Case Name: Helda WILSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. R. PERKINSON, M.D.; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-11-29
Citations: 460 F. App'x 633
Docket Number: No. 10-17319
Parties: Helda WILSON, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. R. PERKINSON, M.D.; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 460
Pages: 633–634

Head Matter:
Helda WILSON, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. R. PERKINSON, M.D.; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
No. 10-17319.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 21, 2011.
Filed Nov. 29, 2011.
Helda Wilson, San Diego, CA, pro se.
Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Helda Wilson, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failing to pay the filing fee in full or file an application to proceed in forma pauperis. We raise sua sponte jurisdictional issues. Nasca v. Peoplesoft (In re Marriage of Nasca), 160 F.3d 578, 579 (9th Cir.1999). We order a limited remand so that the magistrate judge can determine whether Wilson consented to the exercise of the magistrate judge's authority under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). If so, the magistrate judge shall issue an order indicating where in the record such consent is demonstrated. If not, the magistrate judge should consider whether to withdraw his order dismissing the case and instead issue a recommendation to the district court. See id. at 580.
REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.