Harris v. Bank of America
N.D. Mississippi · Jul 30, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Court
- N.D. Mississippi
- Record ID
- harris-v-bank-of-america-2026-07-30
- Observed 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)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
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).
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.
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.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Other
- Trial
- Warning
- AI attribution
- Reported
- Recorded tool
- AI (implied, unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- 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)
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.
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.
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
- Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.