Jump To

Top Caption Trial Court Document The text of this document was obtained by analyzing a scanned document and may have typos.

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

Feb. 24, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Steven Wade Maisano v. Tim Norman Lang, in his official capacity as Secretary of Washington State Department of Corrections, a state agency

District Court, E.D. Washington

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 2:25-cv-00453

• Precedential Status: Unknown Status

• Opinion

• Authorities (17)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (2.1K)

• PDF

Trial Court Document

1

2 FILED IN THE

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
3 Feb 24, 2026

4 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

6

7

STEVEN WADE MAISANO, No. 2:25-cv-00453-RLP

8

Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

9

v. DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE

AND DENYING RETROACTIVE

10

TIM NORMAN LANG, in his official MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND

capacity as Secretary of Washington AS MOOT

11

State Department of Corrections, a state

agency,

12

              Defendant.                                                 

13

14 Before the Court is Defendant Washington State Department of Corrections
15 Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 6, and Plaintiff’s request for retroactive leave to file a
16 Third Amended Complaint, ECF No. 8. Plaintiff is represented by attorney Mark
17 Knapp and Assistant Attorney General Tyler D. Lloyd represents Washington
18 Department of Corrections. This matter was considered without oral argument.
19 According to the Third Amended Complaint, firearms were confiscated from
20 Mr. Maisano’s home gun safe while he was under the supervision of the

1 Washington Department of Corrections for a felony conviction in Montana. Once
2 his supervision was complete, Mr. Maisano claims he made demands for the return

3 of the confiscated firearms, some of which belonged to his father, which were
4 ignored or denied. Based on the failure to return his firearms, Mr. Maisano claims
5 the Secretary of the Department of Corrections committed violations of the Fourth,

6 Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. He seeks a declaratory judgment and

7 injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Because the complaint does not allege
8 sufficient facts against the individual defendant, it fails as a matter of law and
9 dismissal is appropriate.

10

FACTS/BACKGROUND

11

Plaintiff Steven Maisano was convicted of one or more felonies in the State
12

of Montana. ECF No. 6 at 2; see ECF No. 8-1, ¶ 13. He was granted a deferred
13

sentence on specified conditions, including a prohibition on owning, possessing, or
14

controlling firearms. ECF No. 6 at 2. In November 2024, Washington DOC was
15

supervising Mr. Maisano pursuant to an interstate transfer of community

16

supervision authority between the states of Montana and Washington. ECF No. 8-
17

1, ¶ 11. On November 26, 2024, the DOC confiscated Mr. Maisano’s firearms.
18

ECF No. 8-1, ¶ 6. Some of the firearms seized reportedly belonged to Mr.

19

Maisano’s father, who resided with Mr. Maisano. ECF No. 8-1, ¶ 8.

20

1 According to the Third Amended Complaint, on April 17, 2025, a Montana
2 court entered an order terminating his deferred sentence and dismissing the case,

3 resulting in the restoration of Mr. Maisano’s right to possess firearms in Montana.
4 ECF No. 8-1, ¶ 15. Mr. Maisano has made several demands for return of the
5 firearms which have been denied or ignored. ECF No. 8-1, ¶ 17. Mr. Maisano

6 asserts there is no legal authority prohibiting him from possessing firearms under
7 any state or federal law and even if the original confiscation was lawful, the April
8 17 court order resulted in Mr. Maisano’s right to possess firearms being restored.
9 ECF No. 1 at 4, ¶ 12. Therefore, according to the Third Amended Complaint, the

10 Washington DOC has no basis for withholding Mr. Maisano’s property and his
11 firearms should be returned. ECF No. 1, ¶ 13.

12 Mr. Maisano further alleges the Montana felony conviction is not the

13 equivalent of a felony conviction in Washington State. Accordingly, he did not
14 need to have his rights restored in Washington to lawfully possess firearms. ECF
15 No. 8-1, ¶ 12. Alternatively, his right to possess a firearm in Washington was
16 restored when his rights were restored by the Montana court. ECF No. 8-1, ¶ 13.

17 He further alleges he did not lose his rights to possess a firearm under Washington
18 law because the elements of his Montana felony conviction do not match the
19 elements for a felony conviction in Washington. ECF No. 8-1, ¶ 13. And he alleges

20

1 that the DOC has no basis for withholding his firearms once his right to possess
2 firearms was restored in Montana. ECF No. 8-1, ¶ 14.

3 According to Mr. Maisano, the items seized have an estimated value of
4 $60,000. Many are collector items, and several belong to Mr. Maisano’s father
5 who shared the gun safe. ECF No. 8-1, ¶ 18.

6 On October 27, 2025, Mr. Maisano filed a Complaint against the

7 Washington State Department of Corrections alleging three causes of action for
8 violations of the Second, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. ECF No. 1. The
9 request for relief included declaratory relief and/or injunction, actual and punitive

10 damages in the amount of $250,000, attorney’s fees, court costs, and other relief.
11 ECF No. 1. An Amended Complaint adding a jury demand was filed on the same
12 date. ECF No. 2.

13 On January 20, 2026, the DOC filed a Motion to Dismiss based on Eleventh
14 Amendment immunity from suit and failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
15 ECF No. 6. On the same date, without requesting leave of the Court, Mr. Maisano
16 filed a Second Amended Complaint, adding DOC Secretary Tim Lang as a

17 defendant. ECF No. 7.

18 Eleven days later, on January 31, 2026, Mr. Maisano filed a combined
19 responsive brief to the Motion to Dismiss and a Request for Leave to Amend

20 regarding a concurrently filed Third Amended Complaint. ECF No. 8. The third
1 iteration of the complaint purports to eliminate issues of Eleventh Amendment
2 sovereign immunity raised in the Motion to Dismiss by removing the Washington

3 State Department of Corrections as a defendant. ECF No. 8 at 1. The Third
4 Amended Complaint names Secretary Lang as the sole defendant and seeks only a
5 declaratory judgment and injunctive relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No.

6 8-1.

7 LEGAL STANDARD

8 Rule 12(b)(6) allows a party to move for dismissal if the plaintiff has failed to
9 state a claim upon which relief can be granted. FRCP 12(b)(6). Dismissal under this

10 rule is proper only if there is either a “lack of a cognizable legal theory” or “the
11 absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory.” Taylor v. Yee,
12 780 F.3d 928, 935 (9th Cir. 2015); Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696,

13 699 (9th Cir. 1990). When considering a 12(b)(6) motion, the court accepts the
14 allegations in the complaint as true and construes the pleading in the light most
15 favorable to the party opposing the motion. Lazy Y Ranch Ltd. v. Behrens, 546 F.3d
16 580, 588 (9th Cir. 2008). However, this does not require the Court “to accept as true

17 legal conclusions couched as factual allegations.” Parents for Privacy v. Barr, 949 18 F.3d 1210, 1221 (9th Cir. 2020).

19

20

1 To survive a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff must allege “enough facts to state
2 a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, [550 U.S.

3 544, 570](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/145747/watters-v-wachovia-bank-n-a/#544), 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007); see also Levitt v. Yelp! Inc., 765 F.3d 1123, 1135
4 (9th Cir. 2014) (requirements of notice pleading are met if plaintiff makes a short
5 and plain statement of their claims). A claim is plausible on its face when “the

6 plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference
7 that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
8 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009). The allegations must be enough to raise the right
9 to relief above a speculative level. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955. It is

10 not enough that a claim for relief be merely “possible” or “conceivable;” instead, it
11 must be “plausible on its face.” Id. at 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955.

12 DISCUSSION

13 Motion to Dismiss

14 The DOC moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff
15 responded by filing, without leave of the Court, a Second Amended Complaint,
16 then a Third Amended Complaint. The Court considers only Mr. Maisano’s Third

17 Amended Complaint in evaluating the Motion to Dismiss.1

18

19 1 Generally, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint and
20 renders it without legal effect. Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 8.96, 927 (9th Cir.
1 The Third Amended Complaint names Department of Corrections Secretary
2 Tim Lang as the sole defendant and seeks only a declaratory judgment and

3 injunctive relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 8-1. Defendant’s reply
4 contends the Third Amended Complaint should be dismissed because it does not
5 claim that Mr. Lang violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights and therefore fails to

6 state a claim.

7 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a complaint must allege (1) the
8 conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color state law and
9 (2) the conduct deprived the plaintiff of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by

10 the Constitution or laws of the United States. Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535,
11 101 S.Ct. 1908 (1981), overruled on other grounds, Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S.
12 327, 106 S.Ct. 662 (1986). This requires a plaintiff to allege facts showing how

13 each individually named defendant caused or personally participated in causing the
14 harm alleged in the complaint. Arnold v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp., 637 F.2d 1350,
15 1355 (9th Cir. 1981).

16 Supervising state officials may be liable under § 1983 only if they directly

17 participated in or knew of a violation and failed to prevent it, Taylor v. List, 880 18 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989), or if they established a custom or policy that led
19

2012).

20

1 to the violation. See Ybarra v. Reno Thunderbird Mobile Home Village, 723 F.2d
2 675, 681 (9th Cir. 1984); see also Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207 (9th Cir.

3 2011) (a supervisor can only be held liable for his or her own culpable action or
4 inaction). Here, Plaintiff alleges no facts from which the Court could infer that
5 DOC Secretary Tim Lang was aware of constitutional violations or that any

6 alleged violations were caused by a custom or policy he established. In fact, the
7 Third Amended Complaint states, “Plaintiff is not alleging that Defendant, in his
8 capacity as DOC Secretary, was personally involved in refusing to return the
9 Plaintiff’s property.” ECF No. 8-1 at 2 (emphasis in original). Mr. Lang is not

10 mentioned in the factual allegations or any cause of action.

11 At most, Plaintiff’s causes of action allege generally that “unnamed DOC
12 employees and/or officials” and “DOC employees and/or officials” have engaged

13 in constitutional violations. ECF No. 8-1 at 6-7. Vague and conclusory allegations
14 of official participation in civil rights violations are insufficient. Peña v. Gardner,
15 976 F.2d 469, 471 (9th Cir. 1992). There is no plausible claim against Mr. Lang
16 and the Third Amended Complaint is therefore dismissed.

17 Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint

18 Plaintiff retroactively requests leave to file the Third Amended Complaint,
19 which was already filed. ECF No. 8, 8-1. Having determined the Third Amended

20 Complaint should be dismissed, the Court denies this motion as moot. Counsel is
1 reminded that future requests to amend should be made in advance pursuant to
2 Rule 15(a)(2) with a proposed amended complaint submitted as an attachment.

3 Leave to Amend

4 The Court observes that leave to amend is generously granted.2 Further
5 amendment may be futile because it appears: (1) Plaintiff lacks standing to assert

6 deprivation of property claims from his father; (2) Plaintiff has not articulated a
7 discernable constitutional claim because Plaintiff admits the firearms were legally
8 seized (ECF No. 8 at 8); and (3) any claim may not be ripe because Plaintiff does
9 not allege he has been barred from seeking return of property under RCW

10 9.41.098(4).

11

12

13 2 The district court considers the existence of the following factors in
14 deciding whether to grant leave to amend: undue delay, bad faith, dilatory motive
15 on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments
16 previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance

17 of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc. Absent any of those factors, the
18 leave sought should, as the rules require, be ‘freely given.’” Eminence Cap., LLC
19 v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1051-52 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Foman v. Davis,

20 371 U.S. 178, 182, 83 S.Ct. 227 (1962)).

1 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED:
2 1. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 6, is GRANTED without
3|| prejudice and with leave to amend.
4 2. Plaintiff's retroactive Request for Leave to File Amended Complaint,
5|| ECF No. 8, is DENIED as moot.
6 IT IS SO ORDERED. The Court Clerk is directed to enter this Order and
7| provide copies to counsel.
8 DATED February 24, 2026.

10 ~~ REBECCAL.PENNELL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

ORDER  CR ANTING WOTION TOA NICVITES WITTIOTTIT     ETIINICE . 10