What is the test for establishing that a defendant's misconduct was a cause-in-fact of an injury?

To meet the causation requirement of section 1983, "the plaintiff must establish both causation-in-fact and proximate causation." Harper v. City of Los Angeles, 533 F.3d 1010, 1026 (9th Cir. 2008) (citations omitted). To establish that a defendant's misconduct is the "cause-in-fact" of an alleged injury, the plaintiff must show that the "injury would not have occurred in the absence of the conduct." Spencer v. Peters, 857 F.3d 789, 798 (9th Cir. 2017). To establish that misconduct is the "proximate cause" of an injury, the plaintiff must show that "the injury is of a type that a reasonable person would see as a likely result of the conduct in question." Id. (citation

Page 4