Jesse Andre v. Warden, FCI Danbury
D. Connecticut · Nov 25, 2025 · Vernon D. Oliver
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- D. Connecticut
- Record ID
- jesse-andre-v-warden-fci-danbury-2025-11-25
- Observed outcome
- The court issued a formal admonishment and struck the petitioner's motion with prejudice.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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.
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. Connecticut, with the listed outcome: Admonishment; Motion stricken with prejudice.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fabricated Case Law
- Fabricated Quotations
- Misrepresented Legal Authority
- Lack Of Human Verification
- Undisclosed Third Party Drafting
- Pro Se
- AI attribution
- Admitted
- Recorded tool
- Unidentified generative artificial intelligence
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Sua sponte Rule 11 sanction proceeding following an order to show cause.
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
Petitioner admitted to heavy reliance on artificial intelligence to draft motions.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify each cited authority, quotation, and proposition against the underlying source before filing.
- Confirm that every authority actually supports the proposition for which it is offered.