MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Willie Bolds appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging procedural due process 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 court. Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500, 502 (9th Cir. 2017). We vacate and remand.

Bolds consented to proceed before the magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636 (c). The magistrate judge then screened and dismissed Bolds’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, 875 F.3d at 503-04, we vacate the magistrate judge’s order and remand for further proceedings.

VACATED and REMANDED.