Christopher Lipsey v. Satf Prisons Ad-Seg Property Officers;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHRISTOPHER LIPSEY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SATF PRISONS AD-SEG PROPERTY
OFFICERS; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-16116
D.C. No. 1:15-cv-00691-SKO
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Sheila K. Oberto, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 11, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, PAEZ, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Christopher Lipsey appeals pro se from the
magistrate judge’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various
constitutional violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo whether the magistrate judge validly entered judgment on behalf of
* 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
APR 16 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-16116
the district court. Allen v. Meyer, 755 F.3d 866, 867-68 (9th Cir. 2014). We
vacate and remand.
Lipsey consented to proceed before the magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636 (c). The magistrate judge then screened and dismissed Lipsey’s action
before the named defendants had been served. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A,
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 --