Donovan Lamonte Haley v. Kim Rutledge, et al.
Record source: imported from Damien Charlotin’s AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC BY 4.0); document hosted in his archive: open the upstream document. What AI Vortex adds.
C.D. California · Nov 4, 2026
What happened in this matter?
Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Plaintiff invoked 34 C.F.R. § 100.7(e) to characterize the denial of access to government electronic metadata as a First Amendment prior restraint and civil-rights retaliation. The Court stated that the regulation had no relation to Plaintiff's claims. Outcome: Warning.
- Why the court cared
- The structured public record identifies pro se and misrepresented authority and records Warning. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects pro se and misrepresented authority with Warning in C.D. California. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Plaintiff invoked 34 C.F.R. § 100.7(e) to characterize the denial of access to government electronic metadata as a First Amendment prior restraint and civil-rights retaliation. The Court stated that the regulation had no relation to Plaintiff's claims. Outcome: Warning.
This matter connects pro se and misrepresented authority with Warning in C.D. California. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
Google AI is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
Warning
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.
- Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Plaintiff invoked 34 C.F.R. § 100.7(e) to characterize the denial of access to government electronic metadata as a First Amendment prior restraint and civil-rights retaliation. The Court stated that the regulation had no relation to Plaintiff's claims.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff invoked unspecified Ninth Circuit authority for the same First Amendment and civil-rights-retaliation theory. The Court stated that the cited case authority had no relation to Plaintiff's claims.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Donovan Lamonte Haley v. Kim Rutledge, et al.?
- Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Plaintiff invoked 34 C.F.R. § 100.7(e) to characterize the denial of access to government electronic metadata as a First Amendment prior restraint and civil-rights retaliation. The Court stated that the regulation had no relation to Plaintiff's claims. Outcome: Warning.
- Why does Donovan Lamonte Haley v. Kim Rutledge, et al. matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects pro se and misrepresented authority with Warning in C.D. California. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about Donovan Lamonte Haley v. Kim Rutledge, et al.?
- 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 Donovan Lamonte Haley v. Kim Rutledge, 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.
Weekly alert: new AI-hallucination court cases
One short email a week with the newly recorded cases, courts and sanctions. Free, no spam, unsubscribe anytime.