Incident Tracker / United States (federal)
Shaw v. City of Portola
·United States District Court for the Eastern District of California·US-FEDPendingprovisional
The Eastern District of California on 2026-04-14 ordered the self-represented plaintiff to show cause why sanctions or corrective action should not issue for the defective authorities in Shaw v. City of Portola, et al. The self-represented plaintiff filed a reply brief with one fabricated case citation and five mischaracterized case citations, including People v. Dang.
- Court
- United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
- Date
- 2026-04-14
- Who used the AI
- Litigant in person
- AI tool
- Not identified in the record
- Conduct
- Shaw’s pro se motion cited Boyd v. City of San Diego, 14 Cal.App.4th 954, 959-960 (1993), five times; the court could not find the case, and Shaw falsely responded that she had not cited fictitious cases.
- Outcome
- Pending
- 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
- Zhejiang Dingli Machinery Co. v. United States, Ct. No. 24-00221-MMB (Ct. Int'l Trade 2026)2026-09-22 · United States Court of International Trade · PendingIn the U.S. Court of International Trade, Judge M. Miller Baker ordered a Chinese exporter to substantiate brief statements that Commerce took part in a Canadian antidumping case. If it cannot, it must show cause why it…
- 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…
- Falkenstein v. Niles, No. 2:26-cv-07078-SB-PD (C.D. Cal.)2026-09-03 · US District Court, Central District of California · PendingIn the US District Court for the Central District of California, defence counsel filed materials with false quotations, misplaced propositions and representations not found in the complaint. Judge Blumenfeld ordered cou…
- 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…
Cite this record
SafeLegalAI Global Legal AI Incident Tracker, “Shaw v. City of Portola”, safelegalai.com/tracker/shaw-v-city-of-portola-et-al (accessed 2026-10-07). Data: CC BY 4.0.