VALDEZ v. CATE (2018)

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Ruben Valdez appeals pro se from the magistrate judge’s orders dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process violations in connection with his validation as a gang member. 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.

Valdez consented to proceed before the magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). The magistrate judge then screened and dismissed Valdez’s claims against three of the originally named defendants before they had been served. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The magistrate judge also granted judgment on the pleadings for the remaining defendants, including seven defendants named in Valdez’s second amended complaint who had not consented to proceed before the magistrate judge. 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 orders and remand for further proceedings.

Valdez’s motions for appointment of counsel and to take judicial notice (Docket Entry Nos. 29 and 30) are denied.

VACATED and REMANDED.