Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01424/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01424-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CHESTER MARK SOMERA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:14-cv-01424-KJM-AC 

ORDER 

Plaintiff Chester Somera is not represented by counsel. On February 23, 2016, the 

court set a status conference for April 14, 2016 and instructed the parties to file a joint status 

report the week before. On April 5, 2016, the defendant filed a status report and notified the court 

that Mr. Somera had not responded to its attempts to correspond. The court therefore ordered Mr. 

Somera to show cause, within fourteen days, why the case should not be dismissed for failure to 

prosecute. Order April 20, 2016, ECF No. 52. Mr. Somera made no response. 

A district court may dismiss an action on its own motion if a plaintiff abandons the 

case. See, e.g., Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44 (1991). Because dismissal is a harsh 

sanction, the court must weigh “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; 

(2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public 

policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic 

Case 2:14-cv-01424-KJM-AC Document 56 Filed 07/01/16 Page 1 of 2
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2

sanctions.” In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th 

Cir. 2006). These considerations present a district court with a way “to think about what to do.” 

Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted). The decision is one of discretion. See id.

Because Mr. Somera has responded neither to this court’s orders nor to the 

defendants’ attempts to contact him, dismissal is appropriate. This resolution is the only means of 

resolving this litigation expeditiously; the matter has been molding away on this court’s docket 

for several months; the defendants have no way to address the claims against them; it seems the 

case will not be resolved on its merits at all; and no less drastic solution has proven effective. 

This action is DISMISSED without prejudice. 

The Clerk’s Office is instructed to CLOSE the case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: June 30, 2016 

Case 2:14-cv-01424-KJM-AC Document 56 Filed 07/01/16 Page 2 of 2