Cherleatha B. v. Frank Bisignano
D. South Carolina · Dec 29, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- D. South Carolina
- Record ID
- cherleatha-b-v-frank-bisignano-2025-12-29
- Observed outcome
- The 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 monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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).
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. South Carolina, with the listed outcome: Warning.
Failure modes and consequences
- Hallucinated_case_citation
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Administrative
- Trial
- Warning
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- Generative AI (unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- 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.
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 court identified characteristics of AI-generated briefs.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify each cited authority, quotation, and proposition against the underlying source before filing.