Docket entry 29, 4 May 2026 · source · PDF · 6 pages
Docket text. Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Eliott Williamson. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions. [Entered: 05/04/2026 02:31 PM]
Williamson also filed a memorandum of law in USCA11 Case: 25-13045 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 05/04/2026 Page: 2 of 6 25-13045 Opinion of the Court 3 support of his motion for summary judgment, citing cases that he claimed supported his allegations that TransUnion and Experian violated the Act. As TransUnion and Experian pointed out, many of these citations were to nonexistent cases. Williamson contended that any case citation errors were “inconsequential.” The magis- trate judge denied many of the se motions, finding that they vio- lated various rules, and ordered Williamson to show cause why he should not be sanctioned.
At this second show-cause hearing, Williamson stated that the errors were unintentional and based on his lack of legal knowledge. He admitted that some of the cases he cited did not exist, and that he had found them using artificial intelligence. He also admitted that he did not follow the Local Rules because they were confusing to him as a pro se litigant and he could not locate them.
Following the hearing, Williamson continued this pattern of frivolous filing. The magistrate judge ultimately issued a report and recommendation recounting the procedural posture of the case and finding that Williamson’s repeated citation to nonexistent cases and misquotation and misrepresentation of cases and hold- ings, intentional misrepresentation of facts, and continuous viola- tion of rules and court orders despite repeated admonitions that such could result in sanctions, warranted dismissal with prejudice. The report thus recommended dismissal with prejudice for his will- ful misconduct and abuse of the judicial process, as no lesser sanc- tion would suffice.
The record supports the district court’s finding that Williamson’s misconduct, which included repeated ignorance of court orders warning him against citing to nonexistent cases, misquoting cases, and misstating their holdings to make them sup- port his position in countless vexatious filings, was willful, and that lesser sanctions would have been inadequate to address this mis- conduct.