Guillermo Trujillo v. Munoz

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 27 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT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. 16-15947

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:14-cv-00976-DLB

v. MEMORANDUM* MUNOZ,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Sandra M. Snyder, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 13, 2018**

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

Guillermo Cruz Trujillo, a California state prisoner, 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.

VACATED and REMANDED.

2 16-15947