Walter L. Cole v. D. Reames;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WALTER L. COLE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
D. REAMES; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-15772
D.C. No. 2:16-cv-02570-CKD
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Carolyn K. Delaney, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Walter L. Cole appeals pro se from the magistrate
judge’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional
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
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
FEB 23 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-15772
court. Allen v. Meyer, 755 F.3d 866, 867-68 (9th Cir. 2014). We vacate and
remand.
Cole consented to proceed before the magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636 (c). The magistrate judge then screened and dismissed Cole’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 v.
King, 875 F.3d 500, 503-04 (9th Cir. 2017), we vacate the magistrate judge’s order
and remand for further proceedings.
VACATED and REMANDED.

-- 2 of 2 --