Guillermo Cruz Trujillo v. Munoz

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GUILLERMO CRUZ TRUJILLO,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MUNOZ,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 16-15947
D.C. No. 1:14-cv-00976-DLB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Sandra M. Snyder, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Guillermo Cruz Trujillo, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
magistrate judge’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging
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
FEB 27 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-15947
the district court. Allen v. Meyer, 755 F.3d 866, 867-68 (9th Cir. 2014). We
vacate and remand.
Trujillo consented to proceed before the magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(c). The magistrate judge then screened and dismissed Trujillo’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, 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 --