HomeCasesJose Villavicencio v. Judge Stephanie Mingo

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

Jose Villavicencio v. Judge Stephanie Mingo

S.D. Ohio · Oct 7, 2025

OH / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsmisrepresented authorityadministrative

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Marsh v. Chambers for the proposition that federal district courts may issue mandamus to compel state court officers; the court held this characterization was "patently false." Outcome: Warning.

Why the court cared: The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Warning; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
Why it matters now: This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in S.D. Ohio, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in S.D. Ohio, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

OhioSingle-state evidence scope

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

CourtS.D. Ohio

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit6th Circuit

DateOct 7, 2025

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeWarning

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

Warning

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

3 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Marsh v. Chambers for the proposition that federal district courts may issue mandamus to compel state court officers; the court held this characterization was "patently false."
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff relied on several state-law citations that the court found to be incorrect or non-existent.
Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Plaintiff asserted authority from "28 U.S.C. § 1362" and "28 U.S.C. § 136(2)" as support for mandamus; the court noted those provisions do not provide such authority and construed the request under 28 U.S.C. § 1651.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Jose Villavicencio v. Judge Stephanie Mingo?: Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Marsh v. Chambers for the proposition that federal district courts may issue mandamus to compel state court officers; the court held this characterization was "patently false." Outcome: Warning.
Why does Jose Villavicencio v. Judge Stephanie Mingo matter for legal AI risk?: This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in S.D. Ohio, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about Jose Villavicencio v. Judge Stephanie Mingo?: 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 Jose Villavicencio v. Judge Stephanie Mingo 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.

Hector Salvatori v. The Huntington National BankS.D. Ohio · Jan 7, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Lahti v. Consensys Software Inc.S.D. Ohio · Aug 19, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations Arron v. Custer, et al.S.D. Ohio · May 21, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Brock et al. v. Hamilton County JFS Children Services et al.S.D. Ohio · May 15, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Quandel Construction Group, Inc. v. Hunt Construction Group, Inc.S.D. Ohio · Mar 31, 2026same court · fake citations + misrepresented authority Kettering Adventist Healthcare v. Sandra Collier, et al.S.D. Ohio · Feb 25, 2026same court · fake citations + misrepresented authority

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

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.

Read methodology

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

Tracked discrepancy record

3 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff relied on several state-law citations that the court found to be incorrect or non-existent.

Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Plaintiff asserted authority from "28 U.S.C. § 1362" and "28 U.S.C. § 136(2)" as support for mandamus; the court noted those provisions do not provide such authority and construed the request under 28 U.S.C. § 1651.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Jose Villavicencio v. Judge Stephanie Mingo?

Why does Jose Villavicencio v. Judge Stephanie Mingo matter for legal AI risk?

What does the public record establish about Jose Villavicencio v. Judge Stephanie Mingo?

Which source supports this Jose Villavicencio v. Judge Stephanie Mingo 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.