Loading AI Vortex evidence…
Preparing the requested public record.
Public trackerEvidence checked Jul 23, 2026 · Latest decision Jul 21, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 80/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Holmes v. Cape Meadows Apartments HRMS
E.D. Missouri · Jul 10, 2026
MS / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationscivil rightstrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's TRO motion cited a nonexistent Ninth Circuit case; court identified the citation as fabricated and noted AI drafting. The court determined Plaintiff's emergency motion for a temporary restraining order was apparently drafted using generative AI and contained bracketed placeholders and a fabricated case citation ("Corrigan v. City of Scottsdale, 720 F.3d 513, 520 (9th Cir. 2013)"). The court noted this raised Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 concerns but, for judicial efficiency, addressed the motion on the merits, denied the TRO, and dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).…
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is the response recorded in the linked source; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with a recorded judicial response in E.D. Missouri, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's TRO motion cited a nonexistent Ninth Circuit case; court identified the citation as fabricated and noted AI drafting. The court determined Plaintiff's emergency motion for a temporary restraining order was apparently drafted using generative AI and contained bracketed placeholders and a fabricated case citation ("Corrigan v. City of Scottsdale, 720 F.3d 513, 520 (9th Cir. 2013)"). The court noted this raised Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 concerns but, for judicial efficiency, addressed the motion on the merits, denied the TRO, and dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). No professional sanctions or monetary penalties were imposed related to the fabricated citation.
Operational lesson
This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with a recorded judicial response in E.D. Missouri, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
MississippiSingle-state evidence scope
CourtE.D. Missouri
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit5th Circuit
DateJul 10, 2026
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeSee source
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
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
Procedural posture is not separately recorded in the current dataset.
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
1 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's TRO motion cited a nonexistent Ninth Circuit case; court identified the citation as fabricated and noted AI drafting.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Holmes v. Cape Meadows Apartments HRMS?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's TRO motion cited a nonexistent Ninth Circuit case; court identified the citation as fabricated and noted AI drafting. The court determined Plaintiff's emergency motion for a temporary restraining order was apparently drafted using generative AI and contained bracketed placeholders and a fabricated case citation ("Corrigan v. City of Scottsdale, 720 F.3d 513, 520 (9th Cir. 2013)"). The court noted this raised Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 concerns but, for judicial efficiency, addressed the motion on the merits, denied the TRO, and dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).…
- Why does Holmes v. Cape Meadows Apartments HRMS matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with a recorded judicial response in E.D. Missouri, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about Holmes v. Cape Meadows Apartments HRMS?
- 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 Holmes v. Cape Meadows Apartments HRMS 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.