Donovan Lamonte Haley v. Kim Rutledge, et al.
C.D. California · Nov 4, 2026
Short answer. Status: Warning; amount: no amount stated. C.D. California, decision date on record November 4, 2026. As of November 13, 2026. Court source · Methodology
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Court
- C.D. California
- Record ID
- donovan-lamonte-haley-v-kim-rutledge-et-al-2026-11-04
- Observed outcome
- Warning
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
The structured public record identifies pro se and misrepresented authority and records Warning. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
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.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Misrepresented Authority
- Civil Rights
- Trial
- Warning
- AI attribution
- Reported
- Recorded tool
- Google AI
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Warning
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
Google AI is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
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.
Controls suggested by the public record
- Confirm that each authority supports the stated proposition and has not been mischaracterized.
- Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.