Which source supports this Carlos Maturin v. T-Mobile USA, Inc. 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.

HomeCasesCarlos Maturin v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.

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 85/100. 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

Carlos Maturin v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.

D. New Mexico · Nov 25, 2025

NM / federal Editorial impact: medium pro se fake citations employment trial Monetary

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The court recommended imposing monetary sanctions against the pro se plaintiff for submitting fabricated legal citations and failing to comply with discovery obligations. The court ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant's reasonable attorney's fees and expenses related to investigating the false citations, responding to the sanctions motions, and the missed deposition.

Why the court cared: Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Keller v. Bd. of Educ., 182 F.R.D. 871 (D.N.M. 1998)' in multiple filings; the court found that citation does not exist (a similarly named, different-year decision exists). || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Ford v. BNSF Ry. Co., 709 F.3d 715 (10th Cir. 2013)' in multiple filings; the court found this reported Tenth Circuit citation does not exist (similar-named but different case exists in another court). || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Rogers v. NYU Langone Hospitals, 2023 WL 2705769' in his first motion for sanctions; the court found this case does not exist and Defendant had pointed this out.
Why it matters now: This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. New Mexico, with the listed outcome: Adverse Costs Order.

Why this matter is tracked

In a pro se employment discrimination case, the court addressed cross-motions for sanctions. The defendant alleged that the plaintiff submitted multiple filings containing fabricated case law citations. The court verified that the plaintiff cited non-existent cases, including 'Keller v. Bd. of Educ.' and 'Ford v. BNSF Ry. Co.', despite prior warnings regarding Rule 11 obligations. The court found the plaintiff culpable for these fabrications and for failing to attend a scheduled deposition. While the court declined to impose terminating sanctions (dismissal), it recommended an adverse costs order requiring the plaintiff to pay the defendant's reasonable attorney's fees and expenses incurred investigating the false citations, responding to the sanctions motions, and addressing the missed deposition.

Operational lesson

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. New Mexico, with the listed outcome: Adverse Costs Order.

Record details

New MexicoSingle-state evidence scope

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

CourtD. New Mexico

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit10th Circuit

DateNov 25, 2025

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeThe court recommended denying the plaintiff's motion for terminating sanctions and granting in part the defendant's motion for sanctions, specifically ordering the plaintiff to pay the defendant's reasonable attorney's fees and expenses.

Known amount$8,640

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

implied

Court noted plaintiff's potential use of AI for drafting.

Procedural posture

Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition (PFRD) on cross-motions for sanctions.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Keller v. Bd. of Educ., 182 F.R.D. 871 (D.N.M. 1998)' in multiple filings; the court found that citation does not exist (a similarly named, different-year decision exists).
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Ford v. BNSF Ry. Co., 709 F.3d 715 (10th Cir. 2013)' in multiple filings; the court found this reported Tenth Circuit citation does not exist (similar-named but different case exists in another court).
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Rogers v. NYU Langone Hospitals, 2023 WL 2705769' in his first motion for sanctions; the court found this case does not exist and Defendant had pointed this out.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Carlos Maturin v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.?: The court recommended imposing monetary sanctions against the pro se plaintiff for submitting fabricated legal citations and failing to comply with discovery obligations. The court ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant's reasonable attorney's fees and expenses related to investigating the false citations, responding to the sanctions motions, and the missed deposition.
Why does Carlos Maturin v. T-Mobile USA, Inc. matter for legal AI risk?: This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. New Mexico, with the listed outcome: Adverse Costs Order.
What does the public record establish about Carlos Maturin v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.?: 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 Carlos Maturin v. T-Mobile USA, Inc. 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.

Charlie Reyes v. Bryce Bailey, et al.D. New Mexico · Aug 28, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Sample et al v. Hilton Worldwide Holdings, IncD. New Mexico · May 26, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Lowrey v. City of Rio Rancho et al. (2)D. New Mexico · May 21, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Lowrey v. City of Rio Rancho et al. (1)D. New Mexico · Nov 5, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations Clifford Robert Cummings v. The Estate of Forrest FennD. New Mexico · Oct 30, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations Tomlin v. State of New MexicoD. New Mexico · Feb 1, 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 Sep 10, 2026; latest tracked decision Sep 8, 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. New Mexico 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