Damian E. Griffin v. DAVID LONG, Warden;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DAMIAN E. GRIFFIN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
DAVID LONG, Warden; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-16295
D.C. No. 1:15-cv-01361-BAM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Barbara McAuliffe, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 16, 2018**
Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Damian E. Griffin, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
magistrate judge’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due
process violations related to deductions from his inmate trust account. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo whether the magistrate
* 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 25 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-16295
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.
Griffin consented to proceed before the magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(c). The magistrate judge then screened and dismissed Griffin’s action before
the named defendants had been served. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(a),
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 --