Case Name: Josh THOMAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Brian ROBERTS; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-02-23
Citations: 713 F. App'x 658
Docket Number: No. 17-16363
Parties: Josh THOMAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Brian ROBERTS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 713
Pages: 658–659

Head Matter:
Josh THOMAS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Brian ROBERTS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-16363
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted February 13, 2018
Filed February 23, 2018
Josh Thomas, 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
Josh Thomas, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the magistrate judge's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims in connection with his parole proceedings. 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.
Thomas consented to proceed before the magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). The magistrate judge then screened and dismissed Thomas's action before the named defendants had been served. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(l); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Because all parties, including un-served 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.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.