Incident Tracker / United States (federal)
Kafeel v. Apple Inc.
·United States District Court for the Northern District of California·US-FEDWarningprovisional
On 2026-04-01, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied the preliminary-injunction motion and warned that future filings containing nonexistent cases may be stricken from the docket. A self-represented party submitted a motion with fabricated or nonexistent authorities, including In re Grand Jury Subpoena.
- Court
- United States District Court for the Northern District of California
- Date
- 2026-04-01
- Who used the AI
- Litigant in person
- AI tool
- Not identified in the record
- Conduct
- Kafeel’s reply in support of preliminary injunction contained citations that did not exist, including In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 972 F.2d 1474 (9th Cir. 1992).
- Outcome
- Warning
- Penalty
- No monetary penalty recorded
- Regulatory outcome
- No separate regulatory disposition recorded
- Status
- Provisional — written by the court-decisions pipeline, awaiting the editor
- Last checked
- 2026-09-08
Primary sources for this incident
Related regulation records for this incident
No related regulation record has been linked to this incident yet.
Similar incidents on the record
- Carter v. City of Buffalo, No. 25-CV-740 (W.D.N.Y.)2026-09-08 · US District Court, Western District of New York · WarningIn the US District Court for the Western District of New York, self-represented plaintiff Zakkiyya Carter used case law the court said did not support her propositions, after an earlier screening order. Judge John L. Si…
- Ashmeade v. Amazon.com Services LLC, No. 7:23-cv-04331-KMK-VR (S.D.N.Y.)2026-08-27 · US District Court, Southern District of New York · WarningIn the Southern District of New York, self-represented plaintiff Keith Ashmeade cited two nonexistent Southern District decisions while litigating discovery issues against Amazon. Magistrate Judge Reznik identified the…
- Johnson v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, No. 1:25-cv-00855-JRR (D. Md.)2026-08-26 · US District Court, District of Maryland · WarningIn the District of Maryland, self-represented plaintiff Darrin Johnson again cited a case the court could not locate, after an earlier Rule 11 warning. Judge Rubin said the authority appeared to be hallucinated from gen…
- Potterf v. Wessels, No. 1:26-cv-10860-MFL-PTM (E.D. Mich.)2026-08-26 · US District Court, Eastern District of Michigan · WarningIn the Eastern District of Michigan, self-represented plaintiffs admitted using artificial intelligence to draft objections with fictitious or erroneous citations and an invented Supreme Court quotation. Judge Leitman d…
Cite this record
SafeLegalAI Global Legal AI Incident Tracker, “Kafeel v. Apple Inc.”, safelegalai.com/tracker/saqib-kafeel-v-apple-inc-et-al (accessed 2026-10-07). Data: CC BY 4.0.