Courts on AI / Fabricated or misquoted citations

Joshua Harris v. Pinnacle Bank

United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi · Federal district courts · MS · 2026-05-07 · No. 3:25-cv-00157-RPC-RP; 3:25-cv-00158-RPC-RP · order

Fabricated or misquoted citations

The Northern District of Mississippi on 2026-05-07 dismissed the case with prejudice as a sanction for repeated fabricated citations and other Rule 11 violations in Joshua Harris v. Pinnacle Bank. The self-represented plaintiff filed a motion with three fabricated case citations, one false case quotation, four fabricated legal rules, and three misstated legal rules.

Disposition: The consolidated actions were dismissed with prejudice and defendants were permitted to seek fees.
Recorded conduct: Harris repeatedly filed fictitious and AI-generated authorities and rules after warnings, then admitted the misconduct. The court dismissed the actions with prejudice as an appropriate sanction. — outcome: dismissal; actor: litigant in person
Canonical record: Incident tracker entry — verified outcome, regulator disposition and related rules

What the court wrote

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

...TION NO.: 3:25-cv-158-RPC-RP PINNACLE BANK DEFENDANT MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court sua sponte following a Show Cause Hearing held on April 29, 2026, regarding Plaintiff Joshua Harris’s use of fictitious and AI-generated legal citations in filings submitted to the Court.1 Defendant Pinnacle Bank has also filed a Motion to Dismiss / Motion for Sanctions, seeking the sanction of dismissal for Plaintiff’s use of such legal authorities. See [Doc. 46]. Having reviewed the record, the parties’ submissions, and the applicable law, the Court finds that the sanction of dismissal with prejudice is warranted. Accordingly, all claims asserted by Plaintiff Joshua Harris are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Defendant’s [46] Mo...

Authorities cited in the passage: Fed. R. Civ. P. 11

Court document: damiencharlotin.com
Read: 2026-09-07 · court document read from a public copy; the court's own copy was not found online when checked (see notes)provisional
Found via: charlotin-hallucinations-db
Notes: Re-coded from the document 2026-09-08 (independent second read). Official copy not obtained 2026-09-08: not in the court's GovInfo feed for this docket (many district courts publish only some orders) (checked govinfo.gov (USCOURTS), CourtListener RECAP search).

United States court documents are public domain; the topic coding, disposition line and summary are SafeLegalAI's reading of the document for comparison, not a finding about any person named in it. This record summarises a public court document or official publication and reports what it says; SafeLegalAI makes no findings of its own. Individuals and organisations are named only as they appear in that public record. Anyone named may send a right of reply, correction or contextual update (for example an appeal, vacatur or later disposition) via /report; we add a dated note where appropriate. Reply or correct this record.

compiled by the SafeLegalAI editorial teammethodas of 2026-09-08v0.2.2coding CC BY 4.0JSON Hugging Face GitHub