Charles C. Force v. Capital One, N.A., et al.
M.D. Florida · Oct 15, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- M.D. Florida
- Record ID
- charles-c-force-v-capital-one-na-et-al-2025-10-15
- Observed outcome
- Multiple filings were stricken, and the plaintiff was ordered to show cause why the case should not be dismissed.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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.
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.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Fabricated Quotes
- Misrepresented Authority
- Civil Rights
- Trial
- AI attribution
- Reported
- Recorded tool
- AI (implied, unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- The court issued a sua sponte Order to Show Cause following the plaintiff's repeated submission of filings containing fabricated or misrepresented legal authorities.
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
The source document does not name a specific tool, but the nature of the errors is consistent with AI-generated hallucinations.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
- Compare every quoted passage and pincite directly with the underlying opinion or filing.
- Confirm that each authority supports the stated proposition and has not been mischaracterized.
- Apply the same source-checking controls to AI (implied, unspecified) output as to any other research input.