Which source supports this Emmanuel S. Yirenkyi v. Angela Hoover 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.

HomeCasesEmmanuel S. Yirenkyi v. Angela Hoover

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 80/100. 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

Emmanuel S. Yirenkyi v. Angela Hoover

M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 2, 2026

PA / federal Editorial impact: low pro se fake citations immigration trial None Adjudicated

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The court identified that the pro se petitioner submitted AI-generated legal hallucinations, specifically citing two non-existent Middle District of Pennsylvania cases to support his argument for release. The court formally labeled these citations as AI-generated and noted the petitioner's reliance on generative AI for his filings.

Why the court cared: Fabricated: Case Law | Petitioner cited 'Frederick v. Warden, 2019 WL 1318445 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 22, 2019)' to support that 8–10 months detention requires release; court found no such Middle District of Pennsylvania decision and labeled it an AI-generated legal hallucination. || Fabricated: Case Law | Petitioner cited 'Rodriquez v. Lowe, 2018 WL 683974 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 2, 2018)'; the court found the provided Westlaw citation redirected to an unrelated Quebec family-court decision and concluded no such M.D. Pa. case exists, calling it a legal hallucination.
Why it matters now: This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in M.D. Pennsylvania, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.

Why this matter is tracked

In a habeas corpus petition challenging immigration detention, the court granted the petitioner's request for a bond hearing. During the proceedings, the court identified that the pro se petitioner's filings were drafted with the assistance of generative artificial intelligence. The court explicitly noted two instances of AI-generated legal hallucinations: the citation of 'Frederick v. Warden, 2019 WL 1318445 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 22, 2019)' and 'Rodriquez v. Lowe, 2018 WL 683974 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 2, 2018).' The court found that the former case does not exist and the latter citation redirected to an unrelated Quebec family-court decision. The court criticized the reliance on AI for creating non-existent legal authority.

Operational lesson

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in M.D. Pennsylvania, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.

Record details

PennsylvaniaSingle-state evidence scope

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

CourtM.D. Pennsylvania

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit3rd Circuit

DateFeb 2, 2026

AI toolGenerative artificial intelligence (unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeThe court granted the petition for a writ of habeas corpus and ordered the petitioner released unless a bond hearing is conducted within thirty days.

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

explicitly recorded

The court identified the use of generative artificial intelligence.

Procedural posture

Habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking release from immigration detention or a bond hearing.

Correction behavior

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.

Fabricated: Case Law | Petitioner cited 'Frederick v. Warden, 2019 WL 1318445 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 22, 2019)' to support that 8–10 months detention requires release; court found no such Middle District of Pennsylvania decision and labeled it an AI-generated legal hallucination.
Fabricated: Case Law | Petitioner cited 'Rodriquez v. Lowe, 2018 WL 683974 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 2, 2018)'; the court found the provided Westlaw citation redirected to an unrelated Quebec family-court decision and concluded no such M.D. Pa. case exists, calling it a legal hallucination.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Emmanuel S. Yirenkyi v. Angela Hoover?: The court identified that the pro se petitioner submitted AI-generated legal hallucinations, specifically citing two non-existent Middle District of Pennsylvania cases to support his argument for release. The court formally labeled these citations as AI-generated and noted the petitioner's reliance on generative AI for his filings.
Why does Emmanuel S. Yirenkyi v. Angela Hoover matter for legal AI risk?: This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in M.D. Pennsylvania, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.
What does the public record establish about Emmanuel S. Yirenkyi v. Angela Hoover?: 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 Emmanuel S. Yirenkyi v. Angela Hoover 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.

Marble v. O'MalleyM.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 27, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Lonnie Allbaugh v. University of ScrantonM.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 28, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations Birsingh v. Little Wheel, LLC, et al.M.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 10, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Trauger v. Columbia County District Attorney's Office et al.M.D. Pennsylvania · May 29, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Domingo Beato-Estrella v. M. ArvizaM.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 16, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Victor Kholod v. Nationstar Mortgage LLCM.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 22, 2025same court · 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 Sep 10, 2026; latest tracked decision Sep 8, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Open M.D. Pennsylvania 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