Donte McClellon v. E. Rickard, Warden of FCI Otisville, et al.

What the court wrote

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

ultimately are not real.” Benjamin v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 779 F. Supp. 3d 341, 342 (E.D.N.Y. 2025). Courts in this circuit have repeatedly found that presenting AI-generated hallucinations as valid caselaw constitutes subjective bad faith. See Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 678 F. Supp. 3d 443, 448–49 (S.D.N.Y. 2023); Benjamin, 779 F. Supp. 3d at 349–50; Ramirez v. Humala, No. 24-CV-242, 2025 WL 1384161, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. May 13, 2025); Kaur v. Desso, No. 25-CV-726, 2025 WL 1895859, at *3 (N.D.N.Y. July 9, 2025). “This conduct undermines the integrity of the judicial process and disrespects and wastes the Court’s and parties’ time and resources.” Andre v. Warden, FCI Danbury, No. 24-CV-01295, 2025 WL 3281732, at *10 (D. Conn. Nov. 25, 2025). “Without question, it is improper and unacceptable for litigants— including pro se litigants—to submit non-existent judicial opinions with fake quotes and citations.” Anonymous v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., No. 24-CV-04232, 2024 WL 3460049, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. July 18, 2024) (internal quotation marks omitted). In order to address the increase in generative AI use and hallucinations, many of my colleagues and I have adopted individual rules requiring all litigants, whether pro se or represented by counsel, to “disclose that AI has been used.” See, e.g., Individual R. & Prac. in Civ. Cases 4(J). In my rules, I also require the party to “further certify in the document that it has independently reviewed and verified the accuracy of any portion of the document drafted by generative AI” and “[f]ailure to comply with this rule may result in sanctions, the document being stricken, or other remedies that the Court deems appropriate.” Id. This obligation requires litigants to carefully review every statement and citation drafted by AI to ensure that it is legally and factually correct, particularly given that AI tools make it much easier for pro se litigants to submit “voluminous” briefing. See Thornock v. Corp. of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, No. 25-CV-56, 2025 WL 1900314, at *4 n.5 (E.D. Va. July 9, 19

Authorities cited in the passage: fake quotes and citations · Benjamin v. Costco Wholesale Corp · Courts in this circuit have repeatedly found that presenting AI-generated hallucinations as valid caselaw constitutes subjective bad faith. See Mata v. Avianca · Ramirez v. Humala, No. 24-CV-242, 2025 WL 1384161 · Kaur v. Desso, No. 25-CV-726, 2025 WL 1895859 · Andre v. Warden · Anonymous v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., No. 24-CV-04232, 2024 WL 3460049 · See Thornock v. Corp. of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, No. 25-CV-56, 2025 WL 1900314