Which source supports this Jeffery Todd Henson, Sr. v. Lynn A. Espejo 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.

HomeCasesJeffery Todd Henson, Sr. v. Lynn A. Espejo

Evidence review: primary document verified. The linked primary document was extracted and checked with page-level evidence locators.

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 76/100. It passes the current publication gate; that is not a legal-editorial review or a guarantee that every field has been independently verified.

Corpus matter record

Jeffery Todd Henson, Sr. v. Lynn A. Espejo

C.D. Illinois · Nov 12, 2025

IL / federal Editorial impact: low pro se fake citations tort trial None Adjudicated

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The Court identified that the pro se plaintiff cited a nonexistent case, 'FDIC v. Cordero-Hernandez, 202 F.3d 1,' which the Court clarified is actually United States v. Woodrum. The Court did not impose a sanction for this citation error, instead addressing the plaintiff's underlying legal argument on its merits.

Why the court cared: Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited a non-existent case as authority; the Court identified the citation as nonexistent and observed the reporter page corresponds to United States v. Woodrum.
Why it matters now: This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in C.D. Illinois, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.

Why this matter is tracked

In a defamation action, the pro se plaintiff, Jeffery Todd Henson, Sr., submitted a motion to strike affirmative defenses. In his briefing, Henson cited 'FDIC v. Cordero-Hernandez, 202 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 2000)' to support his argument regarding the equitable doctrine of unclean hands. The Court identified this citation as nonexistent, noting that the reporter page 202 F.3d 1 corresponds to United States v. Woodrum, a Fourth Amendment case. While the Court addressed the underlying legal argument on its merits, it explicitly identified the citation as a hallucination. The Court ultimately granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff's motion to strike, focusing on the sufficiency of the defendant's affirmative defenses under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Operational lesson

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in C.D. Illinois, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.

Record details

IllinoisSingle-state evidence scope

Explore ILOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.

CourtC.D. Illinois

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit7th Circuit

DateNov 12, 2025

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeThe Court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff's motion to strike affirmative defenses; no sanctions were issued for the citation error.

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

Order and Opinion on Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendant's Affirmative Defenses.

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 cited a non-existent case as authority; the Court identified the citation as nonexistent and observed the reporter page corresponds to United States v. Woodrum.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Jeffery Todd Henson, Sr. v. Lynn A. Espejo?: The Court identified that the pro se plaintiff cited a nonexistent case, 'FDIC v. Cordero-Hernandez, 202 F.3d 1,' which the Court clarified is actually United States v. Woodrum. The Court did not impose a sanction for this citation error, instead addressing the plaintiff's underlying legal argument on its merits.
Why does Jeffery Todd Henson, Sr. v. Lynn A. Espejo matter for legal AI risk?: This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in C.D. Illinois, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.
What does the public record establish about Jeffery Todd Henson, Sr. v. Lynn A. Espejo?: 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.
Which source supports this Jeffery Todd Henson, Sr. v. Lynn A. Espejo 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.

Morgan Cole v. Hobby Town Unlimited, Inc.C.D. Illinois · Sep 2, 2026same court · fake citations + trial Feldman & Trost v. District 6 Board of EducationC.D. Illinois · Mar 31, 2026same court · fake citations + trial Allen v. HuntN.D. Illinois · Apr 13, 2026same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citations Helen Allen v. Cass Casper and Disparti Law GroupN.D. Illinois · Mar 10, 2026same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citations Poole v. Walmart, Inc.N.D. Illinois · Sep 5, 2025same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citations Sani v. Institute for Human ReproductionCA Illinois · Aug 18, 2026same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citations

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

Publisher document archive
The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.

Open recorded source Suggest a correction to this record

Public-record statuspublic record, not an allegation-only entry

Indexing eligibilitypublicly indexable with evidence status disclosed

Evidence-review statusprimary document verified

Published and maintained byManu Ayala · AI VortexIndependent legal AI risk intelligence

Evidence review recorded Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Sep 10, 2026; latest tracked decision Sep 8, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Open C.D. Illinois profile Explore jurisdiction

Evidence boundary

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.

Read methodology