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

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 81/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

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

D. DC · Mar 6, 2026

DC / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationscivil rightstrial

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

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

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

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

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

Jurisdiction contextThe state marker is derived from the structured case record.

CourtD. DC

Jurisdictionfederal

CircuitD.C. Circuit

DateMar 6, 2026

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeAdmonishment

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

reported

AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.

Procedural posture

Admonishment

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

Publication statusevidence baseline passed

Published by AI Vortex · Manu Ayala
Page updated Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Jul 23, 2026; latest tracked decision Jul 21, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Cases from this court Open jurisdiction map

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

Record details

District of ColumbiaSingle-state evidence scope

Jurisdiction contextThe state marker is derived from the structured case record.

CourtD. DC

Jurisdictionfederal

CircuitD.C. Circuit

DateMar 6, 2026

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeAdmonishment

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

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.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Andre Lamont Goddard, Jr. v. City University of Seattle?

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

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?

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.