AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Nov 3, 2026 · Latest decision Oct 29, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesHarris v. Bank of America
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 85/100. It is publicly indexable with its documented evidence gaps stated on-page; the linked source and evidence boundary remain controlling.
Corpus matter record

Harris v. Bank of America

Record source: imported from Damien Charlotin’s AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC BY 4.0), which credits Jesse Schaefer; document hosted in his archive: open the upstream document. What AI Vortex adds.

Cite this record

N.D. Mississippi · Jul 30, 2026

MS / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsothertrialWarning
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Court could not locate the opinion by citation or party names in Westlaw and concluded the citation was likely fictitious/AI-generated. Outcome: Warning: the court declined to sanction the pro se plaintiff and put him on notice that he will not get the same leniency if he refiles and cites fictitious case law again (PDF p. 5).

Why the court cared
The structured public record identifies pro se and fake citations and records Warning: the court declined to sanction the pro se plaintiff and put him on notice that he will not get the same leniency if he refiles and cites fictitious case law again (PDF p. 5). The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
Why it matters now
This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Warning: the court declined to sanction the pro se plaintiff and put him on notice that he will not get the same leniency if he refiles and cites fictitious case law again (PDF p. 5) in N.D. Mississippi. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Fabricated: Case Law | Court could not locate the opinion by citation or party names in Westlaw and concluded the citation was likely fictitious/AI-generated. Outcome: Warning: the court declined to sanction the pro se plaintiff and put him on notice that he will not get the same leniency if he refiles and cites fictitious case law again (PDF p. 5).

Operational lesson

This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Warning: the court declined to sanction the pro se plaintiff and put him on notice that he will not get the same leniency if he refiles and cites fictitious case law again (PDF p. 5) in N.D. Mississippi. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

MississippiSingle-state evidence scope
Explore MSOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtN.D. Mississippi
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit5th Circuit
DateJul 30, 2026
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeWarning: the court declined to sanction the pro se plaintiff and put him on notice that he will not get the same leniency if he refiles and cites fictitious case law again (PDF p. 5)
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo

Corrected 2026-11-02: see the corrections log.

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

reported

AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.

Procedural posture

Warning: the court declined to sanction the pro se plaintiff and put him on notice that he will not get the same leniency if he refiles and cites fictitious case law again (PDF p. 5)

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.

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | Court could not locate the opinion by citation or party names in Westlaw and concluded the citation was likely fictitious/AI-generated.
  2. Fabricated: Case Law | Court could not locate the opinion by citation or party names in Westlaw and concluded the citation was likely fictitious/AI-generated.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Harris v. Bank of America?
Fabricated: Case Law | Court could not locate the opinion by citation or party names in Westlaw and concluded the citation was likely fictitious/AI-generated. Outcome: Warning: the court declined to sanction the pro se plaintiff and put him on notice that he will not get the same leniency if he refiles and cites fictitious case law again (PDF p. 5).
Why does Harris v. Bank of America matter for legal AI risk?
This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Warning: the court declined to sanction the pro se plaintiff and put him on notice that he will not get the same leniency if he refiles and cites fictitious case law again (PDF p. 5) in N.D. Mississippi. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about Harris v. Bank of America?
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.
Which source supports this Harris v. Bank of America 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.

Joshua Harris v. Pinnacle Bank (2)N.D. Mississippi · May 7, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsBrian Smith v. TD Auto Finance LLC, et al.N.D. Mississippi · Apr 14, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsDesmond Cunningham v. Pentagon Federal Credit Union, et al.N.D. Mississippi · Jan 7, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsJoshua Harris v. Pinnacle BankN.D. Mississippi · Dec 2, 2025same court · pro se + fake citationsBrian Smith v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.N.D. Mississippi · Nov 25, 2025same court · pro se + fake citationsNewbern v. Desoto County School District et al.N.D. Mississippi · May 12, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations

This record involves a self-represented party. See all pro se litigant AI hallucination decisions in the corpus, with counts by year, country and outcome.

Weekly alert

Weekly alert: new AI-hallucination court cases

One short email a week with the newly recorded cases, courts and sanctions. Free, no spam, unsubscribe anytime.

Before the next filing goes out, review the workflow behind it.

These records show where AI-assisted filings went wrong. AI Vortex works with law firms and legal teams on one AI-assisted workflow at a time: who reviews the output, who signs, and what source trail it leaves. Operations design, not legal advice.

Review a workflow