Arthur L. Johnson v. DOEHRING, Medical Doctor; CORONA

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARTHUR L. JOHNSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DOEHRING, Medical Doctor; CORONA,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-17973
D.C. No. 1:08-cv-01183-DCB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
David C. Bury, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 19, 2012**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Arthur L. Johnson, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging
constitutional violations and a state law negligence claim arising from treatment he
received from defendants while incarcerated at Pleasant Valley State Prison. We
FILED
JAN 04 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-17973 2
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Torres v. City of
Madera, 648 F.3d 1119, 1123 (9th Cir. 2011), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment for Doehring on the
state law negligence claim because Johnson failed to raise a genuine dispute of
material fact on the issue of causation. See Ileto v. Glock Inc., 349 F.3d 1191,
1203 (9th Cir. 2003) (stating elements for a negligence claim under California
law); Ortega v. Kmart Corp., 36 P.3d 11, 15 (Cal. 2001) (providing that, on the
issue of causation in a negligence claim, a plaintiff must introduce evidence that it
is more likely than not that defendant caused the injury; otherwise, defendant is
entitled to judgment). Because Johnson expressly waived his claim against Corona
on appeal, the judgment is final as to Corona, and it is now final as to Johnson
based on this memorandum.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --