HomeCasesJesse Andre v. Warden, FCI Danbury

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 81/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

Jesse Andre v. Warden, FCI Danbury

D. Connecticut · Nov 25, 2025

CT / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsfabricated quotesmisrepresented authority

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Court found 'Harriot v. Jamison' (cited to support BOP-policy arguments) does not exist. Outcome: Admonishment; Motion stricken with prejudice.

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Court found 'Harriot v. Jamison' (cited to support BOP-policy arguments) does not exist. Outcome: Admonishment; Motion stricken with prejudice.

Operational lesson

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. Connecticut, with the listed outcome: Admonishment; Motion stricken with prejudice.

Record details

ConnecticutSingle-state evidence scope

Jurisdiction contextThe state marker is derived from the structured case record.

CourtD. Connecticut

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit2nd Circuit

DateNov 25, 2025

AI toolUnidentified

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeAdmonishment; Motion stricken with prejudice

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

not established

The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.

Procedural posture

Admonishment; Motion stricken with prejudice

Correction behavior

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?: Fabricated: Case Law | Court found 'Harriot v. Jamison' (cited to support BOP-policy arguments) does not exist. Outcome: Admonishment; Motion stricken with prejudice.
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.

Braica v. Frankowski (Anthony Braica v. Tom Frankowski)D. Connecticut · Dec 15, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations Reilly v. Conn. Interlocal Risk Mgmt. AgencyD. Connecticut · Jun 20, 2025same court · pro se + fabricated quotes Raul Gonzales Davila v. RoblenD. Connecticut · Feb 6, 2026same court · fake citations + fabricated quotes Moales v. Land Rover Cherry HillD. Connecticut · Apr 30, 2025same court · pro se + misrepresented authority Christopher A. Ambrose v. Bandy X. LeeD. Connecticut · Mar 31, 2026same court · pro se + misrepresented authority Jacobs v. Payward, Inc.D. Connecticut · Mar 30, 2026same court · 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

Publication statusevidence baseline passed

Published by AI Vortex · Manu Ayala
Page updated Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Jul 23, 2026; latest tracked decision Jul 21, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Cases from this court Open jurisdiction map

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

Why this matter is tracked

Fabricated: Case Law | Court found 'Harriot v. Jamison' (cited to support BOP-policy arguments) does not exist. Outcome: Admonishment; Motion stricken with prejudice.

Operational lesson

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. Connecticut, with the listed outcome: Admonishment; Motion stricken with prejudice.

Record details

ConnecticutSingle-state evidence scope

Jurisdiction contextThe state marker is derived from the structured case record.

CourtD. Connecticut

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit2nd Circuit

DateNov 25, 2025

AI toolUnidentified

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeAdmonishment; Motion stricken with prejudice

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

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?

Fabricated: Case Law | Court found 'Harriot v. Jamison' (cited to support BOP-policy arguments) does not exist. Outcome: Admonishment; Motion stricken with prejudice.

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?

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.