Charles C. Force v. Capital One, N.A., et al.
M.D. Florida · Oct 15, 2025
What happened in this matter?
The court struck multiple filings and issued a Show Cause Order requiring the pro se plaintiff to explain why his action should not be dismissed for repeatedly citing nonexistent or misrepresented case law and failing to comply with procedural rules and prior court orders.
- Why the court cared
- The court reasoned that the plaintiff's repeated inclusion of nonexistent or misleading citations and failure to follow procedural rules disrupted litigation, potentially violating Rule 11(b) and warranting sanctions under the court's inherent authority to address bad-faith conduct.
- Why it matters now
- This case illustrates the judicial response to pro se litigants submitting AI-generated or otherwise fabricated legal research. It highlights the court's reliance on Rule 11 and inherent powers to strike filings and threaten dismissal when research verification fails.
Why this matter is tracked
In Charles C. Force v. Capital One, N.A., et al., the M.D. Florida court issued a Show Cause Order after the pro se plaintiff repeatedly filed documents containing nonexistent or misrepresented case law. Despite prior warnings, the plaintiff cited fabricated cases, such as a non-existent Ashley v. Bank of Am., and misrepresented holdings in cases like Graves v. Smith’s Transfer Corp. and In re Advisory Opinion to the Governor. The court found these actions violated Rule 11(b) and its inherent authority to manage litigation. Consequently, the court struck multiple filings and ordered the plaintiff to show cause why the action should not be dismissed as a sanction for his failure to comply with procedural rules and court orders.
This case illustrates the judicial response to pro se litigants submitting AI-generated or otherwise fabricated legal research. It highlights the court's reliance on Rule 11 and inherent powers to strike filings and threaten dismissal when research verification fails.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The source document does not name a specific tool, but the nature of the errors is consistent with AI-generated hallucinations.
The court issued a sua sponte Order to Show Cause following the plaintiff's repeated submission of filings containing fabricated or misrepresented legal authorities.
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
7 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Graves v. Smith's Transfer Corp., 736 F.2d 819, 820 (1st Cir. 1984) for a proposition the case does not hold; the Court found the case does not discuss the asserted point.
- Outdated Advice: Overturned Case Law | Plaintiff relied on Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974) to state the old 'no set of facts' pleading standard, but the Court noted that the standard was retired by Bell Atlantic v. Twombly (2007).
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Phillips v. Phillips, 685 So. 2d 85 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), but the Southern Second citation corresponds to Lowe Inv. Corp. v. Clemente, 685 So. 2d 84; the named Phillips opinion did not exist at that citation.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Brydger v. Brydger, 910 So. 2d 381 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), but the Southern Second citation corresponds to Whitley v. Royal Trails Prop. Owners' Ass'n, Inc., 910 So. 2d 381; the named Brydger citation was incorrect.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed a specific quoted phrase to U.S. v. Int'l Brotherhood of Teamsters, 266 F.3d 45 (2d Cir. 2001), but the Court found no such quote in that opinion.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited a non-existent case captioned Ashley v. Bank of Am., 538 F. App'x 874; the cited Federal Appendix citation did not correspond to that caption.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited an advisory opinion captioned In re Advisory Opinion to the Governor re: Dual Representation of State Officers, 630 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 1994) and attributed holdings about the Attorney General that the opinion does not contain; the citation and summary were misleading.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Charles C. Force v. Capital One, N.A., et al.?
- The court struck multiple filings and issued a Show Cause Order requiring the pro se plaintiff to explain why his action should not be dismissed for repeatedly citing nonexistent or misrepresented case law and failing to comply with procedural rules and prior court orders.
- Why does Charles C. Force v. Capital One, N.A., et al. matter for legal AI risk?
- This case illustrates the judicial response to pro se litigants submitting AI-generated or otherwise fabricated legal research. It highlights the court's reliance on Rule 11 and inherent powers to strike filings and threaten dismissal when research verification fails.
- What does the public record establish about Charles C. Force v. Capital One, N.A., et al.?
- 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 Charles C. Force v. Capital One, N.A., 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.