Xiong v. Wofford

What the court wrote

Verbatim from the court's document (public domain). Ellipses mark omitted text; nothing is paraphrased.

Petitioner was ordered to provide in his OSC response signed declarations from Petitioner’s counsel, law student Gina Herrera, and any and all other staff who assisted Petitioner’s counsel regarding compliance with the Court’s January 13, 2026 Order; a detailed description of how the hallucinated citations were included in Petitioner’s reply brief at ECF No. 12; a detailed description of what steps were taken to confirm whether counsel’s filings in other immigration habeas cases filed in the Eastern District of California also contained hallucinated citations and what steps were taken to bring those issues to the district court’s attention; a table of authorities of all cases Petitioner has cited in all of Petitioner’s filings in this action, Case No. 1:25-cv-2004-CSK, organized by filing, including (1) the verbatim citation in Petitioner’s filing, the ECF number of the filing, and the page number of the filing on which the authority is cited; (2) identification of whether each citation is an accurate citation or whether it is a hallucinated or fictitious citation; and (3) for each citation, if the citation is an accurate citation for an actual case, a complete copy of the actual case/decision cited attached to the table of authorities. ... 49) and declines to impose sanctions on Petitioner’s counsel Cummings or law student Herrera for counsel’s failure to fully comply with the Court’s January 13, 2026 order. The Court repeats its admonishment that while AI and generative AI tools can assist counsel and parties, these tools must be used responsibly.