Ronald L. McNinch, on behalf of himself, Pro Se v. Guam and The Honorable Lou Leon Guerrero, personally and in her official capacities, together with all others similarly situated

• Court: District Court, D. Guam
• Decided: December 17, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-00034
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 THE DISTRICT COURT OF GUAM 7 RONALD L. MCNINCH, on behalf of CIVIL CASE NO. 25-00034 himself, Pro Se, 8 Plaintiff, 9 vs. 10 GUAM and THE HONORABLE LOU ORDER 11 LEON GUERRERO, personally and in her Permitting Filing of Second Amended 12 official capacities, together with all others Complaint, Continuing Scheduling similarly situated, Conference and Denying Motion to Adjust Schedule (ECF No. 18) 13 Defendants. 14 15 On August 22, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a Complaint herein, followed by the filing of 16 an Amended Complaint on October 24, 2025. See ECF Nos. 1 and 5. The captions of the 17 Complaint and Amended Complaint listed the following Defendants: “Guam and the 18 Honorable Lou Leon Guerrero, personally and in her official capacities, together with all 19 others similarly situated.” Id. 20 On November 13, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (the 21 “SAC”), which named “Guam, the Guam Election Commission, the Democratic Party of 22 Guam and the Republican Party of Guam” as defendants. See ECF No. 8. 23 On November 14, 2025, the court issued an Order to Show Cause, directing the 24 Plaintiff to show cause why the court should not strike the SAC from the docket for failure 25 to comply with Rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Order to Show 26 Cause, ECF No. 11. 27 On November 18, 2025, the Plaintiff filed his Response to the Order to Show Cause. 28 See Resp., ECF No. 12. The Plaintiff stated that he “and the Defendants’ [a]ttorney mutually 1 discussed . . . and agreed that the Governor should be removed as a party and that the Plaintiff 2 would amend the complaint to add the other parties.” Id. at 1. The Plaintiff acknowledged 3 that “this was not made clear in the SAC filing” and that the “Defendants’ [a]ttorney has 4 offered to make a filing . . . to reflect this point.” Id. 5 On November 20, 2025, the Defendant Government of Guam1 filed an Amended 6 Response to the Plaintiff’s Response to the Order to Show Cause, stating that it “has no 7 objection to the filing of the [SAC].” See Gov’t of Guam Am. Resp. at 2, ECF No. 16. 8 Defendant Government of Guam asked the court to “dismiss the complaint as to Governor 9 Leon Guerrero with prejudice [and] permit adjudication of the [SAC].” Id. 10 On November 21, 2025, Defendant Governor Leon Guerrero filed an Amended 11 Response to the Plaintiff’s Response to the Order to Show Cause, stating that she “has no 12 objection to the filing of the [SAC] removing her as a party to this action.” See Governor’s 13 Am. Resp. at 2, ECF No. 17. Defendant Governor Leon Guerrero also requested that the 14 court “dismiss the complaint” as to her “with prejudice.” Id. 15 Because the Government of Guam and Governor Leon Guerrero – defendants named 16 in the Amended Complaint – have now consented to the filing of the SAC pursuant to 17 Rule 15(a)(2), the court deems the SAC to now be the operative pleading. The court orders 18 the Plaintiff to promptly serve the defendants identified in the SAC. 19 With regard to the requests to dismiss the prior Complaint and Amended Complaint, 20 the court denies said requests as moot. As the Supreme Court has instructed, 21 If a plaintiff amends her complaint, the new pleading “supersedes” the old one: The “original pleading no longer performs any function in the case.” 22 6 C. Wright, A. Miller, & M. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1476, pp. 636-637 (3d ed. 2010). Or as we put the matter over a century ago: “When 23 a petition is amended,” the “cause proceeds on the amended petition.” Washer v. Bullitt County, 110 U.S. 558, 562 (1884). So changes in parties, or changes 24 in claims, effectively remake the suit. 25 Royal Canin U. S. A., Inc. v. Wullschleger, 604 U.S. 22, 35 (2025) (parallel citations omitted). 26 27 1 In the amended response, the Assistant Attorney General stated that defendant Government of Guam was “incorrectly named ‘Guam’” when it was listed as a defendant. See 28 Gov’t of Guam Am. Resp. at 1, ECF No. 16. Oder Permitting Filing of SAC and Continaing Schedling Conference 1 The Ninth Circuit has also stated that “[i]t is well-established in our circuit that an 2 || “amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter being treated thereafter as 3 || non-existent.” Ramirez v. Cnty. of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015) 4 (quoting Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997) (internal citation 5 || omitted), overruled on other grounds by Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 927-28 (9th 6 || Cir. 2012)). Accordingly, the SAC supersedes the original Complaint and the Amended 7 || Complaint, and said prior pleadings no longer perform any function in this case. 8 Finally, in light of the current posture of the case, the court continues the scheduling 9 || conference set for December 18, 2025, to February 5, 2026, at 10:15 a.m. The parties are 10 || ordered to file a Scheduling and Planning Conference Report on or before January 9, 2026. 11 |) The Plaintiff's Motion to Adjust Schedule, ECF No. 18, is denied as moot. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. □□□ □□□ /s/ Michael J. Bordallo 14 Rae U.S. Magistrate Judge 4 Dated: Dec 17, 2025 =

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28