Public trackerCorpus refreshed Sep 10, 2026 · Latest decision Sep 8, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesDesmond Cunningham v. Pentagon Federal Credit Union, 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 85/100. 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

Desmond Cunningham v. Pentagon Federal Credit Union, et al.

N.D. Mississippi · Jan 7, 2026

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claims with prejudice and issued a formal warning regarding the submission of fabricated legal authorities. Although the court identified clear violations of Rule 11, it declined to impose additional sanctions, such as attorney's fees, because the defendants did not request them.

Why the court cared
Fabricated: Case Law | Cunningham cited a purported D. Conn. opinion with a Westlaw citation and date that did not correspond to any docket entry for that case; the court concluded the representation of the Housatonic citation was fabricated. || False Quotes: Case Law | Cunningham attributed a specific quotation to International Shortstop, Inc. v. Rally's, Inc. (5th Cir. 1991) that the court and opposing counsel were unable to locate in that opinion, i.e., a false/misattributed quote.
Why it matters now
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in N.D. Mississippi, with the listed outcome: All claims dismissed with prejudice; warning.

Why this matter is tracked

In a contract and tort dispute, the N.D. Mississippi court dismissed all claims with prejudice against the defendants. During the proceedings, the pro se plaintiff, Desmond Cunningham, submitted filings containing fabricated case law and misattributed quotations. Specifically, the plaintiff cited a non-existent docket entry for a D. Conn. case and attributed a quotation to a 5th Circuit opinion that did not contain the cited text. While the court noted that these actions violated Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it declined to impose formal monetary or professional sanctions at this time, opting instead to issue a formal warning that future violations would result in sanctions.

Operational lesson

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in N.D. Mississippi, with the listed outcome: All claims dismissed with prejudice; warning.

Record details

MississippiSingle-state evidence scope
Explore MSOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtN.D. Mississippi
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit5th Circuit
DateJan 7, 2026
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeAll claims dismissed with prejudice; formal warning issued to the pro se litigant.
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

reported

The source document does not name a specific tool; the attribution is implied by the nature of the errors.

Procedural posture

Order and Memorandum Opinion granting defendants' motions to dismiss and for summary judgment, resulting in the dismissal of all claims with prejudice.

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.

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | Cunningham cited a purported D. Conn. opinion with a Westlaw citation and date that did not correspond to any docket entry for that case; the court concluded the representation of the Housatonic citation was fabricated.
  2. False Quotes: Case Law | Cunningham attributed a specific quotation to International Shortstop, Inc. v. Rally's, Inc. (5th Cir. 1991) that the court and opposing counsel were unable to locate in that opinion, i.e., a false/misattributed quote.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Desmond Cunningham v. Pentagon Federal Credit Union, et al.?
The court dismissed the plaintiff's claims with prejudice and issued a formal warning regarding the submission of fabricated legal authorities. Although the court identified clear violations of Rule 11, it declined to impose additional sanctions, such as attorney's fees, because the defendants did not request them.
Why does Desmond Cunningham v. Pentagon Federal Credit Union, et al. matter for legal AI risk?
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in N.D. Mississippi, with the listed outcome: All claims dismissed with prejudice; warning.
What does the public record establish about Desmond Cunningham v. Pentagon Federal Credit Union, 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 Desmond Cunningham v. Pentagon Federal Credit Union, 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.