Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-00029/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-00029-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Michael Petramala, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

State of Arizona, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-19-00029-PHX-DWL

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Michael Petramala’s motion for 

reconsideration. (Doc. 9.) As explained below, the motion will be granted in part and 

denied in part. 

 As background, on January 30, 2019, the Court issued a screening order dismissing 

Petramala’s pro se complaint. (Doc. 7.) The screening order concluded that Count I of the 

complaint (a Second Amendment challenge to various Arizona and federal laws that 

prohibit the mentally ill from possessing firearms) was foreclosed by settled Supreme 

Court and Ninth Circuit law and that Petramala lacked standing with respect to Count II of 

the complaint (a constitutional challenge to Arizona’s practice of requiring individuals 

seeking to restore their firearm rights to pay an initial filing fee) because judiciallynoticeable records establish that he has repeatedly attempted to establish his competency 

and obtain the restoration of his firearm rights under A.R.S. § 13-925 and that the filing 

fees associated with that process haven’t impaired his ability to seek relief. (Id.) 

... 

Case 2:19-cv-00029-DWL Document 15 Filed 02/15/19 Page 1 of 4
- 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 

 On February 4, 2019, Petramala filed three documents with the Clerk of Court. 

First, he filed a motion for reconsideration of the screening order. (Doc. 9.) Second, he 

filed a supplement to his motion for reconsideration. (Doc. 10.) Third, he filed a notice of 

appeal to the Ninth Circuit. (Doc. 11.) Petramala also filed a second supplement to his 

motion for reconsideration a few days later. (Doc. 12.) 

 As an initial matter, even though Petramala has filed a notice of appeal (a step that 

ordinarily divests a district court of jurisdiction over the underlying case), the Court retains 

jurisdiction to rule on the pending motion for reconsideration. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(i) 

(“If a party files a notice of appeal after the court announces or enters a judgment—but 

before it disposes of any motion listed in Rule 4(a)(4)(A)1

—the notice becomes effective 

to appeal a judgment or order, in whole or in part, when the order disposing of the last such 

remaining motion is entered.”); Doc. 14 at 1 (“The [Ninth Circuit’s] records reflect that the 

notice of appeal was filed during the pendency of a timely-filed motion listed in Federal 

Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4), and that motion is still pending in the district court. 

The February 4, 2019 notice of appeal is therefore ineffective until entry of the order 

disposing of the last such motion outstanding. Accordingly, proceedings in this court are 

held in abeyance pending the district court’s resolution of the pending February 4, 2019 

motion for reconsideration.”). 

 On the merits, the Court is not persuaded it should reconsider its dismissal of Count 

I of the complaint. Although Petramala identifies various cases showing that it may be 

possible to assert an as-applied Second Amendment challenge, he overlooks that the Ninth 

Circuit has already rejected his attempt to raise such a challenge. Petramala v. U.S. Dep’t 

of Justice, 481 Fed. App’x 395, 396 (9th Cir. 2012) (“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 

 

1

 One of the motions listed in Rule 4(a)(4)(A) is a motion “to alter or amend the 

judgment under Rule 59.” Petramala’s motion for reconsideration is a Rule 59(e) motion. 

Schroeder v. McDonald, 55 F.3d 454, 459 (9th Cir. 1995). 

Case 2:19-cv-00029-DWL Document 15 Filed 02/15/19 Page 2 of 4
- 3 - 

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 

to bear arms.”). 

 As for Count II, Petramala contends he has standing because, among other things, 

“the filing fees complained of in this action [were] only recently . . . enacted” and these 

filing fees have prevented him from pursuing new restoration proceedings. (Doc. 9 at 3.) 

Liberally construed, these allegations (which were not asserted in the complaint) suggest 

Petramala may have standing to pursue Count II of his complaint. Accordingly, the Court 

is persuaded that it should reconsider its decision to dismiss Count II on standing grounds. 

 Nevertheless, another problem remains. The complaint identifies three defendants: 

(1) the State of Arizona, (2) the United States Attorney General, and (3) the United States. 

Dismissal is warranted as to the two federal defendants because Count II only challenges 

the filing fees charged by Arizona as part of its state restoration process. Moreover, 

Petramala’s effort to sue “the State of Arizona” is improper under the Eleventh 

Amendment. Cf. Mach v. Arizona, 2011 WL 4101159, *2-3 (D. Ariz. 2011) (“The State 

of Arizona and the Arizona Department of Corrections are not proper Defendants. Under 

the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, a state or state agency 

may not be sued in federal court without its consent. . . . Therefore, . . . because Defendant 

State of Arizona is the only proper Defendant in Count Two, the Court will dismiss Count 

Two.”). 

 This defect is potentially curable. Thus, the Court will reconsider its screening order 

to the extent it dismissed Count II of the complaint with prejudice. Within 30 days, 

Petramala may submit a first amended complaint to cure the deficiencies outlined above. 

A first amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 

1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992); Hal Roach Studios v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 

1546 (9th Cir. 1990). After amendment, the Court will treat the original complaint as 

nonexistent. Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262. Any cause of action that was raised in the original 

complaint and that was voluntarily dismissed or was dismissed without prejudice is waived 

if it is not alleged in a first amended complaint. Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 

928 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc). 

Case 2:19-cv-00029-DWL Document 15 Filed 02/15/19 Page 3 of 4
- 4 - 

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 

 According, IT IS ORDERED that: 

(1) Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 9) is granted in part and denied 

in part; 

(2) The judgment (Doc. 8) is vacated; and 

 (3) The complaint (Doc. 1) is dismissed for failure to state a claim. The 

dismissal is with prejudice as to Count I and as to defendants the United States Attorney 

General and the United States. Plaintiff has 30 days from the date of this Order to file a 

first amended complaint in compliance with this Order. 

 Dated this 15th day of February, 2019. 

 

Cc: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 

Case 2:19-cv-00029-DWL Document 15 Filed 02/15/19 Page 4 of 4