Josh Thomas v. Brian Roberts

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 23 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSH THOMAS, No. 17-16363 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:16-cv-00724-CKD v. MEMORANDUM* BRIAN ROBERTS; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Carolyn K. Delaney, Magistrate Judge, Presiding Submitted February 13, 2018** Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. Josh Thomas, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the magistrate judge’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims in connection with his parole proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo whether the magistrate judge validly entered * 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). judgment on behalf of the district court. Allen v. Meyer, 755 F.3d 866, 867-68 (9th Cir. 2014). We vacate and remand. Thomas consented to proceed before the magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). The magistrate judge then screened and dismissed Thomas’s action before the named defendants had been served. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 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 17-16363