govinfo:USCOURTS-akd-4_25-cv-00022-1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA 
 
ANTONIO FRANCISCO MIKA’ELE 
HAWELU, 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
 
BRIAN HIBBS, 
Defendant. 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
ORDER LIFTING STAY & ORDER TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 
On November 10, 2025, the Court issued a Screening Order and stayed this 
case filed by self-represented prisoner Antonio Francisco Mika’ele Hawelu 
(“Plaintiff”) pending the resolution of his then-pending state criminal proceedings.1 
On February 10, 2026, Plaintiff filed a motion described as a “notice of 
continuance.”2 In accordance with the Screening Order, Plaintiff notified the Court 
that he was convicted in state court on two misdemeanor charges on January 7, 
2026 in Case No. 4FA-24-01233CR.3 Yet Plaintiff contends that because he has 
appealed his conviction and is seeking to have the jury's determination reversed , 
his state criminal proceedings are not concluded.4 
In his motion, Plaintiff requests that th e Court determine whether his civil 
claims can proceed immediately despite his conviction. If the Court determines his 
 
1 Docket 6. 
2 Docket 7. 
3 Docket 7. 
4 Docket 7. See also Hawelu v. State, Case Nos. A14921, A14991. 

 
Case No. 4:25-cv-00022-SLG, Hawelu v. Hibbs 
Order Lifting Stay and Order to File First Amended Complaint 
Page 2 of 7 
claims are barred by Heck v. Humphrey, Plaintiff requests the Court stay this case 
until his state court appeal concerning his criminal conviction is resolved.5 
Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, his state court conviction eliminates the 
need for a continued stay in these federal civil proceedings. The possibility of a 
future retrial or dismissal remains contingent upon the uncertain success of his 
pending state court criminal appeals and does not warrant further delaying this 
litigation. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to further extend the stay in this case is 
DENIED; the Clerk is ordered to LIFT THE STAY in this case. 
Plaintiff contends that his excessive force claim against AST Hibbs is not 
barred by Heck v. Humphrey even if his pending criminal appeal is ultimately 
decided against him. 6 However, Plaintiff does not provide the Court with the 
necessary facts regarding the state court proceedings or the incident to evaluate 
the Heck doctrine, such as the specific conduct that formed the basis for each 
conviction and the timing of the alleged force relative to the facts underlying each 
count of conviction. Plaintiff bears the burden to provide sufficient factual context 
to show that his claims are not Heck-barred. Accordingly, within 30 days of the 
date of this order, Plaintiff must file an amended complaint that expressly sets 
forth: 
- What specific facts the jury necessarily found to support his conviction 
 
5 Docket 7. 
6 Docket 7. 

 
Case No. 4:25-cv-00022-SLG, Hawelu v. Hibbs 
Order Lifting Stay and Order to File First Amended Complaint 
Page 3 of 7 
for resisting arrest and his conviction for harming a police dog; and 
- Why those specific factual findings do not pose a Heck bar to his 
excessive force claim. 
DISCUSSION 
When applying the Heck bar, courts ask whether success on a Section 1983 
claim would “necessarily imply the invalidity” of the plaintiff’s criminal conviction. 7 
Excessive force claims may survive Heck when the elements of the offense of 
conviction are not inconsistent with a finding that officers used excessive force on 
the arrestee.8 Plaintiff states that he was convicted on one count of resisting arrest 
in violation of Alaska Statute § 11.56.700(a)(1) and one count of harming a police 
dog in violation of Alaska Statute § 11.56.710.9 According to the publicly available 
state court docket records, 10 Plaintiff was convicted in state court following a jury 
trial.11 When a conviction results from a jury verdict, to apply Heck, a court must 
look at the record of the criminal case, including the jury instructions to determine 
which facts the jury necessarily found.12 
 
7 Beets v. County of Los Angeles, 669 F.3d 1038 (2012). 
8 See, e.g., Hooper v. County of San Diego, 629 F.3d 1127, 1134 (9th Cir. 2011) (“A conviction 
under California Penal Code § 148(a)(1) does not bar a § 1983 claim for excessive force under 
Heck when the conviction and the § 1983 claim are based on different actions during ‘one 
continuous transaction.’”). 
9 Docket 7 at 3. 
10 Pursuant to Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the Court takes judicial notice of the 
Courtview records of the Alaska Court System. Publicly available records of the Alaska Trial 
Courts may be accessed online at https://courts.alaska.gov/main/search-cases.htm. 
11 State of Alaska vs. Hawelu, Antonio Francisco Mika, Case No. 4FA-23-01885CR (Disposition 
01/07/2026: Guilty After Trial). 
12 Lemos v. Cnty. of Sonoma, 40 F.4th 1002, 1006 (9th Cir. 2022). See also Schlosser v. State, 

 
Case No. 4:25-cv-00022-SLG, Hawelu v. Hibbs 
Order Lifting Stay and Order to File First Amended Complaint 
Page 4 of 7 
Under Alaska law, the lawfulness of the arrest is not an element of resisting 
arrest under § 11.56.700(a)(1) that the State must prove .13 Accordingly, under 
Alaska law, a guilty verdict for resisting arrest does not “necessarily determine[] 
the lawfulness of the officers’ actions throughout the whole course of the 
defendant’s conduct,” as it may in other states. 14 Alaska law does, however, 
provide a justification defense under AS § 11.81.400 that a criminal defendant may 
raise.15 Additionally, if the alleged excessive force occurred before or after the acts 
that form the basis of the resisting arrest conviction, even if part of one continuous 
transaction, the Section 1983 claim doesn't necessarily imply the invalidity of the 
criminal conviction.16 
Here, Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges multiple actions that could have formed 
the basis for the convictions (such as fleeing by car, running into a field, and 
refusing to get out of the car), and it is unclear whether the alleged excessive force 
 
372 P.3d 272, 277 (Alaska Ct. App. 2016) (noting that the jury instruction on the elements of 
resisting arrest informed the jurors that a person could not use force to resist an arrest unless 
the officer making the arrest used excessive force). 
13 This statute reads, in pertinent part: “A person may not use force to resist personal arrest or 
interfere with the arrest of another by a peace officer ..., whether the arrest is lawful or unlawful, 
unless ... the force used by the peace officer exceeds that allowed by AS 11.81.370.” 
14 See, e.g., Smith v. City of Hemet, 394 F.3d 689, 695 (9th Cir. 2005) (analyzing the Heck bar 
for a resisting-arrest conviction under California Penal Code § 148(a)). 
15 Alaska Stat. § 11.81.400(a) (providing that “[a] person may not use force to resist personal 
arrest or interfere with the arrest of another by a peace officer" unless "the force used by the 
peace officer exceeds that allowed under AS 11.81.370"). 
16 See, e.g., Hooper v. County of San Diego, 629 F.3d 1127, 1134 (9th Cir. 2011) (“conviction 
under California Penal Code § 148(a)(1) does not bar a § 1983 claim for excessive force under 
Heck when the conviction and the § 1983 claim are based on different actions during ‘one 
continuous transaction.’ ”). 

 
Case No. 4:25-cv-00022-SLG, Hawelu v. Hibbs 
Order Lifting Stay and Order to File First Amended Complaint 
Page 5 of 7 
by the officer that Plaintiff is alleging occurred before, during, or after the conduct 
that formed the basis of Plaintiff’s convictions.17 It is also unclear whether Plaintiff’s 
defense in the state case included an argument that the dog bite or other excessive 
force prevented him from complying with the officer’s instructions. 
If the entire incident is unquestionably part of the actions that formed the 
basis of Plaintiff's conviction, or if the alleged excessive force actions cannot be 
separated from Plaintiff's resistance to the officer attempting to arrest him , 
Plaintiff’s claim is barred by Heck. But without a clear, chronological account and 
relevant portions of the state court record—such as jury instructions, verdict forms, 
and trial transcript excerpts addressing the physical altercation, canine deployment 
and bite duration, and any taser use—the Court cannot assess whether a judgment 
for Plaintiff in this case would conflict with the jury’s findings in the state case. 
Plaintiff will be permitted to file a First Amended Complaint to attempt to 
remedy these deficiencies. Because Plaintiff bears the burden to provide sufficient 
factual context to show that his claims are not Heck-barred, Plaintiff must include 
a detailed statement clarifying the exact chronological order of his conduct versus 
the officers' actions. Plaintiff should also file with his First Amended Complaint the 
relevant portions of the state court record, including: 
1. The jury instructions and verdict forms from his 
 
17 Bates v. Rezentes, 731 F.Supp.3d 1119 (2024). 

 
Case No. 4:25-cv-00022-SLG, Hawelu v. Hibbs 
Order Lifting Stay and Order to File First Amended Complaint 
Page 6 of 7 
criminal trial. 
2. Relevant portions of the trial transcript detailing the 
testimony or evidence regarding the physical altercation 
and the arrest. 
3. Relevant judicial orders from the state criminal 
proceedings. 
In addition to attaching these state court documents, all this information 
must still be included in the First Amended Com plaint itself, and Plaintiff must 
specifically identify in the amended complaint the page number of the 
document that supports each of his contentions. 
If Plaintiff files an amended complaint, the Court will screen the amended 
complaint to determine whether it is subject to dismissal or whether that complaint 
may proceed to the next stage of litigation. Should the amended complaint proceed 
beyond the scre ening stage, the Court will order service of that complaint on 
Defendant. Plaintiff must not attempt to serve Defendant Hibbs until the Court so 
orders. 
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: 
1. Plaintiff’s motion to stay this case at Docket 7 is DENIED. 
2. The Clerk shall LIFT THE STAY in this case. 
3. Plaintiff is accorded 60 days from the date of this order to file either: 

 
Case No. 4:25-cv-00022-SLG, Hawelu v. Hibbs 
Order Lifting Stay and Order to File First Amended Complaint 
Page 7 of 7 
a. First Amended Complaint , in which Plaintiff revises his 
complaint to address the deficiencies identified in this order. 
An amended complaint should be on the Court’s form, which 
is being provided to Plaintiff with this order; OR 
b. Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, in which Plaintiff elects to close 
and end this case. 
4. With this order, the Clerk is directed to send: (1) form PS01, with 
“FIRST AMENDED” written above the title “Prisoner’s Complaint Under the Civil 
Rights Act 42 U.S.C. § 1983”; (2) form PS09, Notice of Voluntary Dismissal; and 
(3) form PS23, Notice of Change of Address. 
DATED this 11th day of June, 2026, at Anchorage, Alaska. 
/s/ Sharon L. Gleason 
SHARON L. GLEASON 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Passage view · GavelSight