22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T423,MEMORANDUM 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 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 un-served 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 36-3,24:T450,

MEMORANDUM

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 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 un-served 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,