Case ID: f-appx_710/html/0323-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Michael B. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jessica SANTIAGO, Unit Supervisor at Coalinga State Hospital, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 17-15834
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted January 16, 2018 
    
    Filed January 25, 2018
    Michael B. Williams, Pro Se'
    Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      
         The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Michael B. Williams, a civil detainee under California’s Sexually Violent Predators Act, appeals pro se from the magistrate judge’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging retaliation and due process violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo whether the 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.

Williams consented to proceed before the magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). The magistrate judge then screened and dismissed Williams’s action' before the named defendant 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. To the extent that Williams requests appointment of counsel on remand (Docket Entry No. 4), the request is denied without prejudice to Williams requesting appointment of counsel by the district court.

Williams’s request that his pending appeals, Case Nos. 17-15530, 17-15834, and' 17-16790, be assigned to the same merits panel (Docket Entry No. 4) is granted.

VACATED and REMANDED. 
      
      
         This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as.provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.