Cotto v. United States
D. Colorado · Nov 17, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- D. Colorado
- Record ID
- cotto-v-united-states-2025-11-17
- Observed outcome
- Motion for reconsideration denied.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The court denied the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration after determining that the plaintiff relied on a fabricated case citation. The court explicitly noted that the cited 'Ayala v. Holmes, 29 F.4th 1015' does not exist and reaffirmed that pro se status does not exempt litigants from procedural rules or the obligation to cite the record.
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Ayala v. Holmes, 29 F.4th 1015' for summary-judgment guidance; the Court found no such decision exists, noted the 29 F.4th pin cite aligns with Barrera Arreguin v. Garland, 29 F.4th 1010, and that an unrelated Ayala v. Holmes, 29 F. App'x 548 (10th Cir. 2002) exists.
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. Colorado, with the listed outcome: Motion for reconsideration denied; court identified the cited case/citation as nonexistent/miscited and rejected reliance on it..
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Tort
- Trial
- None Adjudicated
- AI attribution
- Reported
- Recorded tool
- AI (implied, unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Order denying plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of a prior summary judgment order.
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 record does not name a tool, but the error is characteristic of AI hallucination.
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.