Opinion
No. 16-15855
06-13-2019
ABDULLAH NAIM HAFIZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JAMES A. YATES, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 1:13-cv-01392-BAM MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
Barbara McAuliffe, Magistrate Judge, Presiding Before: CANBY, GRABER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
California state prisoner Abdullah Naim Hafiz appeals pro se from the magistrate judge's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference and due process claims. 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 court. Allen v. Meyer, 755 F.3d 866, 867-68 (9th Cir. 2014). We vacate and remand.
Hafiz consented to proceed before the magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). The magistrate judge then dismissed Hafiz'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, see Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500, 503-04 (9th Cir. 2017), we vacate the judgment and remand for further proceedings.
VACATED and REMANDED.