emphasisaddedl.) Therationaleisclear:theappropriatenessofsurgeryisdetenninedbya 8 m edicalprofessional's exercise ofdiscretion. D efendantCary's letterto plaintiffestablishesthat she is aw are,asa11m em bers ofplaintiff streatm entteam are undoubtedly aware,ofplaintiff s preferenceforsurgery.However,Cary deferred on plaintiffsrequestforsurgery and told herto continue therapy w ith the staffpsychologist. Despite plaintiff sclaim s thatthe defendants are denyinghermedicalcare,itisclearthatthedefendantsaredenyingheronly herpreferred therapy ofsurgery.SeeM accert,131F.3dat672CdW ithholdingfrom aprisoneranesotericmedical treatm entthatonly the wealthy can afford does notstrike usasa fonn ofcrueland unusual punishment....(W )ecannotseewhatiscruelaboutrefusingabenefittoapersonwhocould nothave obtained the benefitifhe had refrained from com m itting crim es. W e do notw ant transsexualscommittingcrimesbecauseitistheonlyroutetoobtainingacure.''), .Suprev. Ricketts,792F.2d958,963(10th Cir.1986)(findingthataprison isnotautomaticallyrequired toprovidefemalehonnonestoatranssexualinmateabsentaconstitutionalneed).Furthennore, plaintifffailsto allege specific factsabouthow each defendant's acts orom issionsviolated the Eighth A m endm ent. Claimsofmedicalmalpracticeandnegligentdiagnosisarenotcognizableinaj1983 proceeding. Estelle,429 U.S.at105-06. SeeSosebee,797F.2d at181)Johnson v.Ouinones, 145F.3d 164,168-69(4th Cir.1998)(notingthattreatingdoctorsmustactuallydraw the inference thatan inm ate's sym ptom s signify the presence ofa particular condition and thata failureto draw such an inferencem aypresenta claim fornegligence,butnotaclaim underthe EighthAmendment).A prisoner'sdisagreementwithmedicalpersonneloverthecourseof treatmentdoesnotstateaj 1983claim.W richtv.Collins,766F.2d 841,849(4thCir.1985); Russellv.Sheffer,528F.2d318,319(4thCir.1975)(percuriam). 9 A fterreview ing plaintiff ssubm issions,she does notpresenta situation w here there is a totalfailure to give m edicalattention or a policy prohibiting hertreatm entfor GID ,sim ilarto her experiences in 1999. lnstead,plaintiffreceivesm edicaltherapies,and hercurrentdissatisfaction w ith the progress orchoice oftreatm entdoesnotstate a claim ofconstitutionalrights underthe Eighth A m endm ent. Plaintiff s literalclaim thatthe defendants willnottellheraboutherfuture cotlrse oftreatm entalso doesnotpresentan Eighth A m endm entviolation. Plaintiffsim ilarly fails to state a claim againstN urse Dixon.Plaintiffsim ply allegesthat D ixon did notgive herone dose ofm edicine in M arch 2011 w ithoutany substantialrisk of seriousharm.SeeFarmer,511U.S.at834 (describinghannrequirement).Onemisseddoseof plaintiffsmedicinedoesnotimplicateanyconstitutionalinjury.Accordingly,thecourt dism issesplaintiff s Eighth A m endm entclaim sforfailing to state a claim upon w hich reliefm ay be granted. B. Plaintiffclaim sthatthe VDOC'Sinmateclassification by sex and GID Stdisability'' constitutes a violation ofEqualProtection guaranteed by the Fourteenth A m endm ent. Specifically,plaintiffargues thatthe V D OC tdpolicy requiring thatanatom ically m ale prisoners be held in m ale institutionsclearly has an adverse,differentialeffec, ton pre-operative m ale to fem ale transsexualinm ates. N on-transsexualimnates are placed in prisons in accordance w ith both theiranatomicalsex andtheirgender. Transsexualinm ates,however,areplaced in accordancewiththeiranatomicalsex,butnottheirgender.''(Compl.!54.) The EqualProtection Clause ofthe Fourteenth Am endm entprovidesthata state m ay not itdenytoanypersonwithinitsjurisdictiontheequalprotection ofthelaws.''U.S.Const.nmend XIV,j1.Tostatean EqualProtectionclaim undertheFourteenthAmendment,plaintiffmust show thatshe w as treated differently from otherswho were sim ilarly situated and thatsuch unequaltreatm entw asthe resultofintentionalorpurposefuldiscrim ination. Blacm mlv.W hite, 112 F.Supp.2d534,538(E.D.Va.2000)(citingMcGlothlin v.Murray,993F.Supp.389,406 (W .D.Va.1997),aff'd,151F.3d 1029(4thCir.1998)).SeeVillageofW illowbrookv.Olech, 528U.S.562,564(2000)(acknowledgingattclassofone''EqualProtectionclaimant).Claims ofgenderdiscrim ination underprison regulationsare analyzed with interm ediate scrutiny. Ashann-Rav.Virginia,112F.Supp.2d 559,571(W .D.Va.2000)(citingW estv.Va.Dep'tof Corr.,847F.Supp.402,407(W .D.Va.1994)andBukhariv.Hutto,487F.Supp.1162(E.D. Va.1980)).Atthesametime,thecourtunderstandsthatitmustshow somedeferencetothe expertise ofprison officialsregarding m atters ofprison adm inistration. See Bellv.W olfish,441 U.S.520,547(1978).Thus,agenderclassificationfailsunlessitissubstantiallyrelatedtoa sufficiently im portantgovenunentalinterest. M ississippiUniversitv for W om en v.H ocan,458 U.S.718,725-26(1982). Plaintiffpresently failsto state an EqualProtection claim . Plaintiffadmits,asshem ust, thatthe V D OC assignsinm atesby theirsex,regardlessoftheirgenderroles. Therefore,her legal claim isflawed becauseplaintiff,with malegenitalia,istreated the sam easthosesim ilarly situated inm ates w ith m ale genitalia,a1lofwhom have varying degrees ofm asculine orfem inine gender' ,they are housed according to sex.2 Inm ates with m ale genitalia are housed together, and inm atesw ith m ale genitalia are nothoused in a fem ale facility. The legitim ate penologicalinterestdoesnotneed extensive discussion,butsuftice itto 2Plaintiffdoesnotallegethatanym aleinm atewith GlD likeplaintiff hasbeen allowedto livew ithfem aleinm ates. say thatthe risk ofhann to the fem ale inm ates,ofharm to the one m ale inm ate,orofdefending legalclaim s from nearly a1lotherm ale inm ates requesting housing in a fem ale prison w arrants m aintaining separate facilities based on sex. The courtcan envision the m orassofassigning inmates'housingbyjudginggenderwithoutregardtosex;theresultpresumablyisanincredibly costly and astonishingly ineffective correctionalsystem . Thus,the VD OC clearly hasa sufticiently im portantgovernm entalinterestin separating inm atesby sex. Plaintiffm inim izes these legitim ate penologicalconcerns aboutm ixing the sexesby alleging thatçénon-consensual sexualactivitiesoccurnow inbothmaleandfemaleinstitutions.''(Compl.!56.)However,the Eighth A m endm entchargesprison officialsw ith protecting inm atesfrom harm ,notto disregard an apparentthreatofharm orto prom ote policiesbringing aboutits wholesale,definite occurrence. Accordingly,the courtdism issesplaintiff s Fourteenth Am endm entclaim because she failsto show thatshe w as treated differently from sim ilarly-situated inm ates and thatany alleged unequaltreatm entresulted from intentionalorpurposefuldiscrim ination. 111. Fortheforegoingreasons,thecourtdislnissesplaintiffsColuplaint' withoutprejudicefor failingtostateaclaim uponwhich reliefmaybegranted,pursuantto28U.S.C.j 1915A(b)(1). Plaintiffm ayrefileherclaim sin anew and separateaction atthetime ofherchoice. The Clerk is directed to send copiesofthisM em orandum O pinion and the accom panying Orderto plaintiff. * ENTER:This S,/ dayofOctober,2011. iorU nited States Dist 'ctJudge 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.
