Dorsey v. Ponce, et al.
N.D. Illinois · Dec 4, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- N.D. Illinois
- Record ID
- dorsey-v-ponce-et-al-2025-12-04
- Observed outcome
- The court issued a warning regarding the inclusion of invalid citations in the complaint and granted the defendants' motion to dismiss in part.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The court issued a warning regarding the plaintiff's use of fabricated and invalid legal citations within his Second Amended Complaint. The court identified specific nonexistent cases, such as 'State v. Slowikowski' and 'U.S. v. Weaver,' and noted that the plaintiff's filings contained numerous other citations that were either incorrect or did not support the arguments presented.
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'State v. Slowikowski, Ohio 2003,' which the court could not locate and flagged as an invalid/nonexistent citation. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'U.S. v. Weaver, 9th Circuit, 2016,' which the court was unable to find and identified as an incorrect or nonexistent citation. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Mackey v. Town of Allendale, 2021,' a citation the court could not locate and treated as invalid/fabricated. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Sanchez v. Dart, 2016,' which the court could not find (noting a different case with that caption exists from 2020), treating the 2016 citation as invalid.
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in N.D. Illinois, with the listed outcome: Warning.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Civil Rights
- Trial
- Warning
- AI attribution
- Reported
- Recorded tool
- AI (implied, unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- The court was considering the defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
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
AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify each cited authority, quotation, and proposition against the underlying source before filing.