Hang Zhang v. Daniel Driscoll
N.D. California · Jan 14, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- N.D. California
- Record ID
- hang-zhang-v-daniel-driscoll-2026-01-14
- Observed outcome
- The Court imposed a $500 monetary sanction payable to the Clerk of Court.
- Known monetary consequence
- $500
Why this matter warrants attention
The Court sanctioned a pro se litigant $500 for violating Rule 11 by submitting fictitious case citations in a reply brief and subsequently providing dishonest explanations to the Court regarding those citations.
Fabricated: Case Law | Reply brief contains multiple citations the Court could not locate and characterized as fictitious/hallucinated; Court declined to reproduce the fictitious names to avoid repeating them. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited a purported Fifth Circuit case for the proposition that courts 'credit unopposed constitutional arguments,' but the pincite corresponds to United States v. Santiago, 905 F.3d 1013, 1018 (7th Cir. 2018), a Seventh Circuit case that does not support the proposition cited. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited a purported Ninth Circuit case for the proposition that constitutional claims 'almost always demonstrate' irreparable harm, but the pincite corresponds to Thompson v. D.C., 967 F.3d 804, 813 (D.C. Cir. 2020), which does not support that premise.
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in N.D. California, with the listed outcome: Monetary Sanction.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Misrepresented Authority
- Civil Rights
- Trial
- Monetary
- AI attribution
- Reported
- Recorded tool
- AI (implied, unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- $500
- Procedural posture
- Order issuing sanctions following a show cause proceeding.
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.