RODRIGUEZ v. MATIS (2019)

MEMORANDUM **

Dean C. Rodriguez appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal claims related to his imprisonment at High Desert State Prison. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo whether the magistrate judge had jurisdiction. Allen v. Meyer, 755 F.3d 866, 867-68 (9th Cir. 2014). We vacate and remand.

Rodriguez consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). The magistrate judge then dismissed certain claims before the named defendants had been served. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Because all parties, including unserved defendants, must consent to proceed before the magistrate judge for jurisdiction to vest, see Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500, 503-04 (9th Cir. 2017), we vacate the judgment and remand for further proceedings.

In light of our disposition, we do not consider Rodriguez’s remaining contentions.

All pending motions and requests are denied.

The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.

VACATED and REMANDED.