NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 16 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WILLIE BOLDS, No. 16-15592
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:12-cv-01754-BAM
v.
MEMORANDUM*
J. CAVAZOS, Chief Warden; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Barbara McAuliffe, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 11, 2017**
Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Willie Bolds appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging procedural due process
violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo
whether the magistrate judge validly entered judgment on behalf of the district
*
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).
court. Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500, 502 (9th Cir. 2017). We vacate and
remand.
Bolds consented to proceed before the magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636 (c). The magistrate judge then screened and dismissed Bolds’s action before
the named defendants had been served. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A,
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Because all parties, including unserved defendants, must
consent to proceed before the magistrate judge for jurisdiction to vest, Williams,
875 F.3d at 503-04, we vacate the magistrate judge’s order and remand for further
proceedings.
VACATED and REMANDED.
2 16-15592