
    Jose J.R. ESPINOZA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D. DIAZ, Correctional Counselor I at California City Correctional Facility; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 17-17002
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted January 16, 2018 
    
    Filed January 19, 2018
    Jose J.R. Espinoza, Pro Se
    •Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R, App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Jose J.R. Espinoza appeals pro se from the magistrate judge’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims arising from information in Espinoza’s classification file. 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.

Espinoza consented to proceed before the magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). The magistrate judge then screened and dismissed Espinoza’s action before the named defendants had been served. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A, 1915(e)(2)(B). 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. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     