Nancy D. Freudenthal
How Judge Freudenthal rules, drawn from 15 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Freudenthal
Nancy Dell Freudenthal is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Freudenthal received a commission on May 6, 2010. Judge Freudenthal assumed senior status on June 1, 2022.
Judge Freudenthal's practices and standing orders
Rules for cases before Judge Freudenthal, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026). Judges revise these often, so confirm the current version on the court's site before you file.
- Rule 26(f) Conference Checklist ↗
- Case Management Plan ↗
- Final Pretrial and Trial Pointers for Civil Cases ↗
- Guidelines for Proposed Findings and Conclusions in Bench Trials ↗
- Procedure for Direct Testimony by Written Statement ↗
- Initial Pretrial Order for Bench Trial ↗
- Initial Pretrial Order for Jury Trial ↗
- Final Pretrial Order for Bench Trial ↗
- Final Pretrial Order for Jury Trial ↗
Key rules
Trial
Submit one joint final pretrial order in a civil case; separate submissions are not permitted.
“The form for the joint final pretrial order can be found on the Court’s website. Separate submittals are not permitted.”
Trial
In civil jury selection, refer to jurors by assigned number rather than name.
“Do not refer to jurors by name – use the jurors’ assigned numbers only.”
Trial
At least one week before trial, give the court reporter witness names and a terminology index.
“At least one week prior to trial, all parties must provide to the court reporter”
Trial
Provide the other party, courtroom deputy, and court reporter each morning’s exhibit list.
“Counsel must provide each other, the Courtroom Deputy, and the Court Reporter with a list of exhibits to be used with each witness every morning of trial.”
Standing orders for every case in this court
Orders the court applies to all of its cases, whichever judge has them, as published on the court's website (checked October 9, 2026).
How Judge Freudenthal decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In Western Watersheds Project v. Christiansen, she affirmed a one-year Forest Park permit but reversed and remanded the Forest Service’s decision on a five-year Alkali Creek permit after finding a NEPA violation.
“The Court AFFIRMS the one-year SUP for Forest Park (GRY100220) but lacks jurisdiction to entertain Petitioners’ challenges to continued supplemental winter feeding at Forest Park pending a final decision on WGFC’s application; ... The USFS decision memo (AR1053) supporting the agency action to authorize the five-year SUP for the Alkali Creek feedground is REVERSED AND REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this decision.”
Procedural preferences
In Barela v. Martin, she granted a jurisdictional challenge to a habeas petition but denied the request for dismissal with prejudice, holding that a lack of jurisdiction required dismissal without prejudice.
“The motion is GRANTED to the extent it argues a lack of jurisdiction over Petitioner's claims, and is DENIED to the extent it seeks dismissal with prejudice.”
Cautions
In Bird v. State of Wyoming, Freudenthal granted in part a prisoner’s motion for relief from a filing-restrictions order. She clarified that the restrictions covered further self-represented litigation about his confinement conditions or habeas proceedings and otherwise kept the restrictions in place.
“Bird's motion (ECF 53) for relief from the Filing Restrictions Order is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, consistent with the foregoing, and the Filing Restrictions Order is amended to add the text in italics.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“Defendants' motions for summary judgment (ECF 118, 120) are GRANTED. Counts I through XI of Plaintiffs' complaint are DISMISSED with prejudice.”
“Defendants' motions for summary judgment (ECF 118, 120) are GRANTED.”
“the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Respondent's second motion for summary judgment, Doc. 25. The motion is GRANTED to the extent it argues a lack of jurisdiction over Petitioner's claims, and is DENIED to the extent it seeks dismissal with prejudice.”
“Plaintiff's motion (doc. 30) to strike affirmative defenses is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART consistent with the foregoing.”
“Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and the complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“For each of the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Defendant's motion for summary judgment (ECF 30). Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and partial summary judgment (ECF 32) is DENIED. Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF 1) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“For each of the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Defendant's motion for summary judgment (ECF 30). Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and partial summary judgment (ECF 32) is DENIED.”
“Consistent with the foregoing, the motions to dismiss (ECF 8, 9, and 17) are each GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction of each Movant. Only the portions of Counts I and II that assert aiding and abetting are dismissed with prejudice. The Court does not give Plaintiff leave to amend because doing so would be futile under the Wyoming law discussed herein.”
“Bird's motion (ECF 53) for relief from the Filing Restrictions Order is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, consistent with the foregoing, and the Filing Restrictions Order is amended to add the text in italics.”
“Consistent with the foregoing, the Court GRANTS the Defendants' motions to dismiss (ECF 36 and 38). ... All of Plaintiffs' federal law claims against all Defendants (Counts I, II, III, IX, XI, XII and XIV) are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“Defendant Ross's alternative motion (ECF 42) is terminated as moot.”
“Because none of the proposed amendments cure the lack of administrative exhaustion or the failure to plausibly allege elements of the claims, the proposed second amended complaint would be futile. Plaintiffs' motion to amend (ECF 40) is accordingly DENIED.”
“For the following reasons, the Court agrees with Petitioners that (1) the USFS must conduct environmental analysis for the Alkali Creek feedground reauthorization... ORDER AFFIRMING IN PART AND REVERSING AND REMANDING IN PART AGENCY ACTION.”
“the Court VACATES the Service's decision to amend the existing 2008 long-term special use permit to reauthorize the continued use of NFS lands for winter elk feedground activities at Alkali Creek Feedground, and REMANDS to the agency for further proceedings consistent with this decision.19”
“1. API's challenge to 30 C.F.R. § 1241.11(b)(5) is GRANTED. That provision is VACATED; 2. The remaining portions of API's petition are DENIED AND DISMISSED.”
“IT IS ORDERED Defendants’ converted motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Chavez was filed on May 11, 2021 and terminated on July 25, 2022 after 440 days. Other terminated matters, including Gleason and First Interstate, are not represented in the dispositive-timing sample.
Pending matters in the official report
Reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts under the Civil Justice Reform Act, as of March 31, 2026.
| Motions pending more than six months | 0 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 1 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 0 |
A snapshot on that date: matters listed may since have been decided or reassigned. A motion referred to a magistrate judge is counted for both judges. Motions in multidistrict litigation, section 2255 cases and Social Security appeals are not counted, and a very large three-year count is generally a multidistrict docket. Source: Appendix A of the report (PDF); about the report.
How long civil cases take in this court
For the whole of United States District Court for the District of Wyoming, not for Judge Freudenthal: median time from filing to disposition of the civil cases the court closed in the 12 months ending September 30, 2025, as reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
| Cases | Median time | |
|---|---|---|
| All civil cases closed | 240 | 9.1 months |
| Closed with no court action | 74 | 4.9 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 70 | 5 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 86 | 15.9 months |
| Closed during trial | 10 | 21.7 months |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 240 | 9.1 months |
| Sep 2024 | 184 | 9 months |
| Sep 2023 | 202 | 10.3 months |
| Sep 2022 | 219 | 12 months |
| Sep 2021 | 210 | 11.7 months |
| Sep 2020 | 189 | 8.9 months |
| Sep 2019 | 195 | 8.9 months |
The table leaves out prisoner petitions, land condemnations, deportation reviews, recovery of overpayments and enforcement of judgments, and reports no median for fewer than 10 cases. A district that closed a large multidistrict litigation in the period shows very large counts and long medians for that year. Source: Table C-5, U.S. District Courts (spreadsheet).
Draft for Judge Freudenthal with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Freudenthal, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Freudenthal's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace