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
HomeCasesCherleatha B. v. Frank Bisignano
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

Cherleatha B. v. Frank Bisignano

D. South Carolina · Dec 29, 2025

SC / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsadministrativetrialWarning
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The court issued a formal warning to a pro se litigant for citing a hallucinated case in her briefing. The judge noted the filing exhibited characteristics of AI-generated content and cautioned that future submissions of nonexistent or inaccurate legal authority could result in sanctions, including monetary penalties or dismissal.

Why the court cared
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Eisenberg v. SSA, 496 F. Supp. 2d 238 (D.D.C. 2007)'; the court found the citation incorrect/misplaced and noted the 496 F. Supp.2d citation corresponds to Garcia v. Comm'r, 496 F. Supp. 2d 235 (E.D.N.Y. 2007), whereas Eisenberg appears at 703 F. Supp. 2d 27 (D.D.C. 2010).
Why it matters now
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. South Carolina, with the listed outcome: Warning.

Why this matter is tracked

In a pro se Social Security disability action, the plaintiff cited 'Eisenberg v. SSA, 496 F. Supp. 2d 238 (D.D.C. 2007)' to support her argument for APA jurisdiction. The court identified this as a miscitation, noting the volume and page correspond to a different case, while the actual Eisenberg decision is located at 703 F. Supp. 2d 27 (D.D.C. 2010). Observing that the plaintiff's filings exhibited characteristics of AI-generated content, the court cautioned the plaintiff that submitting nonexistent or inaccurate legal authority is improper. The court ultimately dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, noting that while it did not impose formal sanctions, the plaintiff was warned that future use of AI-generated fake citations could result in penalties.

Operational lesson

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. South Carolina, with the listed outcome: Warning.

Record details

South CarolinaSingle-state evidence scope
Explore SCOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtD. South Carolina
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit4th Circuit
DateDec 29, 2025
GE
AI toolGenerative AI (unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeThe court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction and issued a formal warning to the pro se plaintiff regarding the submission of AI-generated fake citations.
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

implied

The court identified characteristics of AI-generated briefs.

Procedural posture

The court reviewed a magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction, overruled the plaintiff's objections, and dismissed the action without prejudice.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Eisenberg v. SSA, 496 F. Supp. 2d 238 (D.D.C. 2007)'; the court found the citation incorrect/misplaced and noted the 496 F. Supp.2d citation corresponds to Garcia v. Comm'r, 496 F. Supp. 2d 235 (E.D.N.Y. 2007), whereas Eisenberg appears at 703 F. Supp. 2d 27 (D.D.C. 2010).

Questions this record answers

What happened in Cherleatha B. v. Frank Bisignano?
The court issued a formal warning to a pro se litigant for citing a hallucinated case in her briefing. The judge noted the filing exhibited characteristics of AI-generated content and cautioned that future submissions of nonexistent or inaccurate legal authority could result in sanctions, including monetary penalties or dismissal.
Why does Cherleatha B. v. Frank Bisignano matter for legal AI risk?
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. South Carolina, with the listed outcome: Warning.
What does the public record establish about Cherleatha B. v. Frank Bisignano?
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 Cherleatha B. v. Frank Bisignano 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.

Nelson L. Bruce v. The United StatesD. South Carolina · Feb 9, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsJurkowski v. BerkowitzSC DC · Apr 21, 2026same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citationsMegan E. Bryan v. Child Support Enforcement Agency, State of HawaiʻiSC Hawaiʻi · Mar 30, 2026same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citationsPhilippeaux v. United States, et al.S.D. New York · Sep 8, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Perry v. Social Security Administration, CommissionerN.D. Alabama · Aug 3, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)The JAAW Group, LLCGAO · Jul 31, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)