The passages in which the court addresses the fabricated authority, verbatim, by document. A bracketed ellipsis marks where a passage was cut for length; nothing else is changed.
Docket entry 58, 2 September 2026 · source · PDF · 24 pages
Docket text. ORDER AND REASONS granting 27 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Rec. Doc. 27) is GRANTED, and that Plaintiff Daniel Gentry's federal claims against all Defendants are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's state law claims against Defendants are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Carl J Barbier on 9/2/26. (cg)
Gentry with this motion. To complicate matters further, when the Court began to consider the City Defendants’ motion, it discovered nine citations to hallucinated cases. In response, the Court held a hearing in March of 2026 at which the City Defendants were ordered to show cause why they should not be sanctioned.
Docket entry 25, 20 March 2026 · source · PDF · 7 pages
Docket text. ORDER AND REASONS: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 11, Jalen Harris is personally sanctioned for his conduct in this case in the amount of $250.00. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that James Roquemore is personally sanctioned in the amount of $1,000.00. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the sanctions are to be paid by 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, April 22, 2026, to Clerk of Court. Signed by Judge Carl J Barbier on 3/20/2026. (amj)
Doc. 16) contained nine nonexistent (i.e., “hallucinated”) case citations. Harris, Roquemore, St.
16). When reviewing the motion, the Court realized that nine of the case citations Defendants provided in the supporting brief did not exist as cited and were likely “hallucinated” by artificial intelligence (“A.I.”). On March 5, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause why defense counsel should not be sanctioned under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.
On March 5, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause why defense counsel should not be sanctioned under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. Between the time the Court issued the Order to Show Cause and the hearing date, defense counsel also moved for leave to file a substitute pleading to replace the brief that included hallucinated citations, in addition to responding to the Rule to Show Cause in writing . From the time they received the Order to Show Cause, the City Attorneys have taken full responsibility for the improper use of A.I. that led to the hallucinated case citations.
Mr. Harris took full responsibility for his misuse of generative A.I. and conceded that he d id not check the citations that ChatGPT had provided, nor did he attempt to read the nine hallucinated cases that he cited in the brief. Mr.
Mr. Roquemore acknowledged that he should have inquired further about the hallucinated cases cited in the memorandum, particularly because of the unusual formatting (the hallucinated cases were presented in bullet points), but he admitted that he failed to do so. Mr.
Furthermore, the Court recognizes that Mr. Harris is a relatively new attorney and that his supervisors bear some responsibility for not noticing the hallucinated citations, particularly considering that they were formatted in bullet points. Rule 11 requires that the Court provide due process, or notice and a hearing, before imposing sanctions for violations of Rule 11 .