Ebony Sherisse Lucas v. Charles W. Scharf, et al.
W.D. North Carolina · Feb 24, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- W.D. North Carolina
- Record ID
- ebony-sherisse-lucas-v-charles-w-scharf-et-al-2026-02-24
- Observed outcome
- The 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 monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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.
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in W.D. North Carolina, with the listed outcome: Order to Show Cause.
Failure modes and consequences
- Hallucinated_case_law
- Misrepresented_authority
- Failure_to_verify_citations
- Non_compliance_with_standing_order
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- AI (unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Order to Show Cause issued by the court on its own motion following defendant's motion to strike.
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
The court refers to AI platforms generally.
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.
- Confirm that every authority actually supports the proposition for which it is offered.