NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 22 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WILLIAM BURRESS, No. 17-15653
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:16-cv-00630-SAB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
S. SHEISHA, Chief Medical Executive; et
al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Stanley Albert Boone, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
William Burress, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
magistrate judge’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate
indifference to a serious medical need. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
*
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).
§ 1291. We review de novo whether the magistrate 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.
Burress consented to proceed before the magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636 (c). The magistrate judge then screened and dismissed Burress’s action
before the named defendants had been served. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii),
1915A. 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 17-15653