HomeCasesDomingo Beato-Estrella v. M. Arviza

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 85/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

Domingo Beato-Estrella v. M. Arviza

M.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 16, 2026

PA / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsmisrepresented authorityhabeas

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Petitioner cited 'Santos v. Warden Allenwood FCI, No. 1:17-CV-02116, 2018 WL 1178251 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 6, 2018)'; court found no such M.D. Pa. decision — the 2018 WL number corresponds to Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London v. Pettit (W.D. Wash.), unrelated to petitioner's claim. Outcome: Warning.

Why the court cared: The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Warning; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
Why it matters now: This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in M.D. Pennsylvania, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in M.D. Pennsylvania, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

PennsylvaniaSingle-state evidence scope

Jurisdiction contextThe state marker is derived from the structured case record.

CourtM.D. Pennsylvania

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit3rd Circuit

DateMar 16, 2026

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeWarning

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

reported

AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.

Procedural posture

Warning

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Petitioner cited 'Santos v. Warden Allenwood FCI, No. 1:17-CV-02116, 2018 WL 1178251 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 6, 2018)'; court found no such M.D. Pa. decision — the 2018 WL number corresponds to Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London v. Pettit (W.D. Wash.), unrelated to petitioner's claim.
Fabricated: Case Law | Petitioner cited 'Rodriguez v. Ebbert, No. 3:14-CV-02404, 2015 WL 1810315 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 21, 2015)'; court found 2015 WL 1810315 corresponds to an unrelated Florida appellate decision (D.S. v. Dep't of Child. & Fams.), not the cited M.D. Pa. case.
Fabricated: Case Law | Petitioner cited 'Cruz v. United States, No. 1:16-CV-01034, 2016 WL 8732312 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 16, 2016)'; court found 2016 WL 8732312 corresponds to Black Water Mgmt., LLC v. Sprenkle (E.D. Va.), not the cited M.D. Pa. decision.
Misrepresented: Case Law | When using this court's docket numbers, petitioner identified cases (e.g., Firestone v. Rockovich, No. 1:17-CV-2116; Fagal v. Marywood Univ.; Drake v. Warden of Allenwood Low) that exist but are irrelevant to his claim — the court treated these as misattributed and not supportive of petitioner's position.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Domingo Beato-Estrella v. M. Arviza?: Fabricated: Case Law | Petitioner cited 'Santos v. Warden Allenwood FCI, No. 1:17-CV-02116, 2018 WL 1178251 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 6, 2018)'; court found no such M.D. Pa. decision — the 2018 WL number corresponds to Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London v. Pettit (W.D. Wash.), unrelated to petitioner's claim. Outcome: Warning.
Why does Domingo Beato-Estrella v. M. Arviza matter for legal AI risk?: This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in M.D. Pennsylvania, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about Domingo Beato-Estrella v. M. Arviza?: The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
Which source supports this Domingo Beato-Estrella v. M. Arviza 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.

Birsingh v. Little Wheel, LLC, et al.M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 10, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Trauger v. Columbia County District Attorney's Office et al.M.D. Pennsylvania · May 29, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Victor Kholod v. Nationstar Mortgage LLCM.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 22, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations United States v. Brian BoehmM.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 3, 2025same court · pro se + misrepresented authority Twigg v. BSN Sports, Inc., et al.M.D. Pennsylvania · May 21, 2026same court · fake citations + misrepresented authority Marble v. O'MalleyM.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 27, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

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

Open recorded source

Publication statusevidence baseline passed

Published by AI Vortex · Manu Ayala
Page updated Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Jul 23, 2026; latest tracked decision Jul 21, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Cases from this court Open jurisdiction map

Evidence boundary

The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.

Read methodology

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

Record details

PennsylvaniaSingle-state evidence scope

Jurisdiction contextThe state marker is derived from the structured case record.

CourtM.D. Pennsylvania

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit3rd Circuit

DateMar 16, 2026

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeWarning

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Petitioner cited 'Rodriguez v. Ebbert, No. 3:14-CV-02404, 2015 WL 1810315 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 21, 2015)'; court found 2015 WL 1810315 corresponds to an unrelated Florida appellate decision (D.S. v. Dep't of Child. & Fams.), not the cited M.D. Pa. case.

Fabricated: Case Law | Petitioner cited 'Cruz v. United States, No. 1:16-CV-01034, 2016 WL 8732312 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 16, 2016)'; court found 2016 WL 8732312 corresponds to Black Water Mgmt., LLC v. Sprenkle (E.D. Va.), not the cited M.D. Pa. decision.

Misrepresented: Case Law | When using this court's docket numbers, petitioner identified cases (e.g., Firestone v. Rockovich, No. 1:17-CV-2116; Fagal v. Marywood Univ.; Drake v. Warden of Allenwood Low) that exist but are irrelevant to his claim — the court treated these as misattributed and not supportive of petitioner's position.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Domingo Beato-Estrella v. M. Arviza?

Why does Domingo Beato-Estrella v. M. Arviza matter for legal AI risk?

What does the public record establish about Domingo Beato-Estrella v. M. Arviza?

Which source supports this Domingo Beato-Estrella v. M. Arviza 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.