Court Opinion

ID: 4248713
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-02-27 21:00:37.025718+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:10.783431
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 27 2018
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GUILLERMO CRUZ TRUJILLO,                        No. 16-15986

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 1:14-cv-01215-SAB

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
MUNOZ, Correctional Officer,

                Defendant-Appellee.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Eastern District of California
                Stanley Albert Boone, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted February 13, 2018**

Before:      LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

      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

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
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, 875 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.

                                         2                                     16-15986