Which source supports this Andre Lamont Goddard, Jr. v. City University of Seattle summary?

The recorded source is Damien Charlotin case archive. It is classified as publisher document archive; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.

HomeCasesAndre Lamont Goddard, Jr. v. City University of Seattle

Evidence review: primary document verified. The linked primary document was extracted and checked with page-level evidence locators.

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 81/100. It passes the current publication gate; that is not a legal-editorial review or a guarantee that every field has been independently verified.

Corpus matter record

Andre Lamont Goddard, Jr. v. City University of Seattle

D. DC · Mar 6, 2026

DC / federal Editorial impact: low pro se fake citations civil rights trial Warning

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The court issued an admonition to the pro se plaintiff regarding the inclusion of fabricated case citations in their filings. The court identified these citations as likely generated by artificial intelligence and reminded the plaintiff of their affirmative duty under Rule 11 to verify the existence and accuracy of all legal authorities presented to the court.

Why the court cared: Fabricated: Case Law | Court could not locate the cited decision and found it likely fabricated; citation does not support plaintiff's proposition. || Fabricated: Case Law | Court could not locate the cited case and found it likely fabricated; citation does not support plaintiff's proposition. || Fabricated: Case Law | Court could not locate the cited case and found it likely fabricated; citation does not support plaintiff's proposition. || Fabricated: Case Law | Court could not locate the cited case and found it likely fabricated; citation does not support plaintiff's proposition. || Fabricated: Case Law | Court could not locate the cited case and found it likely fabricated; citation does not support plaintiff's proposition.
Why it matters now: This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. DC, with the listed outcome: Admonishment.

Why this matter is tracked

In a civil rights and contract dispute, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia addressed a partial motion to dismiss filed by the defendant. While the court allowed the plaintiff's D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act claim to proceed, it dismissed several other claims without prejudice due to insufficient factual allegations. During its review, the court identified multiple fabricated case citations within the pro se plaintiff's filings, noting they appeared to be generated by artificial intelligence. The court issued a formal admonition to the plaintiff, reminding them of their obligations under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 to conduct a reasonable inquiry into the substance of filings and to verify the authenticity of all cited legal authorities.

Operational lesson

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. DC, with the listed outcome: Admonishment.

Record details

District of ColumbiaSingle-state evidence scope

Explore DCOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.

CourtD. DC

Jurisdictionfederal

CircuitD.C. Circuit

DateMar 6, 2026

AI toolAI (unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeThe court granted the defendant's partial motion to dismiss in part, denied it in part, and issued an admonition to the plaintiff regarding the use of AI-generated fabricated citations.

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

implied

The court noted the citations bore the stamp of being invented by artificial intelligence.

Procedural posture

Memorandum Opinion and Order resolving Defendant's partial motion to dismiss.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

5 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

Fabricated: Case Law | Court could not locate the cited decision and found it likely fabricated; citation does not support plaintiff's proposition.
Fabricated: Case Law | Court could not locate the cited case and found it likely fabricated; citation does not support plaintiff's proposition.
Fabricated: Case Law | Court could not locate the cited case and found it likely fabricated; citation does not support plaintiff's proposition.
Fabricated: Case Law | Court could not locate the cited case and found it likely fabricated; citation does not support plaintiff's proposition.
Fabricated: Case Law | Court could not locate the cited case and found it likely fabricated; citation does not support plaintiff's proposition.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Andre Lamont Goddard, Jr. v. City University of Seattle?: The court issued an admonition to the pro se plaintiff regarding the inclusion of fabricated case citations in their filings. The court identified these citations as likely generated by artificial intelligence and reminded the plaintiff of their affirmative duty under Rule 11 to verify the existence and accuracy of all legal authorities presented to the court.
Why does Andre Lamont Goddard, Jr. v. City University of Seattle matter for legal AI risk?: This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. DC, with the listed outcome: Admonishment.
What does the public record establish about Andre Lamont Goddard, Jr. v. City University of Seattle?: Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
Which source supports this Andre Lamont Goddard, Jr. v. City University of Seattle summary?: The recorded source is Damien Charlotin case archive. It is classified as publisher document archive; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.

Related matters

Related by court, jurisdiction, tool, or classified failure pattern. Similarity does not imply the same facts or outcome.

Zavadovsky v. Republic of Austria, et al.D. DC · Mar 31, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Rubio v. District of Columbia DHSD. DC · Dec 3, 2024same court · pro se + fake citations X. v. CanadaD. DC · Jan 16, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Conrad Smith et al. v. Donald J. Trump et al.D. DC · Oct 16, 2025same court · fake citations + civil rights Nguedi v. General Dynamics Information TechnologyD. DC · Mar 31, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Williams v. Capital One BankD. DC · Mar 18, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

Publisher document archive
The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.

Open recorded source Suggest a correction to this record

Public-record statuspublic record, not an allegation-only entry

Indexing eligibilitypublicly indexable with evidence status disclosed

Evidence-review statusprimary document verified

Published and maintained byManu Ayala · AI VortexIndependent legal AI risk intelligence

Evidence review recorded Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Aug 17, 2026; latest tracked decision Aug 13, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Open D. DC profile Explore jurisdiction

Evidence boundary

Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.

Read methodology