HAFIZ v. YATES (2019)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Abdullah Naim HAFIZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James A. YATES, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-15855

Decided: June 13, 2019

Before: CANBY, GRABER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Abdullah Naim Hafiz, Pro Se

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Abdullah Naim Hafiz appeals pro se from the magistrate judge’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference and due process claims. 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.

Hafiz consented to proceed before the magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). The magistrate judge then dismissed Hafiz’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, see Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500, 503-04 (9th Cir. 2017), we vacate the judgment and remand for further proceedings.

VACATED and REMANDED.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go To Learn About The Law