MAXWELL v. MICHAEL

[Filing No. 163.] The Court further directed Plaintiff to file a statement showing why he should not be subject to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c) sanctions for citing and quoting non-existent cases. Plaintiff responded to the Court's order on April 9, 2026.

[Filing No. 165.] Plaintiff does not dispute that certain citations were incorrect, but claims his errors were not intentionally fabricated or designed to mislead the Court. Plaintiff argues his errors fell into two categories: (1) citations he could not locate and failed to correct, and (2) quotations that paraphrased, rather than cited, authority.

1-2.] As noted by Defendants, Plaintiff's show cause response does not confirm whether he used generative AI to present fictious legal authority. The Court agrees with Defendants that his fabricated authority contains the hallmarks of generative AI hallucinations. See, e.g., Jones v.

No doubt the inquiry is different for pro se and represented parties. Indeed, our reaction to what we saw in Jones's brief may have been quite different if the non-existent quotations came in a brief submitted by a lawyer —an officer of the court with professional responsibilities and the training necessary to avoid such a misrepresentation. But pro se litigants shoulder responsibility too and, while our understanding of honest mistakes and common presentational foot faults will remain, in no way will we allow a court filing to include misrepresentations on legal or factual points that an unrepresented party reasonably knows or should know exist.

3 Id. at 970–71. Whether or not Plaintiff used AI, his conduct remains sanctionable, as it represents a deliberate intent to fabricate citations and quotations. Plaintiff alleges that in instances where he could not find an actual case with his desired holding, he inserted case citation "placeholders" that he "intended to find support for" and correct before filing.

Plaintiff could have simply inserted a generic placeholder, such as "FIND CASE" or "CITE." He did not do that. Instead, he claims he created fake citations, fabricating the name, case number, citation, pin cite, court, and other identifying information—actions he took at least 37 times. The fact that he then formatted those citations to look like legitimate citations shows an intent to deceive the Court, not simply a reckless failure to verify.

11(b)(2) ("By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion or other paper— whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it—an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances… the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law[.]") (emphasis added). "Filing a document that contains citations to nonexistent cases, quotes language that comes from no real case, or that contains arguments wholly unsupported by the record violates Rule 11. [Plaintiff] did just that." Allen v.

The Court is also mindful of the indigent status of this Plaintiff. While the Court agrees that Plaintiff's use of fictitious citations and cases warrants sanctions, a reduced sanction of $1,000 "suffices to deter repetition of the conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated." Fed. R.

Case no. 1:24-cv-1365-JRS-TAB DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR RULE TO SHOW CAUSE Defendants, Troopers Dakota Michael and Chelsey Smith, by counsel, respectfully move the Court to order Plaintiff William Maxwell to show cause why he should not be sanctioned for including in his filings (1) citations to non-existent caselaw and (2) quotations that do not appear in the cases to which he attributes them. Plaintiff’s citations appear to be AI hallucinations, and they suggest Plaintiff has made a habit of relying on AI to perform his legal research throughout this case.

Plaintiff’s citations appear to be AI hallucinations, and they suggest Plaintiff has made a habit of relying on AI to perform his legal research throughout this case. But even if Plaintiff did not use AI to write his legal papers, his pattern of citing nonexistent cases and quotations violates Rule 11’s requirement that parties make reasonable inquiry into the law before filing in court. Fed.

11(b). As Magistrate Judge Dinsmore recently held, “Whether or not AI was the genesis of the non-existent citations, [counsel’s] failure to review them before submitting them to the court was a clear violation of Rule 11.” Virgil v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., 2026 WL 401066, *4, no.

In support, Defendants show as follows: 1. In responding to Plaintiff’s recent Rule 72 objection to Magistrate Judge Baker’s sanctions order, Defendants noted that the plaintiff quoted language in his objection that does not exist as quoted in the cases he cites. (ECF no.

150 at 4- 6). Defendants further noted in that response that Plaintiff had previously cited two apparently non-existent cases in earlier filings in this action. (Id. at 6).

2. To determine whether Plaintiff’s practice of misciting caselaw occurred in more than two filings, defense counsel audited Plaintiff’s filings dating back to March 17, 2025, when Defendants first raised the issue of Plaintiff citing fictitious case law in this action. (ECF no.

This chart does not include the numerous cases that Plaintiff misquoted or took out of context. It includes only citations to apparently non-existent cases and to quotations that do not appear as quoted in the cases to which they are attributed. 3 1 Plaintiff also cited this case at ECF no.

1997), on Westlaw. Plaintiff’s Fictitious Citations No. Docket Caselaw citation Issue 1 ECF no.