Vany v. Andrew et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
MELANIE VANY, Personal
Representative of the Estate of
Courtland Bryce Froemke;
Plaintiff,
vs.
KEITH ANDREW, AMBER HORN,
SANDRA ALLEN, HEIDI
GILLESPIE, PAUL SCHUAB, SAM
LOVATO, JOE AIKENS, ADAM
FRERICHS, JIM BUSH, JONATHAN
HAEFELE, ENEMENCIO FALCON,
MASON TVRS, CARLY FORTUNE,
DR. PETER SCHILKE, COUNTY OF
CHEYENNE, NEBRASKA, for the
Cheyenne County Sheriff's
Department; and CITY OF SIDNEY,
NEBRASKA, for the Sidney Police
Department;
Defendants.
8:25CV620
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for clarification,
Filing No. 12, and motion for extension of time, Filing No. 13. For the reasons
that follow, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion for clarification and grant
her request for an extension of time.
I. MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION
On December 8, 2025, Plaintiff filed her “Motion for Clarification
Regarding Statute of Limitations and Statutory Tolling.” Filing No. 12.
Plaintiff asks the Court “for clarification regarding the application of the
statute of limitations in light of the documented concealment and delayed
8:25-cv-00620-JMG-PRSE Doc # 14 Filed: 01/07/26 Page 1 of 4 - Page ID #
<pageID>

2
production of records by multiple agencies,” Filing No. 12 at 1, documented by
Plaintiff in her previously submitted “Notice to the Court,” Filing No. 11.
Plaintiff states that “[b]ecause essential records were withheld or concealed,
Plaintiff could not have reasonably known this matter involved wrongful-death
and civil-rights issues until 2025.” Filing No. 12 at 1. Plaintiff, thus, “seeks
clarification from the Court regarding whether the statute of limitations is
tolled under these circumstances”; “how the statute of limitations applies
where the record reflects delayed production, inconsistent explanations, and
incomplete responses to lawful requests for public records and investigative
files”; and “the effect of continued nonproduction of core investigative
materials, and whether such concealment impacts or delays the accrual of
claims under applicable statutes.” Filing No. 12 at 1–2. Plaintiff’s requests for
clarification are improper, however, as they seek the Court’s legal advice on
issues that are not properly before the Court for review.
At present, Plaintiff must obtain the assistance of counsel before this
case can proceed as the Court explained in its October 22, 2025, Memorandum
and Order. Filing No. 8. Plaintiff was granted an extension of time to December
22, 2025, to obtain the services of counsel to litigate this action brought by
Plaintiff in her capacity as the Personal Representative of the Estate of
Courtland Bryce Froemke, see Filing No. 9; Filing No. 10 (text order granting
extension), and she seeks further extension of that deadline, Filing No. 13. As
Plaintiff cannot litigate this action pro se on behalf of the estate and the estate
cannot litigate its action in this Court without representation by counsel, any
issues regarding the timeliness of the complaint or the possible application of
equitable tolling are not properly before the Court. The Court cannot advise
Plaintiff on the potential application of the statute of limitation or equitable
tolling principles when Plaintiff’s action is not properly filed in this Court
8:25-cv-00620-JMG-PRSE Doc # 14 Filed: 01/07/26 Page 2 of 4 - Page ID #
<pageID>

3
without the assistance of a licensed attorney. See KCCP Tr. v. City of N. Kan.
City, 432 F.3d 897, 899 (8th Cir. 2005) (explaining that Article III of the
Constitution prohibits federal courts from providing “advisory opinions”); see
also Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1219 (9th Cir. 2007) (“A district court
lacks the power to act as a party’s lawyer, even for pro se litigants.”).
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for clarification, Filing No. 12, is denied.
II. MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
On December 8, 2025, Plaintiff moved for an extension of the December
22, 2025, deadline to obtain counsel to represent the Estate of Courtland Bryce
Froemke. Filing No. 13. Plaintiff represents that she has acted diligently and
in good faith in attempting to obtain counsel but “has been unable to secure
counsel due to the complexity of the case and the volume of records requiring
review.” Filing No. 13. Plaintiff states she continues to contact individual law
firms and has expanded her efforts to secure representation. Upon
consideration, and for good cause shown, the Court will grant Plaintiff an
extension of 30 days from the date of this order to obtain the assistance of
counsel.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff’s motion for clarification, Filing No. 12, is denied.
2. Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time, Filing No. 13, is granted.
Plaintiff shall have until February 6, 2026, to obtain the services of counsel
in accordance with the Court’s October 22, 2025, Memorandum and Order.
3. The Clerk of Court is directed to set a pro se case management
deadline using the following text: February 6, 2026: deadline for Plaintiff to
obtain counsel for estate.
8:25-cv-00620-JMG-PRSE Doc # 14 Filed: 01/07/26 Page 3 of 4 - Page ID #
<pageID>

4
Dated this 7th day of January, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
_________________________________
John M. Gerrard
Senior United States District Judge
8:25-cv-00620-JMG-PRSE Doc # 14 Filed: 01/07/26 Page 4 of 4 - Page ID #
<pageID>