govinfo:USCOURTS-caed-1_26-cv-00752-8

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
 
 
 1  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
JUSTIN G. ESCANDON, 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
J. EVANS, et al., 
Defendants. 
 
Case No. 1:26-cv-0752 JLT SAB 
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 
RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING THE 
ACTION FOR FAILURE TO STATE A 
CLAIM, AND DIRECTING THE CLERK OF 
COURT TO CLOSE THIS CASE 
(Doc. 17) 
Justing Escandon asserts that he suffered violations of his civil rights while in custody at 
the Substance Abuse and Treatment Facility.  (See generally Doc. 17.)  The magistrate judge 
screened Plaintiff’s second amended complaint and found he failed to state a cognizable claim 
under the Eighth Amendment.  (Doc. 18 at 2-4.)  The magistrate judge also found that Plaintiff 
failed to state a claim related to the alleged loss of his property because “the negligent or 
intentional but unauthorized deprivation of property by a person acting under color of state law 
does not constitute a violation of the procedural requirements of the Due Process Clause if a 
meaningful state post-deprivation remedy is available.”  (Id. at 4.)  The magistrate judge 
determined that further leave to amend was not warranted because the Court previously provided 
the relevant legal standards and Plaintiff failed to remedy the pleading deficiencies.  (Id.)  
Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended that the “action be dismissed for failure to state a 
cognizable claim for relief.”  (Id. at 6.) 
Case 1:26-cv-00752-JLT-SAB     Document 19     Filed 09/29/26     Page 1 of 2
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
 
 
 2  
 
 
The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff and notified him that 
any objections were due within 14 days.  (Doc. 18 at 6.)  The Court advised him that the “failure 
to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of the ‘right to challenge the 
magistrate judge’s factual findings’ on appeal.”  (Id., quoting Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 
834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).)  Plaintiff did not file objections, and the time to do so has passed.  
According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 
Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations 
are supported by the record and proper analysis.  Thus, the Court ORDERS: 
1. The Findings and Recommendations dated August 25, 2026 (Doc. 18) are 
ADOPTED in full. 
2. The second amended complaint is DISMISSED for failure to state a cognizable 
claim. 
3. Plaintiff’s claim related to the loss of his property is DISMISSED without 
prejudice to pursuing state remedies. 
4. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate pending matters and close this case. 
 
 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
 
Dated:   September 28, 2026_ 
 
Case 1:26-cv-00752-JLT-SAB     Document 19     Filed 09/29/26     Page 2 of 2

Passage view · GavelSight