NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED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
JAN VAN DUSEN, No. 16-16983
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:16-cv-04976-LB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CATHERINE D. PURCELL, Presiding
Judge of the State Bar Court, San Francisco;
et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Laurel D. Beeler, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Jan Van Dusen, an attorney, appeals pro se from the magistrate judge’s order
dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims arising out of
her interim suspension from the practice of law in the State of California. We have
*
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).
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 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.
Van Dusen consented to proceed before the magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(c). The magistrate judge then screened and dismissed Van Dusen’s action
before the named defendants had been served. See 28 U.S.C. § 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 16-16983