William Fletcher v. Corizon Health Services, and employees; C. BROWN, PA-C

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WILLIAM FLETCHER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CORIZON HEALTH SERVICES, and
employees; C. BROWN, PA-C,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-35013
D.C. No. 1:16-cv-00252-CWD
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
Candy W. Dale, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
William Fletcher, an Idaho state prisoner, appeals pro se from the magistrate
judge’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate
indifference to his serious medical needs. 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 17-35013
on behalf of the district court. Allen v. Meyer, 755 F.3d 866, 867-68 (9th
Cir. 2014). We vacate and remand.
Fletcher consented to proceed before the magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(c). The magistrate judge then screened and dismissed Fletcher’s action
before the named defendants had been served. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b)(1),
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 --