Which source supports this Ebony Sherisse Lucas v. Charles W. Scharf, 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.

HomeCasesEbony Sherisse Lucas v. Charles W. Scharf, et al.

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

Ebony Sherisse Lucas v. Charles W. Scharf, et al.

W.D. North Carolina · Feb 24, 2026

NC / federal Editorial impact: medium pro se fake citations misrepresented authority contract Ordered To Show Cause

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The court issued an Order to Show Cause requiring the pro se plaintiff to explain the inclusion of twelve fabricated case citations and one misrepresented authority in her filings, and to certify future compliance with the court's Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence, under threat of dismissal with prejudice.

Why the court cared: Fabricated: Case Law | Court identified this citation in plaintiff's reply as non-existent and likely AI-generated. || Fabricated: Case Law | Court identified this citation in plaintiff's response as non-existent and likely AI-generated. || Fabricated: Case Law | Court identified this citation in plaintiff's response as non-existent and likely AI-generated. || Fabricated: Case Law | Court identified this citation in plaintiff's response as non-existent and likely AI-generated. || Fabricated: Case Law | Court identified this citation in plaintiff's response as non-existent and likely AI-generated. || Fabricated: Case Law | Court identified this citation in plaintiff's response as non-existent and likely AI-generated. || Fabricated: Case Law | Court identified this citation in plaintiff's response as non-existent and likely AI-generated. || Fabricated: Case Law | Court identified this citation in plaintiff's response as non-existent and likely AI-generated. || Fabricated: Case Law | Court identified this citation in plaintiff's response as non-existent and likely AI-generated. || Fabricated: Case Law | Court identified this citation in plaintiff's response as non-existent and likely AI-generated. || Fabricated: Case Law | Court identified this citation in plaintiff's response as non-existent and likely AI-generated. || Fabricated: Case Law | Court identified this citation in plaintiff's reply as non-existent and likely AI-generated. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Court noted this is a real case but found plaintiff cited it for a proposition the case does not support.
Why it matters now: This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in W.D. North Carolina, with the listed outcome: Order to Show Cause.

Why this matter is tracked

In a contract dispute, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina issued an Order to Show Cause against a pro se plaintiff for submitting filings containing twelve non-existent, likely AI-generated case citations and one misrepresented authority. The court noted that the plaintiff failed to comply with the court's Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence, which requires certification that all citations have been verified. The court emphasized that pro se status does not excuse the failure to perform basic due diligence or the submission of misleading, unverified pleadings. The plaintiff was ordered to explain the fraudulent citations, amend her non-compliant pleadings, and provide the required AI certification within 21 days to avoid dismissal with prejudice.

Operational lesson

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in W.D. North Carolina, with the listed outcome: Order to Show Cause.

Record details

North CarolinaSingle-state evidence scope

Explore NCOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.

CourtW.D. North Carolina

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit4th Circuit

DateFeb 24, 2026

AI toolAI (unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeThe court ordered the plaintiff to show cause why her complaint should not be dismissed with prejudice, requiring her to explain the fraudulent citations, amend her pleadings, and certify future compliance with the court's AI standing order.

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

implied

The court refers to AI platforms generally.

Procedural posture

Order to Show Cause issued by the court on its own motion following defendant's motion to strike.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Court identified this citation in plaintiff's reply as non-existent and likely AI-generated.
Fabricated: Case Law | Court identified this citation in plaintiff's response as non-existent and likely AI-generated.
Fabricated: Case Law | Court identified this citation in plaintiff's response as non-existent and likely AI-generated.
Fabricated: Case Law | Court identified this citation in plaintiff's response as non-existent and likely AI-generated.
Fabricated: Case Law | Court identified this citation in plaintiff's response as non-existent and likely AI-generated.
Fabricated: Case Law | Court identified this citation in plaintiff's response as non-existent and likely AI-generated.
Fabricated: Case Law | Court identified this citation in plaintiff's response as non-existent and likely AI-generated.
Fabricated: Case Law | Court identified this citation in plaintiff's response as non-existent and likely AI-generated.

Show 5 additional discrepancies

Fabricated: Case Law | Court identified this citation in plaintiff's response as non-existent and likely AI-generated.
Fabricated: Case Law | Court identified this citation in plaintiff's response as non-existent and likely AI-generated.
Fabricated: Case Law | Court identified this citation in plaintiff's response as non-existent and likely AI-generated.
Fabricated: Case Law | Court identified this citation in plaintiff's reply as non-existent and likely AI-generated.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Court noted this is a real case but found plaintiff cited it for a proposition the case does not support.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Ebony Sherisse Lucas v. Charles W. Scharf, et al.?: The court issued an Order to Show Cause requiring the pro se plaintiff to explain the inclusion of twelve fabricated case citations and one misrepresented authority in her filings, and to certify future compliance with the court's Standing Order Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence, under threat of dismissal with prejudice.
Why does Ebony Sherisse Lucas v. Charles W. Scharf, et al. matter for legal AI risk?: This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in W.D. North Carolina, with the listed outcome: Order to Show Cause.
What does the public record establish about Ebony Sherisse Lucas v. Charles W. Scharf, et al.?: 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 Ebony Sherisse Lucas v. Charles W. Scharf, 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.

Related matters

Related by court, jurisdiction, tool, or classified failure pattern. Similarity does not imply the same facts or outcome.

Jacob Doe v. The University of North Carolina SystemW.D. North Carolina · Nov 10, 2025same court · fake citations + misrepresented authority Bank of America v. MappM.D. North Carolina · May 15, 2026same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citations Letts v. Avidien TechnologiesE.D. North Carolina · Dec 16, 2024same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citations Jacob Doe v. The University of North Carolina System, et al.W.D. North Carolina · Jun 16, 2026same court · fake citations + misrepresented authority Wayne K. Smith, Sr. v. Polk County, et al.W.D. North Carolina · Jun 3, 2026same court · fake citations + trial Anthony Josue Grajales v. Santander Consumer USA Inc., et al.M.D. North Carolina · Jun 2, 2026same jurisdiction · 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 Suggest a correction to this record

Public-record statuspublic record, not an allegation-only entry

Indexing eligibilitypublicly indexable with evidence status disclosed

Evidence-review statusprimary document verified

Published and maintained byManu Ayala · AI VortexIndependent legal AI risk intelligence

Evidence review recorded Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Aug 15, 2026; latest tracked decision Aug 11, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Open W.D. North Carolina profile Explore jurisdiction

Evidence boundary

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.

Read methodology