Damian Griffin v. David Long

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 25 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DAMIAN E. GRIFFIN, No. 17-16295 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:15-cv-01361-BAM v. MEMORANDUM* DAVID LONG, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Barbara McAuliffe, Magistrate Judge, Presiding Submitted January 16, 2018** Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Damian E. Griffin, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the magistrate judge’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process violations related to deductions from his inmate trust account. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo whether the magistrate * 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). judge validly entered judgment on behalf of the district court. Allen v. Meyer, 755 F.3d 866, 867-68 (9th Cir. 2014). We vacate and remand. Griffin consented to proceed before the magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). The magistrate judge then screened and dismissed Griffin’s action before the named defendants had been served. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(a), 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Because all parties, including unserved defendants, must consent to proceed before the magistrate judge for jurisdiction to vest, Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500, 503-04 (9th Cir. 2017), we vacate the magistrate judge’s order and remand for further proceedings. VACATED and REMANDED. 2 17-16295