Clifford v. Neidle et al.
Record source: imported from Damien Charlotin’s AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC BY 4.0); document hosted in his archive: open the upstream document. What AI Vortex adds.
D. Wyoming · Oct 28, 2026
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | The Court could not locate Newsome v. Penobscot, and reporter citation 391 F. App’x 783 corresponds to Matias v. Sears Home Improvement Products, Inc., an Eleventh Circuit employment-discrimination case. Outcome: Plaintiff’s filings and motion for alternative service were stricken; he was ordered to show cause why sanctions should not issue.. The Court found that Plaintiff’s filings contained multiple inaccurate or hallucinated legal citations, indicating possible improper use of artificial intelligence without adequate oversight. The Court struck the motion for alternative service and responses to the show-cause order, required Plaintiff to produce copies of two cited cases or explain under oath why he should not be sanctioned, and ordered further submissions regarding possible sanctions under Rule 11, 28 U.S.C. § 1927, and the Court’s inherent authority. No monetary or professional sanction was imposed in this order.
- Why the court cared
- The structured public record identifies pro se and fake citations and records Plaintiff’s filings and motion for alternative service were stricken; he was ordered to show cause why sanctions should not issue.. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Plaintiff’s filings and motion for alternative service were stricken; he was ordered to show cause why sanctions should not issue. in D. Wyoming. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | The Court could not locate Newsome v. Penobscot, and reporter citation 391 F. App’x 783 corresponds to Matias v. Sears Home Improvement Products, Inc., an Eleventh Circuit employment-discrimination case. Outcome: Plaintiff’s filings and motion for alternative service were stricken; he was ordered to show cause why sanctions should not issue.. The Court found that Plaintiff’s filings contained multiple inaccurate or hallucinated legal citations, indicating possible improper use of artificial intelligence without adequate oversight. The Court struck the motion for alternative service and responses to the show-cause order, required Plaintiff to produce copies of two cited cases or explain under oath why he should not be sanctioned, and ordered further submissions regarding possible sanctions under Rule 11, 28 U.S.C. § 1927, and the Court’s inherent authority. No monetary or professional sanction was imposed in this order.
This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Plaintiff’s filings and motion for alternative service were stricken; he was ordered to show cause why sanctions should not issue. in D. Wyoming. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
Plaintiff’s filings and motion for alternative service were stricken; he was ordered to show cause why sanctions should not issue.
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.
- Fabricated: Case Law | The Court could not locate Newsome v. Penobscot, and reporter citation 391 F. App’x 783 corresponds to Matias v. Sears Home Improvement Products, Inc., an Eleventh Circuit employment-discrimination case.
- Fabricated: Case Law | The Court could not locate Tammy Fu at the cited reporter location; 752 F.3d 188 corresponds to part of City of Pontiac Policemen’s and Firemen’s Retirement System v. UBS AG.
- Fabricated: Case Law | The Court found that 196 F.3d 1538 corresponds to part of U.S. Test, Inc. v. NDE Env’t Corp., not Harrison; Plaintiff apparently intended to cite Harrison v. Wahatoyas, L.L.C., 253 F.3d 552 (10th Cir. 2001).
- Fabricated: Case Law | The Court found that 4 F.4th 63 corresponds to Cebollero-Bertran v. P.R. Aqueduct & Sewer Authority, not Bescond; Plaintiff apparently intended to cite United States v. Bescond, 24 F.4th 759 (2d Cir. 2022).
- Fabricated: Case Law | The Court could not locate the cited United States v. Tammy Fu and noted that the complaint used a different reporter citation for the same apparently nonexistent case.
- Misrepresented: Legal Norm | The complaint attributed to UCC § 3-104 the proposition that a signed promissory note is a negotiable instrument, but the Court found that the provision says no such thing.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Although Degen v. United States is a real case and the citation was correct, the Court found that Plaintiff misrepresented it as holding that the Fugitive Disentitlement Doctrine is inapplicable to private civil actions; Degen addressed forfeiture claims connected to a criminal prosecution and did not make that broader statement.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Clifford v. Neidle et al.?
- Fabricated: Case Law | The Court could not locate Newsome v. Penobscot, and reporter citation 391 F. App’x 783 corresponds to Matias v. Sears Home Improvement Products, Inc., an Eleventh Circuit employment-discrimination case. Outcome: Plaintiff’s filings and motion for alternative service were stricken; he was ordered to show cause why sanctions should not issue.. The Court found that Plaintiff’s filings contained multiple inaccurate or hallucinated legal citations, indicating possible improper use of artificial intelligence without adequate oversight. The Court struck the motion for alternative service and responses to the show-cause order, required Plaintiff to produce copies of two cited cases or explain under oath why he should not be sanctioned, and ordered further submissions regarding possible sanctions under Rule 11, 28 U.S.C. § 1927, and the Court’s inherent authority. No monetary or professional sanction was imposed in this order.
- Why does Clifford v. Neidle et al. matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Plaintiff’s filings and motion for alternative service were stricken; he was ordered to show cause why sanctions should not issue. in D. Wyoming. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about Clifford v. Neidle 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 Clifford v. Neidle 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.
Weekly alert: new AI-hallucination court cases
One short email a week with the newly recorded cases, courts and sanctions. Free, no spam, unsubscribe anytime.