(PS) Dayton v. City of Fairfield et al
| Edward R. Dayton and Edward Randolph Dayton |
| City of Fairfield, Nathan Strickland, Frank Piro and Dan Marshall |
| 2:2024cv01170 |
| April 22, 2024 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Chi Soo Kim |
| Troy L Nunley |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 26, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| PLAINTIFF'S ADDRESS UPDATED to 325 Merganser Dr., P.O. Box 965, Suisun City, CA 94585 pursuant to notice filed on 5/13/2024 in case 2:24-cv-0850. (Yin, K) |
| Filing 3 CIVIL NEW CASE DOCUMENTS ISSUED. (Attachments: #1 Consent Form) (Murphy, J) |
| Filing 2 SUMMONS ISSUED as to *City of Fairfield, Dan Marshall, Frank Piro, Nathan Strickland* with answer to complaint due within *21* days. Attorney *Edward R. Dayton* *1427 West Texas Street Space A-16* *Fairfield, CA 94533*. (Murphy, J) |
| RECEIPT number 200006718 for $405.00 for Filing Fee from Edward Randolph Dayton. (Murphy, J) |
| SERVICE BY MAIL: #3 Civil New Case Documents for TLN, #2 Summons served on Edward R. Dayton. (Murphy, J) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against City of Fairfield, Dan Marshall, Frank Piro, Nathan Strickland by Edward R. Dayton. (Murphy, J) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/23/2024: #1 Civil Cover Sheet) (Murphy, J). |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the California Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
