LaKEITH L. McCOY v. J. RAMIREZ, Correctional Officer at CCI;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LaKEITH L. McCOY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
J. RAMIREZ, Correctional Officer at CCI;
et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-16268
D.C. No. 1:13-cv-01808-MJS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Michael J. Seng, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner LaKeith L. McCoy appeals pro se from the
magistrate judge’s orders dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging
excessive force and due process claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo whether the magistrate judge validly entered judgment
* 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 23 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-16268
on behalf of the district court. Allen v. Meyer, 755 F.3d 866, 867-68 (9th
Cir. 2014). We vacate and remand.
McCoy and defendant Ramirez consented to proceed before a magistrate
judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). The magistrate judge, however, screened and
dismissed claims against other named defendants in the action before those
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 orders and remand for further
proceedings.
VACATED and REMANDED.

-- 2 of 2 --