Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 10618649
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Char v. Smith
No. 10618649 · Decided June 27, 2025
No. 10618649·Ninth Circuit · 2025·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
June 27, 2025
Citation
No. 10618649
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 27 2025
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARK ALAN CHAR, No. 24-2805
D.C. No. 1:18-cv-00202-HG-RLP
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. MEMORANDUM*
ANTHONY SMITH, Police Officer, City
and County of Honolulu, in his individual
and official capacity; ASHLEY
STIBBARD, Police Officer, City and
County of Honolulu, in her individual and
official capacity; ALAN LU, Police Officer,
City and County of Honolulu, in his
individual and official capacity; VICTOR
LAU, Police Officer/Detective, City and
County of Honolulu, in his individual and
official capacity,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Helen W. Gillmor, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 18, 2025**
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Before: CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and SUNG, Circuit Judges.
Mark Alan Char, a Hawaii state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force
and related claims arising out of his arrest in June 2016. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Mangiaracina v. Penzone, 849 F.3d
1191, 1195 (9th Cir. 2017) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Whitaker v.
Garcetti, 486 F.3d 572, 579 (9th Cir. 2007) (dismissal under Heck v. Humphrey,
512 U.S. 477 (1994)). We vacate and remand.
The district court dismissed Char’s action as Heck-barred on the basis of
Char’s convictions for attempted murder in the second degree, assault in the
second degree, and assault in the third degree in State v. Char, Cr. No.
1PC161001291 (Haw. 1st Cir. Ct.) (“Case 1291”).1 However, these charges arose
out of an incident on August 1, 2016. See State v. Char, 476 P.3d 773, 2020 WL
7028600, at *2 (Haw. Ct. App. 2020). In this action, Char alleged claims related to
his arrest on June 2, 2016, which resulted in charges in a different criminal case for
1
We take judicial notice of the Hawaii state court dockets in State v. Char,
Cr. No. 1PC161001291 (Haw. 1st Cir. Ct.), and State v. Char, Cr. No.
1PC161000903 (Haw. 1st Cir. Ct.). See United States ex rel. Robinson Rancheria
Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir. 1992) (explaining that
this court may take notice of state court proceedings if those proceedings have a
direct relation to matters at issue).
2 24-2805
assault in the second degree and criminal property damage. See State v. Char, Cr.
No. 1PC161000903 (Haw. 1st Cir. Ct.) (“Case 903”). Char is still awaiting trial in
the proceeding arising from his June 2, 2016 arrest.
We are unable to determine, on this record, whether Char’s action is Heck-
barred. Case 903 is ongoing, and nothing in the current record shows how Char’s
convictions in Case 1291 relate to this action or what factual bases underlie the
convictions. See Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 393-94 (2007) (recognizing that
Heck applies only when an outstanding criminal conviction already exists; civil
proceedings may be stayed while related criminal charges are pending); Lemos v.
County of Sonoma, 40 F.4th 1002, 1006-07 (9th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (explaining
that to “decide whether success on a section 1983 claim would necessarily imply
the invalidity of a conviction, we must determine which acts formed the basis for
the conviction” and analyze whether the § 1983 claim negates an element of the
convicted offense). We vacate the judgment and remand for further proceedings.
We reject as unsupported by the record Char’s contention that the district
court was biased against him.
VACATED and REMANDED.
3 24-2805
Plain English Summary
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 27 2025 MOLLY C.
Key Points
01NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 27 2025 MOLLY C.
02MEMORANDUM* ANTHONY SMITH, Police Officer, City and County of Honolulu, in his individual and official capacity; ASHLEY STIBBARD, Police Officer, City and County of Honolulu, in her individual and official capacity; ALAN LU, Police Officer,
03Gillmor, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 18, 2025** * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
04** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument.
Frequently Asked Questions
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 27 2025 MOLLY C.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Char v. Smith in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on June 27, 2025.
Use the citation No. 10618649 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.