AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Sep 11, 2026 · Latest decision Sep 9, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesDewayne Clark v. CoreCivic
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

Dewayne Clark v. CoreCivic

W.D. Oklahoma · Mar 6, 2026

OK / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsfabricated quotesmisrepresented authorityWarning
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The court identified multiple fabricated citations and misrepresented case law in a pro se litigant's filings. The Magistrate Judge attributed these errors to the unverified use of AI software, noting that the court had previously admonished the plaintiff for similar conduct.

Why the court cared
False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff quoted Garrison v. Gambro as stating summary judgment is a "drastic remedy" to be granted "with caution;" the court found Garrison does not contain that language or proposition. || False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Tuckel v. Glover as recognizing unavailability where an inmate is "so sick" or incapacitated; the court found Tuckel does not include the quoted language or reflect that proposition. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff's citation to Lemons v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs. in his Surreply was incorrect per the court (citation error/misrepresentation). || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Braham v. Cty. of Washington, No. 2:19-CV01128, 2020 WL 1166395, at *6, but the court could not locate any such case or citation, suggesting a fabricated citation. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Jones v. Bock for the proposition that the defendant bears the burden of proving availability of administrative remedies; the court noted Jones does not support that proposition.
Why it matters now
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in W.D. Oklahoma, with the listed outcome: Admonishment.

Why this matter is tracked

In a pro se prisoner civil rights action, the Magistrate Judge identified multiple instances of misrepresented and fabricated case law in the plaintiff's filings. The court noted that the plaintiff's submissions contained non-existent case citations and false quotations, likely resulting from the unverified use of AI tools. The court previously issued an admonishment to the plaintiff regarding these mischaracterizations in an earlier order, which the plaintiff acknowledged. Despite this, subsequent filings continued to contain citation errors and misattributed legal propositions. The court highlighted the responsibility of all litigants to ensure the accuracy of legal authorities and warned that careless use of AI wastes judicial resources and undermines the credibility of the legal system.

Operational lesson

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in W.D. Oklahoma, with the listed outcome: Admonishment.

Record details

OklahomaSingle-state evidence scope
Explore OKOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtW.D. Oklahoma
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit10th Circuit
DateMar 6, 2026
AI
AI toolAI (unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeThe court recommended granting summary judgment to the defendant and noted the plaintiff's prior admonishment for citation errors.
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

implied

The court inferred AI use from the plaintiff's introduction and citation errors.

Procedural posture

Report and Recommendation on a motion to dismiss converted to a motion for summary judgment.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

  1. False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff quoted Garrison v. Gambro as stating summary judgment is a "drastic remedy" to be granted "with caution;" the court found Garrison does not contain that language or proposition.
  2. False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Tuckel v. Glover as recognizing unavailability where an inmate is "so sick" or incapacitated; the court found Tuckel does not include the quoted language or reflect that proposition.
  3. Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff's citation to Lemons v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs. in his Surreply was incorrect per the court (citation error/misrepresentation).
  4. Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Braham v. Cty. of Washington, No. 2:19-CV01128, 2020 WL 1166395, at *6, but the court could not locate any such case or citation, suggesting a fabricated citation.
  5. Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Jones v. Bock for the proposition that the defendant bears the burden of proving availability of administrative remedies; the court noted Jones does not support that proposition.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Dewayne Clark v. CoreCivic?
The court identified multiple fabricated citations and misrepresented case law in a pro se litigant's filings. The Magistrate Judge attributed these errors to the unverified use of AI software, noting that the court had previously admonished the plaintiff for similar conduct.
Why does Dewayne Clark v. CoreCivic matter for legal AI risk?
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in W.D. Oklahoma, with the listed outcome: Admonishment.
What does the public record establish about Dewayne Clark v. CoreCivic?
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 Dewayne Clark v. CoreCivic 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.

Blackburn v. United StatesW.D. Oklahoma · Apr 7, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsAllahgehovah Jones v. City of Moore, et al.W.D. Oklahoma · Jun 24, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsDalton Gage Hill v. Oklahoma County Criminal Justice Authority (2)W.D. Oklahoma · May 21, 2026same court · fake citations + fabricated quotesZaykariya v. Freedom Mortgage Corporation, et al.W.D. Oklahoma · Jan 9, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsSharita Hill v. State of OklahomaW.D. Oklahoma · Jul 3, 2025same court · fake citations + fabricated quotesO. Gene Bicknell v. Richard M. Silanskas Jr., et al.N.D. Oklahoma · Jan 12, 2026same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citations