Jesse Andre v. Warden, FCI Danbury
D. Connecticut · Nov 25, 2025 · Vernon D. Oliver
What happened in this matter?
The court admonished the pro se petitioner and struck his motion with prejudice after finding he submitted AI-generated filings containing fabricated case law and quotations. The court concluded the petitioner violated Rule 11 by failing to verify his submissions and by making affirmative misrepresentations regarding the involvement of third-party drafters.
- Why the court cared
- Fabricated: Case Law | Court found 'Harriot v. Jamison' (cited to support BOP-policy arguments) does not exist. || False Quotes: Case Law | Quoted language attributed to Levine v. Apker does not appear in that opinion and the case does not support the asserted proposition. || False Quotes: Case Law | Sierra quotation cited in the Motion was fabricated and does not exist in the Sierra opinion. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Woodley v. Warden was cited as supporting a 'detainer-only bar' proposition the court found the case does not establish. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Perttu v. Richards was mischaracterized in substance and procedural posture relative to the petitioner's arguments. || Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Federal procedural rules (e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) and Habeas Rule 7) were mischaracterized as authorizing a petitioner to unilaterally expand the record after judgment. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Rivers v. Guerrero and Mayle v. Felix were cited for relation-back/record-expansion propositions the Court found they do not support.
- Why it matters now
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. Connecticut, with the listed outcome: Admonishment; Motion stricken with prejudice.
Why this matter is tracked
In a habeas corpus proceeding, the District Court for the District of Connecticut identified that the pro se petitioner submitted motions containing numerous fabricated case citations, invented quotations, and mischaracterized legal rules. The court determined these filings were drafted by undisclosed third parties using generative AI and that the petitioner had misrepresented the nature of this assistance. The court found the petitioner acted in subjective bad faith, violating Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 by failing to conduct a reasonable inquiry into the accuracy of his submissions. Consequently, the court admonished the petitioner and struck the offending motion with prejudice, emphasizing that the court will not tolerate the submission of hallucinated authority or deceptive practices regarding the origins of legal filings.
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. Connecticut, with the listed outcome: Admonishment; Motion stricken with prejudice.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
Petitioner admitted to heavy reliance on artificial intelligence to draft motions.
Sua sponte Rule 11 sanction proceeding following an order to show cause.
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
7 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Court found 'Harriot v. Jamison' (cited to support BOP-policy arguments) does not exist.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Quoted language attributed to Levine v. Apker does not appear in that opinion and the case does not support the asserted proposition.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Sierra quotation cited in the Motion was fabricated and does not exist in the Sierra opinion.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Woodley v. Warden was cited as supporting a 'detainer-only bar' proposition the court found the case does not establish.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Perttu v. Richards was mischaracterized in substance and procedural posture relative to the petitioner's arguments.
- Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Federal procedural rules (e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) and Habeas Rule 7) were mischaracterized as authorizing a petitioner to unilaterally expand the record after judgment.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Rivers v. Guerrero and Mayle v. Felix were cited for relation-back/record-expansion propositions the Court found they do not support.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Jesse Andre v. Warden, FCI Danbury?
- The court admonished the pro se petitioner and struck his motion with prejudice after finding he submitted AI-generated filings containing fabricated case law and quotations. The court concluded the petitioner violated Rule 11 by failing to verify his submissions and by making affirmative misrepresentations regarding the involvement of third-party drafters.
- Why does Jesse Andre v. Warden, FCI Danbury matter for legal AI risk?
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. Connecticut, with the listed outcome: Admonishment; Motion stricken with prejudice.
- What does the public record establish about Jesse Andre v. Warden, FCI Danbury?
- 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 Jesse Andre v. Warden, FCI Danbury 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.