Faisal Rahman v. Michael J. Burton, et al.
N.D. Illinois · Apr 30, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- N.D. Illinois
- Record ID
- faisal-rahman-v-michael-j-burton-et-al-2026-04-30
- Observed outcome
- The court issued a formal warning regarding Rule 11 violations and dismissed the underlying complaint with prejudice.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The court issued a formal warning to the pro se plaintiff for violating Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 by including fabricated case citations in his filings. The court mandated that the plaintiff personally verify the truthfulness and accuracy of all future research and warned of potential sanctions, including dismissal and filing restrictions, for continued non-compliance.
The court reasoned that the plaintiff's inclusion of nonexistent cases violated the certification requirements of Rule 11(b), which requires that legal contentions be warranted by existing law. The court determined that the plaintiff's reliance on computer-assisted research without verification led to the submission of false citations, necessitating a warning to prevent future abuse of the court's processes.
This case illustrates judicial enforcement of Rule 11 against pro se litigants using unverified research. It highlights the court's expectation that parties must personally certify the accuracy of all research, regardless of the tools used to generate it.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fabricated Case Law
- Failure To Verify Research
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Civil Rights
- Trial
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- computer-assisted research
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Memorandum Opinion and Order granting defendants' motions to dismiss with prejudice.
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 referenced the plaintiff's reliance on computer-assisted research.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
- Apply the same source-checking controls to AI (implied, unspecified) output as to any other research input.
- Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.