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
HomeCasesDavid Morris Clayman v. Scott Bessant
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 81/100. 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 Morris Clayman v. Scott Bessant

S.D. Florida · Nov 24, 2025

FL / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationscivil rightstrialWarning
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The court denied the plaintiff's motion and issued a formal warning regarding the use of AI. The judge explicitly cautioned that if the plaintiff continues to include hallucinated cases or law in future filings, the court will consider imposing sanctions and restricting the plaintiff's ability to file documents in the case.

Why the court cared
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'United States v. Bovio, 708 F. Supp. 2d 579 (E.D.N.Y. 2010)'; the Court found the case does not exist and concluded it was AI-generated; plaintiff conceded and apologized.
Why it matters now
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in S.D. Florida, with the listed outcome: Warning.

Why this matter is tracked

In a pro se civil rights action, the plaintiff filed a motion to alter or amend a prior court order, citing a case that did not exist. The court identified the citation as an AI-generated hallucination. The plaintiff conceded the error and apologized. The court denied the motion on procedural grounds, noting that the cited rule was inapplicable and the plaintiff was attempting to relitigate settled matters. The court issued a formal warning to the plaintiff regarding the use of artificial intelligence in court filings, explicitly stating that continued submission of hallucinated legal authority would result in filing restrictions and potential sanctions. This decision reinforces the requirement for all litigants, including pro se parties, to verify the accuracy of legal citations.

Operational lesson

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

Record details

FloridaSingle-state evidence scope
Explore FLOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtS.D. Florida
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit11th Circuit
DateNov 24, 2025
UN
AI toolUnidentified
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeThe court denied the plaintiff's motion and issued a final warning regarding the submission of AI-generated hallucinations.
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

admitted

The court refers to the plaintiff's use of AI generally without naming a specific tool.

Procedural posture

Order denying Plaintiff's Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend a prior court order.

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 'United States v. Bovio, 708 F. Supp. 2d 579 (E.D.N.Y. 2010)'; the Court found the case does not exist and concluded it was AI-generated; plaintiff conceded and apologized.

Questions this record answers

What happened in David Morris Clayman v. Scott Bessant?
The court denied the plaintiff's motion and issued a formal warning regarding the use of AI. The judge explicitly cautioned that if the plaintiff continues to include hallucinated cases or law in future filings, the court will consider imposing sanctions and restricting the plaintiff's ability to file documents in the case.
Why does David Morris Clayman v. Scott Bessant matter for legal AI risk?
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in S.D. Florida, with the listed outcome: Warning.
What does the public record establish about David Morris Clayman v. Scott Bessant?
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 Morris Clayman v. Scott Bessant 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.

Thomas Raynard James v. Detective Kevin Conley, et al.S.D. Florida · Aug 27, 2026same court · fake citations + civil rightsJorge A. Zea v. National Association of REALTORSS.D. Florida · Mar 24, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsMonster Energy Company v. John H. OwocS.D. Florida · Aug 14, 2025same court · pro se + fake citationsJuandel Pena and Martina Ruiz v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.S.D. Florida · Feb 19, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsMitchell Taylor Button & Dusty Button v. Sigrid McCawleyS.D. Florida · Feb 4, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsNelson Henry v. Joseph Iannone and James DeacetisS.D. Florida · Jan 27, 2026same court · pro se + civil rights