WILLIAMS v. BATRA (2018)

MEMORANDUM **

Michael B. Williams, a civil detainee under California’s Sexually Violent Predators Act, appeals pro se from the magistrate judge’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging retaliation and 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. Allen v. Meyer, 755 F.3d 866, 867-68 (9th Cir. 2014). We vacate and remand.

Williams consented to proceed before the magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). The magistrate judge then screened and dismissed Williams’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. To the extent that Williams requests appointment of counsel on remand (Docket Entry No. 7), the request is denied without prejudice to Williams requesting appointment of counsel by the district court.

Williams’s request that his pending appeals, Case Nos. 17-15530, 17-15834, and 17-16790, be assigned to the same merits panel (Docket Entry No. 7) is granted.

VACATED and REMANDED.