Joshua Harris v. Pinnacle Bank
N.D. Mississippi · Dec 2, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- N.D. Mississippi
- Record ID
- joshua-harris-v-pinnacle-bank-2025-12-02
- Observed outcome
- Warning
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
In Joshua Harris v. Pinnacle Bank, the Northern District of Mississippi dismissed the pro se plaintiff’s consolidated actions with prejudice after repeated fictitious and AI-generated citations. The court had already found a Rule 11 violation and issued multiple warnings; even so, another filing before the third show-cause hearing included nonexistent rules and authorities. At hearing, Harris admitted the repeated unverified AI-generated citations.
Fabricated: Case Law
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in N.D. Mississippi, with the listed outcome: Warning.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Trial
- Warning
- AI attribution
- Not Established
- Recorded tool
- No tool named in source
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Warning
law.justia.com
Docket or legal-document mirror. The recorded link is hosted by a legal document repository or mirror.
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
The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.
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: Source Unavailable (medium confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify each cited authority, quotation, and proposition against the underlying source before filing.