Docket entry 45, 25 November 2025 · source · PDF · 22 pages
Docket text. ORDER striking 32 Petitioner Jesse Andre's motion for relief from that judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) (the "Motion"). For the reasons set forth in the attached memorandum, the Court (1) ADMONISHES Petitioner for having a third party draft and file the Motion, which contained multiple fabricated arguments generated by artificial intelligence and affixed an image of his signature, and for his subsequent misrepresentations about the filing to the Court and (2) STRIKES the Motion with prejudice.Signed by Judge Vernon D. Oliver on 11/25/2025. (Dikler, J) (Entered: 11/25/2025)
7 Procedure 15(a) and Habeas Rule 7, which were mischaracterized as authorizing a habeas petitioner to unilaterally “expand the record” after judgment. Collectively, these errors indicate that substantial portions of Petitioner’s Motion were generated or edited by an artificial intelligence tool that fabricated authorities and quotations, rather than reflecting legitimate legal research. 25 II.
The main problem with filings that rely on generative artificial intelligence, of course, is that they often include hallucinations.26 The Court defines a “hallucination” in the context of AI -assisted legal research as one of three errors: (1) fabricated cases (whether a nonexistent case name and citation, an existing case name with an invented citation, or a real citation that leads to a wholly unrelated decision); (2) fabricated quotations from actual cases; and (3) misstatements of law (representations of legal rules, standards, or holdings that are inaccurate, incomplete, or unsupported by any real 26 The Court “acknowledges that our society sits on the precipice of rapid […]
12 authority, including AI -generated summaries that distort or materially alter what a case actually decided). In an adversarial system that depends on litigants to candidly present accurate authority, such hallucinations mislead the Court, forcing it either to expend substantial resources verifying fabricated material or, worse, risk reliance on an erroneous state ment of the law. Numerous additional concerns abound: “Many harms flow from the submission of fake opinions . . .
3d at 448. The Court adopts, in part,27 the analytical framework set forth by the Mattox court while confronting a party who used artificial intelligence in drafting its pleadings: When a pleading containing fabricated citations or nonexistent law has been identified and a hearing held, this Court shall evaluate [two] core factors: 1. Verification and Inquiry — Whether counsel [or the unrepresented party] conducted a reasonable, human -based verification of every cited authority before filing.
Mattox, 2025 WL 3012828 at *5. Courts in this circuit have repeatedly found that presenting AI- generated hallucinations as valid caselaw constitutes subjective bad faith. See, e.g., Mata, 678 F.
Third, the Petitioner’s Motion is riddled with hallucinations, clearly indicating the use of generative artificial intelligence in drafting them. Below, the Court includes a chart summarizing some of these hallucinations: Petitioner’s Assertion Cite Nature of Hallucination Levine v. Apker, 455 F.3d 71, 86 (2d Cir.
2006), holds that BOP "may not categorically refuse to consider prisoners for community confinement based on class membership." p. 5 Levine is a real case but quote does not exist. Case does not stand for proposition of the nature the quote asserts.
See also Resp. at 11-12. the law to say that Woodley and Sierra stand for the asserted proposition. Lastly, the Sierra quote does not exist. The Supreme Court and federal habeas rules expressly permit district courts to expand the record on habeas review, even after the initial petition is filed.