Brice Anthony Peeler v. KEVIN REALI, Detective; COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BRICE ANTHONY PEELER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
KEVIN REALI, Detective; COUNTY OF
SACRAMENTO,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-16965
D.C. No. 2:16-cv-00582-CKD
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Carolyn K. Delaney, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 16, 2018**
Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Brice Anthony Peeler appeals pro se from the
magistrate judge’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging false
arrest and malicious prosecution claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo whether the magistrate judge validly entered judgment
* 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
JAN 19 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-16965
on behalf of the district court. Allen v. Meyer, 755 F.3d 866, 867-68 (9th
Cir. 2014). We vacate and remand.
Peeler consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(c). The magistrate judge then screened and dismissed Peeler’s action 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, 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 --