gno.law

Kevin Atkinson v. United States Government

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 16-55146 · 2017-06-26 · Unpublished

Kevin Donavon ATKINSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, Defendant-Appellee

Area
other
Panel
Thomas (author), Barry G. Silverman, Edward Leavy

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 26 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KEVIN DONAVON ATKINSON, No. 16-55146 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:14-cv-00016-JLS-JMA v. MEMORANDUM* UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Janis L. Sammartino, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 24, 2017** Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and LEAVY and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

Kevin Donavon Atkinson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his Federal Tort Claims Act action alleging negligent infliction of emotional distress and intentional infliction of emotional distress arising out of treatment provided at a Veteran’s Affairs health center. We have jurisdiction * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(b)(6). Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Atkinson’s claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress because Atkinson failed to establish that defendant owed him a duty of care. See Marlene F. v. Affiliated Psychiatric Med. Clinic, Inc., 770 P.2d 278, 281 (Cal. 1989) (setting forth elements of a negligent infliction of emotional distress claim under California law); Burgess v. Superior Court, 831 P.2d 1197, 1200-03 (Cal. 1992) (discussing duty of care).

The district court properly dismissed Atkinson’s claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress because Atkinson failed to establish that defendant’s conduct was extreme and outrageous conduct. See Potter v. Firestone Tire and Rubber Co., 863 P.2d 795, 819 (Cal. 1993) (discussing elements of an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim under California law).

AFFIRMED.

2 16-55146

Cites, in this corpus