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.