Loading AI Vortex evidence…
Preparing the requested public record.
Public trackerEvidence checked Jul 23, 2026 · Latest decision Jul 21, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 80/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Brick v. Gallatin County, et al.
D. Montana · Dec 1, 2025
MT / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsmisrepresented authoritycivil rights
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
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.
- 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
CourtD. Montana
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit9th Circuit
DateDec 1, 2025
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeSee source
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
Procedural posture is not separately recorded in the current dataset.
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.
- 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.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Brick v. Gallatin County, et al.?
- 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.
- 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.