Michael Petramala v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL PETRAMALA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE; ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr.,
Attorney General,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-17174
D.C. No. 2:10-cv-02002-FJM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Frederick J. Martone, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 10, 2012**
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Michael Petramala appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action concerning his ability to lawfully possess
FILED
SEP 25 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

11-17174 2
firearms. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a
dismissal for failure to state a claim, Miller v. Yokohama Tire Corp., 358 F.3d 616,
619 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Petramala’s Second Amendment claim
because Petramala’s inclusion in the National Instant Criminal Background Check
System, after being adjudicated as a “mental defective” under the Gun Control Act
of 1968, imposed constitutionally permissible limits on his right to bear arms. See
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 626 (2008) (recognizing validity of
certain limits on the right to bear arms, including “longstanding prohibitions on the
possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill”).
The district court properly dismissed Petramala’s Fifth Amendment claim
because judicially noticeable documents established that Petramala received both
due process and legal representation during the Arizona state law criminal
proceeding in which he was adjudicated as a “mental defective” for purposes of the
Gun Control Act of 1968. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4) (barring, among other things,
possession of a firearm by anyone adjudicated as a mental defective); 27 C.F.R.
§ 478.11(a) (defining the term “adjudicated as a mental defective”).
The district court properly dismissed Petramala’s claim under the Americans
with Disabilities Act because the federal government, its agencies, and its officials

-- 2 of 3 --

11-17174 3
are either expressly excluded or otherwise exempt from the definitions of entities
subject to suit under the statute. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111(2), 12111(5), 12131(1).
Issues not expressly raised on appeal, including the denial of Petramala’s
motion for relief from judgment, are deemed waived. See Cook v. Schriro, 538
F.3d 1000, 1014 n.5 (9th Cir. 2008).
Petramala’s contentions concerning the Thirteenth Amendment, the
Separation of Powers doctrine, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Arizona state law,
and the common law doctrine are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --