Ifeoma Delliane Chinedu Obi v. Cook County, Illinois, et al. (1)

What the court wrote

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

such possibility. Plaintiff generated each brief using AI. Plaintiff’s motion is riddled with AI hallucinations, made up cases, quotes, and statements of law and fact. (Dkt. 90); (see also Dkt. 92-1) (identifying 13 hallucinated cases, quotes, and statements of law). For example, Plaintiff quotes Marshall v. Marshall, 547 U.S. 293 (2006) for the rule that “Federal courts may exercise jurisdiction even when the case touches upon matters traditionally reserved to state law, where federal rights are at issue.” (Dkt. 90 at 3). That quoted language is not in Marshall. Plaintiff cites Andrade v. Arby Concessions, 88 F.4th 1014, 1018 (7th Cir. 2023) to dispute the Court’s Order dismissing her complaint. (Dkt. 90 at 6). “Andrade” is not a real case. Plaintiff’s reliance on AI hallucinations is not limited to made up cases either. Plaintiff conjures up new language from this Court’s prior orders as well. Plaintiff asserts that “Page 7 [of the Court’s November 18, 2025, Order] explicitly references that ‘a federal court may hear a claim alleging a state court judgment is void for lack of jurisdiction,’ which is precisely the central and repeated allegation raised by Plaintiff.” (Dkt.