Blackburn v. United States
W.D. Oklahoma · Apr 7, 2026
What happened in this matter?
The court denied the plaintiff's motion in limine and issued a warning regarding the duty of candor under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. The court identified multiple instances of misrepresented and fabricated case law, noting that such conduct, potentially involving generative AI, violates the responsibility to provide accurate legal authority.
- Why the court cared
- The court reasoned that the plaintiff's cited authorities either did not address the issues for which they were cited or were entirely fabricated, failing to demonstrate entitlement to relief and violating the duty of candor under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11.
- Why it matters now
- This case illustrates judicial scrutiny of AI-assisted or potentially AI-generated filings by pro se litigants. It reinforces that courts hold all litigants, regardless of representation status, to the duty of candor under Rule 11 when citing legal authority.
Why this matter is tracked
In Blackburn v. United States, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma denied a pro se plaintiff's motion in limine regarding treating-physician testimony. The court found that the plaintiff misrepresented two Tenth Circuit cases and cited a non-existent authority, as the provided Westlaw identifier led to an unrelated Social Security disability appeal. The court explicitly noted that these mischaracterizations, regardless of whether they resulted from generative AI, implicate Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b) and (c) regarding the duty of candor. The court issued a warning to the plaintiff, emphasizing the responsibility of pro se litigants to ensure that legal citations are accurate and support the propositions for which they are cited.
This case illustrates judicial scrutiny of AI-assisted or potentially AI-generated filings by pro se litigants. It reinforces that courts hold all litigants, regardless of representation status, to the duty of candor under Rule 11 when citing legal authority.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The court explicitly mentions the potential role of generative artificial intelligence.
Order denying Plaintiff's Motion in Limine (Doc. No. 135).
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
6 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Davoll, 194 F.3d 1116, 1138 for the proposition that Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(C) limits treating-physician opinion testimony as claimed; court found the pinpointed pages discuss lay-witness scope, not non-retained expert testimony — mischaracterization.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Muscogee (Creek) Nation, 611 F.3d 1222, 1237 as holding treating physicians may not give opinions formed in anticipation of litigation; court found that opinion does not discuss treating-physician testimony — misrepresentation.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Hall v. United States, 2018 WL 1620923 (D. Colo. Apr. 3, 2018)' to support a proposition, but the provided Westlaw identifier directed to Poppino v. Berryhill, an unrelated decision that does not support the quote — a miscitation/fabricated support.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Davoll, 194 F.3d 1116, 1138 (10th Cir. 1999) for the proposition that treating-physician opinions are limited under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(C); court noted the cited pages address a treating physician as a lay witness and do not support Plaintiff's argument.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Muscogee (Creek) Nation, 611 F.3d 1222, 1237 (10th Cir. 2010) as holding treating physicians may not testify to opinions developed in anticipation of litigation; court found that opinion does not discuss treating physicians.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Hall v. United States, 2018 WL 1620923 (D. Colo. Apr. 3, 2018) for a proposition about VA doctors; court observed the Westlaw identifier led to Poppino v. Berryhill (D.N.M.), which is unrelated and does not support the quoted proposition.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Blackburn v. United States?
- The court denied the plaintiff's motion in limine and issued a warning regarding the duty of candor under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. The court identified multiple instances of misrepresented and fabricated case law, noting that such conduct, potentially involving generative AI, violates the responsibility to provide accurate legal authority.
- Why does Blackburn v. United States matter for legal AI risk?
- This case illustrates judicial scrutiny of AI-assisted or potentially AI-generated filings by pro se litigants. It reinforces that courts hold all litigants, regardless of representation status, to the duty of candor under Rule 11 when citing legal authority.
- What does the public record establish about Blackburn v. United States?
- The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
- Which source supports this Blackburn v. United States 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.