ApodictaShow me on my files

District of Columbia · federal district court · 2024

Rubio v. District of Columbia Department of Human Services

District Court, District of Columbia, 3 December 2024. What the court wrote about citations that did not exist, in its own words, from the document on file.

Case record · D.D.C.

  1. Court. District Court, District of ColumbiaCOURT
  2. Level. federal district courtLEVEL
  3. Date. 3 December 2024DATED
  4. Docket. No. Civil Action No. 2023-0719DOCKET
  5. Judge. Judge Randolph D. MossJUDGE
  6. Documents. one document, 3 passages quoted belowON FILE
  7. Source. CourtListenerSOURCE

Retrieved · the text below was read from the source documents on that day.

What the court wrote

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.

Published opinion, 3 December 2024 · source · PDF · 12 pages

2021), which addressed protesters’ First and Fourth Amendment Monell claims against the District). Moreover, many of the cases that Plaintiff cites appear to have been invented by artificial intelligence (“AI”). Plaintiff apparently used AI to draft his proposed complaint, which bears 8 some of the hallmarks of an AI response to a user’s inquiry.

Plaintiff apparently used AI to draft his proposed complaint, which bears 8 some of the hallmarks of an AI response to a user’s inquiry. For example, following a list of seemingly fabricated cases,6 Plaintiff’s proposed complaint states: “This case supports your argument that MedStar’s failure to inform you about your coverage cancellation and your rights constitutes a violation of patient protection laws.” Dkt. 70 at 10 (Proposed SAC ¶ 22).

70 at 9 (Proposed SAC ¶¶ 17–19). As explained above, however, these cases either involved constitutional violations that bear no resemblance to Plaintiff’s claims, did not involve any constitutional violations, or appear to be miscited or invented. B.

What the text mentions

Pattern matches on the documents' text. Each line is a fact that the text contains the words, not a finding about the case.

Where this fits

This page is a record, not legal advice. It quotes the documents on file and lists what their text mentions. Read the decision at the source before relying on it, and check whether a later order changed it.

More from District Court, District of Columbia, from District of Columbia, or from 2024. The whole record is at court decisions on AI-hallucinated citations.

Every case in this record shares one cause: a citation reached a court without anyone opening it. What a citation gate is explains the mechanism that makes that impossible by construction; how to check an AI citation in five minutes is the manual version; the sanctions record is the essay this table grew out of.

Show me on one of my files →

This case is about a cite nobody opened. See a cite checked against the record before it renders, on your own file.

Show me on one of my filesTry the gate
Show me on my files