Jose J.r. Espinoza v. D. DIAZ, Correctional Counselor I at California City Correctional Facility;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE J.R. ESPINOZA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
D. DIAZ, Correctional Counselor I at
California City Correctional Facility; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-17002
D.C. No. 1:17-cv-00338-SAB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Stanley Albert Boone, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 16, 2018**
Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Jose J.R. Espinoza appeals pro se from the
magistrate judge’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging
constitutional claims arising from information in Espinoza’s classification file. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo whether the
* 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
JAN 19 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-17002
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.
Espinoza consented to proceed before the magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(c). The magistrate judge then screened and dismissed Espinoza’s action
before the named defendants had been served. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A,
1915(e)(2)(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 of 2 --