Court Opinion

ID: 4247524
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-02-22 21:00:46.833244+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:09.413144
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 22 2018
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JAN VAN DUSEN,                                  No. 16-16983

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 3:16-cv-04976-LB

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
CATHERINE D. PURCELL, Presiding
Judge of the State Bar Court, San Francisco;
et al.,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Northern District of California
                   Laurel D. Beeler, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted February 13, 2018**

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

      Jan Van Dusen, an attorney, appeals pro se from the magistrate judge’s order

dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims arising out of

her interim suspension from the practice of law in the State of California. We have

      *
             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).
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.

      Van Dusen consented to proceed before the magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(c). The magistrate judge then screened and dismissed Van Dusen’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.

      VACATED and REMANDED.

                                         2                                    16-16983