Abdullah Naim Hafiz v. JAMES A. YATES, Warden;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ABDULLAH NAIM HAFIZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
JAMES A. YATES, Warden; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-15855
D.C. No. 1:13-cv-01392-BAM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Barbara McAuliffe, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 11, 2019**
Before: CANBY, GRABER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Abdullah Naim Hafiz appeals pro se from the
magistrate judge’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate
indifference and due process claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We review de novo whether the magistrate judge validly entered judgment on
* 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
JUN 13 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
behalf of the district court. Allen v. Meyer, 755 F.3d 866, 867-68 (9th Cir. 2014).
We vacate and remand.
Hafiz consented to proceed before the magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(c). The magistrate judge then dismissed Hafiz’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, see Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500, 503-
04 (9th Cir. 2017), we vacate the judgment and remand for further proceedings.
VACATED and REMANDED.

-- 2 of 2 --