Docket entry 35, 10 February 2026 · source · PDF · 6 pages
Docket text. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE signed by District Judge Dena M. Coggins on 2/9/2026 ORDERING the Petitioner SHOW CAUSE no later than 2/20/2026, as to why sanctions should not issue due to Petitioner's use of erroneous case citations in his 19 motion to enforce and modify habeas relief and 24 reply thereto, and due to law student Gina Herrera's unauthorized appearance in this case. (Deputy Clerk RRB)
No. 31 at 6 n.2.) For the reasons set forth below, the court will order Petitioner’s counsel to show cause as to why sanctions or other appropriate disciplinary action should not issue due to Petitioner’s inclusion of non-existent and erroneous citations in Petitioner’s briefing, and due to law student Gina Herrera’s unauthorized appearance in this court. On December 15, 2025, Petitioner Daniel James Cummins filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
Nos. 19, 24.) As discussed in detail below, both the motion and reply contained numerous citations to cases that do not exist, or that do not support the proposition asserted by Petitioner. On January 14, 2026, after the court issued an order requiring counsel to appear at a hearing and to be “prepared to address the hallucinated citations included in Petitioner’s briefs,” Petitioner filed a notice of errata indicating he “mistakenly included” four cases in his reply brief, and that the identified citations “do not appear in publicly available legal databases or were incorrectly cited in the initial brief.” (Doc.
No. 31.) As detailed in the following chart, Petitioner’s motion to modify and enforce habeas relief and reply thereto are replete with citations to cases that do not exist, or that do not stand for the propositions asserted by Petitioner. Location in Brief Case Cited in Motion and Quote/Position Asserted Error with Citation Doc.
Cal. 2020) Cited for proposition: Denial of access to medical treatment constitutes irreparable harm. • Case name does not exist. N.D.
Platino Records, et al. • Yellowcake is an intellectual property dispute and does not support Petitioner’s asserted proposition. • No case found with this name. These erroneous citations bear the hallmarks of hallucinated cases created by artificial intelligence (“AI”) tools. See United States v.
No. 28.) Numerous courts, both within and outside of this circuit, have issued sanctions due to counsel’s inclusion of erroneous and/or hallucinated citations bearing the hallmarks of AI generative tools such as those listed above. See, e.g., Hayes, 763 F.