Jan Van Dusen v. CATHERINE D. PURCELL, Presiding Judge of the State Bar Court, San Francisco;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAN VAN DUSEN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CATHERINE D. PURCELL, Presiding
Judge of the State Bar Court, San Francisco;
et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-16983
D.C. No. 3:16-cv-04976-LB
MEMORANDUM*
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).
FILED
FEB 22 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-16983
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 of 2 --