MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner LaKeith L. McCoy appeals pro se from the magistrate judge’s orders dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force and due process 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.

McCoy and defendant Ramirez consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). The magistrate judge, however, screened and dismissed claims against other named defendants in the action before those defendants had been served. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), 1915A. Because ah 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 orders and remand for further proceedings.

VACATED and REMANDED.