AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Sep 10, 2026 · Latest decision Sep 8, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesBrick v. Gallatin County, et al.
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 80/100. 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

Brick v. Gallatin County, et al.

D. Montana · Dec 1, 2025

MT / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsmisrepresented authoritycivil rightsNone Adjudicated
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The Court dismissed the plaintiff's Fourth Amended Complaint after finding it violated Rule 8, failed to state a plausible claim, and sought to relitigate state court judgments. The Court explicitly noted the plaintiff's use of fabricated case citations and mischaracterized legal authorities, which persisted despite prior judicial warnings to cease such practices.

Why the court cared
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited a non-existent case 'Beville v. City of Quitman, Texas, 21 F.4th 917 (5th Cir. 2021)'; the Court found the citation does not exist and directed attention to other actual cases. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff relied on Bevill v. Fletcher (26 F.4th 270) as supporting that a judge's pretrial declaration of guilt removes judicial immunity or supports a §1983 retaliation claim; the Court found Plaintiff mischaracterized the actual holdings.
Why it matters now
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. Montana, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.

Why this matter is tracked

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited a non-existent case 'Beville v. City of Quitman, Texas, 21 F.4th 917 (5th Cir. 2021)'; the Court found the citation does not exist and directed attention to other actual cases. Plaintiff repeatedly cited non-existent or misleading authorities in her Fourth Amended Complaint. The Court identified at least one fabricated citation and several mischaracterized cases, noting these failures to comply with Rule 8 and prior court instruction, and relied on the deficient pleadings in granting dismissal.

Operational lesson

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. Montana, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.

Record details

MontanaSingle-state evidence scope
Explore MTOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtD. Montana
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit9th Circuit
DateDec 1, 2025
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeThe Court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the Fourth Amended Complaint in its entirety.
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

The Court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the plaintiff's Fourth Amended Complaint with prejudice.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited a non-existent case 'Beville v. City of Quitman, Texas, 21 F.4th 917 (5th Cir. 2021)'; the Court found the citation does not exist and directed attention to other actual cases.
  2. Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff relied on Bevill v. Fletcher (26 F.4th 270) as supporting that a judge's pretrial declaration of guilt removes judicial immunity or supports a §1983 retaliation claim; the Court found Plaintiff mischaracterized the actual holdings.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Brick v. Gallatin County, et al.?
The Court dismissed the plaintiff's Fourth Amended Complaint after finding it violated Rule 8, failed to state a plausible claim, and sought to relitigate state court judgments. The Court explicitly noted the plaintiff's use of fabricated case citations and mischaracterized legal authorities, which persisted despite prior judicial warnings to cease such practices.
Why does Brick v. Gallatin County, et al. matter for legal AI risk?
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. Montana, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.
What does the public record establish about Brick v. Gallatin County, et al.?
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 Brick v. Gallatin County, et al. 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.

Dennis Thornton v. Flathead County, et al.D. Montana · Jan 23, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsBrick v. Gallatin CountyD. Montana · May 27, 2025same court · pro se + trialYuri Petrini v. City of Biloxi, Mississippi, et al.S.D. Mississippi · Jun 30, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Patrick C. Shaltry v. Donna Collins, et al.E.D. Michigan · Jun 2, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Trauger v. Columbia County District Attorney's Office et al.M.D. Pennsylvania · May 29, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Lowrey v. City of Rio Rancho et al. (2)D. New Mexico · May 21, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)