Skip to content

Incident Tracker / United States (federal)

Shaw v. City of Portola, et al.

·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
The self-represented plaintiff filed a reply brief with one fabricated case citation and five mischaracterized case citations, including People v. Dang and Boyd v. City of San Diego.
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
2026-09-07

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

  • 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…
  • James v. Conley, No. 1:23-cv-24467 (S.D. Fla.)2026-08-27 · US District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Magistrate Judge Elfenbein, report and recommendation) · PendingIn the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida, a magistrate judge found that plaintiff's Fifth Amended Complaint pleaded nonexistent police-training publications that counsel conceded were AI hallucinati…
  • 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, “Shaw v. City of Portola, et al.”, safelegalai.com/tracker/shaw-v-city-of-portola-et-al (accessed 2026-09-08). Data: CC BY 4.0.

Report an issue with this record →