(PS) Dayton v. City of Fairfield

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 EDWARD RANDOLPH DAYTON, Case Nos. 2:23-cv-02362-CSK 2:24-cv-01170-CSK Plaintiff,

CONSOLIDATION ORDER

v. (ECF No. 24 in No. 2:23-cv-02362-CSK) CITY OF FAIRFIELD, et al., Defendants. 16 Pending before the Court is a motion to consolidate Edward Randolph Dayton v. City of Fairfield, et al., No. 2:23-cv-02362-CSK (“Dayton I”) and Edward Randolph Dayton v. City of Fairfield, et al., No. 2:24-cv-01170-CSK (“Dayton II”) filed by Defendants City of Fairfield, Nathan Strickland, Frank Piro, Richard Mroz, Robert Ramirez-Kirgan, Jimmie Williams, and Dan Marshall.1 (ECF No. 24 in No. 2:23-cv- 02362-CSK.) Though Plaintiff was provided with multiple opportunities to respond to the motion to consolidate, Plaintiff has not filed an opposition or otherwise responded to the motion. See Dayton I Docket; Dayton I, 1/28/2025 Minute Order (ECF No. 25); Dayton I, 2/18/2025 Minute Order (ECF No. 27). Pursuant to Local Rule 230(g), the hearing was vacated and the motion was…