Willie Bolds v. J. Cavazos

Ninth Circuit

Willie Bolds v. J. Cavazos

708 F. App'x 920

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 16, 2018

Docket16-15592

StatusUnpublished

This text of 708 F. App'x 920 (Willie Bolds v. J. Cavazos) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Willie Bolds v. J. Cavazos, 708 F. App'x 920 (9th Cir. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Willie Bolds appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging procedural due process 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. Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500, 502 (9th Cir. 2017). We vacate and remand.

Bolds consented to proceed before the magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636 (c). The magistrate judge then screened and dismissed Bolds’s action before the named defendants had been served. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A, 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Because all parties, including unserved defendants, must consent to proceed before the magistrate judge for jurisdiction to vest, Williams, 875 F.3d at 503-04, 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Willie Bolds appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging procedural due process 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. Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500, 502 (9th Cir. 2017). We vacate and remand.

Bolds consented to proceed before the magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636 (c). The magistrate judge then screened and dismissed Bolds’s action before the named defendants had been served. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A, 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Because all parties, including unserved defendants, must consent to proceed before the magistrate judge for jurisdiction to vest, Williams, 875 F.3d at 503-04, 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

708 F. App'x 920, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/willie-bolds-v-j-cavazos-ca9-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack