Which source supports this David Martin v. ODS Community Dental Insurance 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.

HomeCasesDavid Martin v. ODS Community Dental Insurance et al.

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 76/100. 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

David Martin v. ODS Community Dental Insurance et al.

D. Oregon · Feb 18, 2026

OR / federal Editorial impact: low pro se fabricated quotes misrepresented authority tort None Adjudicated

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The court denied the plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order and issued a formal warning regarding the submission of inaccurate or incomplete legal citations, specifically noting the potential use of generative AI in the plaintiff's filings.

Why the court cared: False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributes a quote to Zschernig v. Miller (citing 389 U.S. 429, 432) that the court found does not appear on the cited page or anywhere in the case. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cites Hartman v. Moore, Estelle v. Gamble, and Washington v. Glucksberg in rhymed verse and without full or supporting citations; the court found these citations inaccurate or incomplete.
Why it matters now: This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. Oregon, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.

Why this matter is tracked

In a pro se action against dental insurance providers, the District Court for the District of Oregon denied the plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order. The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits, noting a lack of nexus between the motion and the underlying complaint. Additionally, the court identified that the plaintiff submitted inaccurate or incomplete legal citations, including a fabricated quote attributed to Zschernig v. Miller. The court explicitly warned the plaintiff that it would not tolerate further inaccurate or incomplete citations to legal authority, noting that such errors may stem from the use of generative artificial intelligence in drafting the briefing.

Operational lesson

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. Oregon, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.

Record details

OregonSingle-state evidence scope

Explore OROpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.

CourtD. Oregon

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit9th Circuit

DateFeb 18, 2026

AI toolGenerative artificial intelligence (unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeMotion for temporary restraining order denied; formal warning issued to pro se litigant regarding citation accuracy.

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

implied

The court referenced the plaintiff's potential use of generative AI.

Procedural posture

Order denying plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributes a quote to Zschernig v. Miller (citing 389 U.S. 429, 432) that the court found does not appear on the cited page or anywhere in the case.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cites Hartman v. Moore, Estelle v. Gamble, and Washington v. Glucksberg in rhymed verse and without full or supporting citations; the court found these citations inaccurate or incomplete.

Questions this record answers

What happened in David Martin v. ODS Community Dental Insurance et al.?: The court denied the plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order and issued a formal warning regarding the submission of inaccurate or incomplete legal citations, specifically noting the potential use of generative AI in the plaintiff's filings.
Why does David Martin v. ODS Community Dental Insurance et al. matter for legal AI risk?: This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. Oregon, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.
What does the public record establish about David Martin v. ODS Community Dental Insurance et al.?: 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 David Martin v. ODS Community Dental Insurance 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.

Related matters

Related by court, jurisdiction, tool, or classified failure pattern. Similarity does not imply the same facts or outcome.

Owen v. Askew et al.D. Oregon · Jul 28, 2026same court · pro se + misrepresented authority Troy Allen Berg v. Mandi Marie WondraD. Oregon · Dec 12, 2025same court · pro se + fabricated quotes Couvrette v. WisnovskyD. Oregon · Mar 23, 2026same court · fabricated quotes + misrepresented authority United States of America v. Eric Karnezis et al.D. Oregon · Jul 31, 2026same court · fabricated quotes + trial Michael J. Cross v. PHH Mortgage Corporation, et al.D. Oregon · Jun 29, 2026same court · pro se + trial Steven Nemec v. Kelsey Kanoelani Alao and Alyssa Jade AlaoD. Oregon · Apr 10, 2026same court · pro se + trial

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

Publisher document archive
The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.

Open recorded source Suggest a correction to this record

Public-record statuspublic record, not an allegation-only entry

Indexing eligibilitypublicly indexable with evidence status disclosed

Evidence-review statusprimary document verified

Published and maintained byManu Ayala · AI VortexIndependent legal AI risk intelligence

Evidence review recorded Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Sep 10, 2026; latest tracked decision Sep 8, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Open D. Oregon profile Explore jurisdiction

Evidence boundary

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.

Read methodology