Case Name: Gregory C. BONTEMPS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D. HICKS, Sgt., Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-02-22
Citations: 713 F. App'x 587
Docket Number: No. 17-15583
Parties: Gregory C. BONTEMPS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D. HICKS, Sgt., Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 713
Pages: 587–588

Head Matter:
Gregory C. BONTEMPS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D. HICKS, Sgt., Defendant-Appellee.
No. 17-15583
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted February 13, 2018
Filed February 22, 2018
Gregory C. Bontemps, Pro Se
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, 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
California state prisoner Gregory C. Bontemps appeals pro se from the magistrate judge's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that he was subjected to an inappropriate unclothed body search. 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.
Bontemps consented to proceed before the magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). The magistrate judge then denied in forma pauperis status on the basis that Bontemps had accrued three strikes and dismissed Bontemps' action for failure to pay the filing fee before the named defendants had been served. See 28 U.S.C. § 1916(g) (prisoner cannot bring a civil action if he has accrued three strikes). 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.
Bontemps' second request to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket Entry No. 10) is denied as unnecessary.
VACATED and REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.