# Ashline

> District Court, S.D. California · September 9, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11438706

## Case

- **Full name:** Richard Joseph Ashline v. Dr. James King
- **Court:** District Court, S.D. California
- **Decided:** September 9, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11438706

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 RICHARD JOSEPH ASHLINE, Case No.: 3:26-cv-3915-BJC-DDL
CDCR# BW-6808,
12
ORDER:
Plaintiff,
13
vs. (1) DISMISSING CIVIL ACTION AS
14
FRIVOLOUS PURSUANT

15 DR. JAMES KING,1 TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1); AND

16 Defendant. (2) DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE
17 TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS AS MOOT
18

19 [ECF No. 2]

20
21 Plaintiff Richard Joseph Ashline (“Plaintiff”) is a state inmate proceeding pro se
22 with a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, arising from events that
23 occurred during his prior incarceration at the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility
24
25
26
1 In the body of the Complaint, Plaintiff refers to Defendant as Dr. James King, which is
27 how the Defendant is also identified on the docket, but the Court notes Plaintiff also refers
to Defendant as Dr. King James on the face of the Complaint. (Compare docket and ECF
28
1 (“RJD”) in San Diego, California. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff has also filed a Motion for Leave
2 to Proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (ECF No. 2.) As discussed below, because Plaintiff
3 raised the same claim in a prior civil rights action, the Court dismisses this case as frivolous
4 and denies Plaintiff’s IFP motion as moot.
5 I. Sua Sponte Screening Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)
6 The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, obligates the
7 Court to review complaints filed by anyone “incarcerated or detained in any facility who
8 is accused of, sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal law or the
9 terms or conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release, or diversionary program,” “as
10 soon as practicable after docketing” and regardless of whether the prisoner prepays filing
11 fees or moves to proceed IFP. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (c). Pursuant to this provision
12 of the PLRA, the Court is required to review prisoner complaints which “seek[] redress
13 from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity,” and to dismiss
14 those, or any portion of those, which are “frivolous, malicious, or fail[] to state a claim
15 upon which relief may be granted,” or which “seek monetary relief from a defendant who
16 is immune.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (b)(1)-(2); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 446-47
17 (9th Cir. 2000); Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 n.3 (9th Cir. 2011). “The purpose
18 of § 1915A is ‘to ensure that the targets of frivolous or malicious suits need not bear the
19 expense of responding.’” Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2014)
20 (quoting Wheeler v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc., 689 F.3d 680, 681 (7th Cir. 2012)).
21 Plaintiff’s Complaint is subject to sua sponte dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
22 § 1915A(b)(1) because it is duplicative of another civil action he previously filed and
23 litigated in this Court. See Ashline v. Roberts, S.D. Cal. Civil Case No. 3:25-cv-3243-AJB-
24 KSC (“Ashline I”). A court “‘may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within
25 and without the federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to
26 matters at issue.’” Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1225 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Bennett
27 v. Medtronic, Inc., 285 F.3d 801, 803 n.2 (9th Cir. 2002)).
28 ///
1 In Ashline I, Plaintiff claimed a denial of his right to medical care, alleging that in
2 May 2025, while housed at RJD, Defendant Chief Medical Executive Roberts “denied my
3 602 requesting to have surgery done to [have] a hernia repaired sayin[g] do not have a
4 hernia because it doesn’t show up on the CT scan. I in fact have paperwork showing I do
5 have a hernia in my lower ab[d]omen it has been caus[]ing me se[]ver[e] pain s[in]ce mid
6 December until now mid October.” See Ashline I, ECF No. 1 at 3. On January 16, 2026,
7 Judge Battaglia screened Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) &
8 1915A(b), dismissed the Complaint for failure to state a claim and granted leave to amend
9 on or before March 2, 2026, advising Plaintiff that failure to timely amend would result in
10 dismissal for failure to state a claim and failure to prosecute. Ashline I, ECF No. 3 at 6–7
11 (citations omitted). Specifically, the Court instructed that: “If Plaintiff wishes to proceed
12 with an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim against Chief Medical Executive
13 Roberts, he must set forth factual allegations which plausibly suggest ‘a purposeful act or
14 failure to respond’ by Roberts in the face of Plaintiff’s abdominal pain and must also allege
15 ‘harm caused by that indifference.’” Id. at 5–6 (quoting Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091,
16 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (emphasis added) and citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106
17 (1976) (“In order to state a cognizable claim, a prisoner must allege acts or omissions
18 sufficiently harmful to evidence deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.”)). On
19 April 3, 2026, the Court dismissed the action without prejudice both for failure to state a
20 claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) &
21 1915A(b)(1) and for failure to prosecute, noting that “[t]o date, Plaintiff has not filed an
22 amended complaint or otherwise contacted the Court.” See Ashline I, ECF No. 4 at 2. That
23 same day, the Clerk issued judgment in accordance with the Court’s order and closed the
24 case. See Ashline I, ECF No. 5.
25 Approximately three months later, on July 6, 2026, Plaintiff filed the instant
26 Complaint, ECF No. 1, which was assigned to this Court as Ashline v. King, S.D. Cal. Civil
27 Case No. 3:26-cv-3915-BJC-DDL (“Ashline II”). In this Complaint, Plaintiff now seeks
28 to sue Defendant Dr. James King for violating his right to medical care, alleging that in
1 May 2025, Dr. King “to[ld] me that he was not going [sic] hernia defect repair surgery
2 because I have no hernia because it didn[’]t show up on the CT scan,” but asserts: “I have
3 paperwork from a[n] ultrasound saying that in fact I[] have a hernia defect in my stomach.
4 It[’]s causing me sev[e]re pain now for 18 months.” See Ashline II, ECF No. 1 at 3.
5 As pleaded, the Court finds Plaintiff’s claim in the instant case is duplicative of the
6 claim previously alleged and dismissed in Ashline I. While the two complaints each name
7 a different Defendant, both allege the same cause of action arising from a May 2025 denial
8 of hernia surgery at RJD, and are both filed by the same Plaintiff. Compare Ashline I, S.D.
9 Cal. Civil Case No. 3:25-cv-3243-AJB-KSC, ECF Nos. 1, 3, with Ashline II, S.D Cal. Civil
10 Case No. 3:26-cv-3915-BJC-DDL, ECF No. 1. A prisoner’s complaint is considered
11 frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) if it “merely repeats pending or previously
12 litigated claims.” Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995) (construing
13 former 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)) (citations and internal quotations omitted). That Plaintiff
14 presently brings the same factual allegations against a different defendant does not alter
15 this conclusion, as “[a]n in forma pauperis complaint repeating the same factual allegations
16 asserted in an earlier case, even if now filed against new defendant, is subject to dismissal
17 as duplicative and frivolous.” Kroncke v. City of Phoenix, 2014 WL 11342913, at *7 (D.
18 Ariz. Mar. 16, 2014) (citing Bailey v. Johnson, 846 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1988) and
19 Van Meter v. Morgan, 518 F.2d 366, 368 (8th Cir. 1975)); see also Hagos v. Smith, 2023
20 WL 3741556, at * 2 (W.D. Wash. May 5, 2023) (“‘Repeating the same factual allegations
21 asserted in an earlier case, even if now filed against new defendants, is subject to dismissal
22 as duplicative.’”) (quoting Goods v. Wasco State Prison, 2019 WL 4670217, at *1 (E.D.
23 Cal. Sept. 25, 2019) and collecting cases).
24 Because Plaintiff has already brought the same claim presented in the instant action,
25 albeit against a different Defendant, in Ashline I, dismissal of this duplicative and
26 subsequently filed civil case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) is warranted. See Cato,
27 70 F.3d at 1105 n.2; Resnick, 213 F.3d at 446 n.1; Kroncke, 2014 WL 11342913, at *7;
28 Bailey, 846 F.2d at 1021; Van Meter, 518 F.2d at 368; see also Adams v. Cal. Dep’t of
1 || Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688-89 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[I]n assessing whether the second
2 || action is duplicative of the first, we examine whether the causes of action and relief sought,
3 ||as well as the parties or privies to the action, are the same.”), overruled on other grounds
4 || by Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 904 (2008).
5 Conclusion and Order
6 Good cause appearing, the Court:
7 (1) DISMISSES this civil action as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)
8 without leave to amend;?
9 (2) DENIES Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed IFP [ECF No. 2] as moot;
10 (3) CERTIFIES that an IFP appeal would not be taken in good faith pursuant to 28
11 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); and
12 (4) DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to enter a judgment of dismissal in S.D. Cal.
13 Civil Case No. 3:26-cv-03915-BJC-DDL and to close the file.
14 IT IS SO ORDERED.
15 || Dated: September 9, 2026 6 Lf nw ha
16 Honorable Benjamin J. Cheeks
7 United States District Judge
18
19
20
21
22
23
Because Plaintiff’s Complaint is frivolous, amendment would be futile and the Court thus
declines to grant leave to amend. See Rosati v. Igbinoso, 791 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.
25 2015) (“A district court should not dismiss a pro se complaint without leave to amend
6 unless ‘it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by
amendment.’”’) (quoting Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212 (9th Cir. 2012)); Hartmann
27 || v. California Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 707 F.3d 1114, 1130 (9th Cir. 2013)
(“A district court may deny leave to amend when amendment would be futile.”) (citation
28
omitted).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11438706. Public record. Not legal advice.