McNinch v. Guam and the Honorable Lou Leon Guerrero

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
THE DISTRICT COURT OF GUAM
RONALD L. MCNINCH, on behalf of
himself, Pro Se,
Plaintiff,
vs.
GUAM and THE HONORABLE LOU
LEON GUERRERO, personally and in her
official capacities, together with all others
similarly situated,
Defendants.
CIVIL CASE NO. 25-00034
ORDER
Permitting Filing of Second Amended
Complaint, Continuing Scheduling
Conference and Denying Motion to
Adjust Schedule (ECF No. 18)
On August 22, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a Complaint herein, followed by the filing of
an Amended Complaint on October 24, 2025. See ECF Nos. 1 and 5. The captions of the
Complaint and Amended Complaint listed the following Defendants: “Guam and the
Honorable Lou Leon Guerrero, personally and in her official capacities, together with all
others similarly situated.” Id.
On November 13, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (the
“SAC”), which named “Guam, the Guam Election Commission, the Democratic Party of
Guam and the Republican Party of Guam” as defendants. See ECF No. 8.
On November 14, 2025, the court issued an Order to Show Cause, directing the
Plaintiff to show cause why the court should not strike the SAC from the docket for failure
to comply with Rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Order to Show
Cause, ECF No. 11.
On November 18, 2025, the Plaintiff filed his Response to the Order to Show Cause.
See Resp., ECF No. 12. The Plaintiff stated that he “and the Defendants’ [a]ttorney mutually
Case 1:25-cv-00034 Document 21 Filed 12/17/25 Page 1 of 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
Ronald L. McNinch v. Guam, et al., Civil Case No. 25-00034
Order Permitting Filing of SAC and Continuing Scheduling Conference
discussed . . . and agreed that the Governor should be removed as a party and that the Plaintiff
would amend the complaint to add the other parties.” Id. at 1. The Plaintiff acknowledged
that “this was not made clear in the SAC filing” and that the “Defendants’ [a]ttorney has
offered to make a filing . . . to reflect this point.” Id.
On November 20, 2025, the Defendant Government of Guam1 filed an Amended
Response to the Plaintiff’s Response to the Order to Show Cause, stating that it “has no
objection to the filing of the [SAC].” 	See Gov’t of Guam Am. Resp. at 2, ECF No. 16.
Defendant Government of Guam asked the court to “dismiss the complaint as to Governor
Leon Guerrero with prejudice [and] permit adjudication of the [SAC].” Id.
On November 21, 2025, Defendant Governor Leon Guerrero filed an Amended
Response to the Plaintiff’s Response to the Order to Show Cause, stating that she “has no
objection to the filing of the [SAC] removing her as a party to this action.” See Governor’s
Am. Resp. at 2, ECF No. 17. Defendant Governor Leon Guerrero also requested that the
court “dismiss the complaint” as to her “with prejudice.” Id.
Because the Government of Guam and Governor Leon Guerrero – defendants named
in the Amended Complaint – have now consented to the filing of the SAC pursuant to
Rule 15(a)(2), the court deems the SAC to now be the operative pleading. The court orders
the Plaintiff to promptly serve the defendants identified in the SAC.
With regard to the requests to dismiss the prior Complaint and Amended Complaint,
the court denies said requests as moot. As the Supreme Court has instructed,
If a plaintiff amends her complaint, the new pleading “supersedes” the old
one: 	The “original pleading no longer performs any function in the case.”
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
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
in claims, effectively remake the suit.
Royal Canin U. S. A., Inc. v. Wullschleger, 604 U.S. 22, 35 (2025) (parallel citations omitted).
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
Gov’t of Guam Am. Resp. at 1, ECF No. 16.
Case 1:25-cv-00034 Document 21 Filed 12/17/25 Page 2 of 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
Ronald L. McNinch v. Guam, et al., Civil Case No. 25-00034
Order Permitting Filing of SAC and Continuing Scheduling Conference
The Ninth Circuit has also stated that “[i]t is well-established in our circuit that an
“amended 	complaint 	supersedes 	the 	original, 	the 	latter 	being 	treated 	thereafter 	as
non-existent.” Ramirez v. Cnty. of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 1008 (9th Cir. 2015)
(quoting Forsyth v. Humana, Inc., 114 F.3d 1467, 1474 (9th Cir. 1997) (internal citation
omitted), overruled on other grounds by Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 927-28 (9th
Cir. 2012)). 	Accordingly, the SAC supersedes the original Complaint and the Amended
Complaint, and said prior pleadings no longer perform any function in this case.
Finally, in light of the current posture of the case, the court continues the scheduling
conference set for December 18, 2025, to February 5, 2026, at 10:15 a.m. The parties are
ordered to file a Scheduling and Planning Conference Report on or before January 9, 2026.
The Plaintiff’s Motion to Adjust Schedule, ECF No. 18, is denied as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ 0LFKDHO-%RUGDOOR
U.S. Magistrate Judge
Dated: Dec 17, 2025
Case 1:25-cv-00034 Document 21 Filed 12/17/25 Page 3 of 3