Case Name: Guillermo Cruz TRUJILLO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MUNOZ, Correctional Officer, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-02-27
Citations: 713 F. App'x 712
Docket Number: No. 16-15986
Parties: Guillermo Cruz TRUJILLO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MUNOZ, Correctional Officer, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 713
Pages: 712–713

Head Matter:
Guillermo Cruz TRUJILLO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MUNOZ, Correctional Officer, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 16-15986
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted February 13, 2018
Filed February 27, 2018
Guillermo Cruz Trujillo, 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 Guillermo Cruz Trujillo 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 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, 876 F.3d 500, 503-04 (9th Cir. 2017), we vacate the magistrate judge's order and remand for further proceedings.
Williams's motion to obtain a copy of the "action" (Docket Entry No. 16) is denied.
VACATED and REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.