Which source supports this Kaleb Alexander Hoosier v. Executive Centre Association, et al. 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.

HomeCasesKaleb Alexander Hoosier v. Executive Centre Association, et al.

Evidence review: primary document verified. The linked primary document was extracted and checked with page-level evidence locators.

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 76/100. It passes the current publication gate; that is not a legal-editorial review or a guarantee that every field has been independently verified.

Corpus matter record

Kaleb Alexander Hoosier v. Executive Centre Association, et al.

D. Hawai‘i · Oct 31, 2025

HI / federal Editorial impact: low pro se fake citations misrepresented authority civil rights None Adjudicated

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend, citing failure to state a claim and the inclusion of likely AI-hallucinated legal authorities. The court did not impose sanctions but issued a formal warning regarding the duty to verify sources and comply with local rules concerning AI-generated filings.

Why the court cared: Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Complaint cites "ROH § 14-1" in support of a "public easement sidewalk" proposition; court noted ROH § 14-1 actually concerns use of Polynesian plants and does not support the cited proposition. || Fabricated: Legal Norm | Complaint cites "ROH § 29-7.2" for the proposition that intentional confinement via trespass is unlawful; the court found no such section and observed ROH ch.29 pertains to affordable housing. || Fabricated: Case Law | "Blair v. City of Honolulu" cited in the complaint but does not appear to exist; court flagged it as likely fictitious.
Why it matters now: This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. Hawai‘i, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.

Why this matter is tracked

In a pro se civil rights action, the District of Hawai‘i dismissed the plaintiff's complaint with leave to amend due to failure to state a claim. The court identified multiple instances of potentially hallucinated legal authority, including citations to nonexistent case law ('Blair v. City of Honolulu') and misrepresentations of Honolulu city ordinances (ROH § 14-1 and § 29-7.2). The court noted that these errors are increasingly associated with AI-generated content and reminded the plaintiff of the local requirement to declare reliance on unverified sources. The court emphasized that all litigants, including pro se parties, must ensure that cited authorities are accurate and support the propositions for which they are offered.

Operational lesson

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. Hawai‘i, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.

Record details

HawaiiSingle-state evidence scope

Explore HIOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.

CourtD. Hawai‘i

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit9th Circuit

DateOct 31, 2025

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeComplaint dismissed with leave to amend by December 3, 2025.

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

implied

Court refers to AI generally.

Procedural posture

Order granting in forma pauperis application and dismissing complaint with leave to amend.

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: Legal Norm | Complaint cites "ROH § 14-1" in support of a "public easement sidewalk" proposition; court noted ROH § 14-1 actually concerns use of Polynesian plants and does not support the cited proposition.
Fabricated: Legal Norm | Complaint cites "ROH § 29-7.2" for the proposition that intentional confinement via trespass is unlawful; the court found no such section and observed ROH ch.29 pertains to affordable housing.
Fabricated: Case Law | "Blair v. City of Honolulu" cited in the complaint but does not appear to exist; court flagged it as likely fictitious.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Kaleb Alexander Hoosier v. Executive Centre Association, et al.?: The court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend, citing failure to state a claim and the inclusion of likely AI-hallucinated legal authorities. The court did not impose sanctions but issued a formal warning regarding the duty to verify sources and comply with local rules concerning AI-generated filings.
Why does Kaleb Alexander Hoosier v. Executive Centre Association, et al. matter for legal AI risk?: This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. Hawai‘i, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.
What does the public record establish about Kaleb Alexander Hoosier v. Executive Centre Association, et al.?: 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 Kaleb Alexander Hoosier v. Executive Centre Association, et al. 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.

Yuri Petrini v. City of Biloxi, Mississippi, et al.S.D. Mississippi · Jun 30, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Patrick C. Shaltry v. Donna Collins, et al.E.D. Michigan · Jun 2, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Trauger v. Columbia County District Attorney's Office et al.M.D. Pennsylvania · May 29, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Lowrey v. City of Rio Rancho et al. (2)D. New Mexico · May 21, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Zena L. Powell v. The Borough of BergenfieldD. New Jersey · May 12, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Shaw v. City of Portola, et al.E.D. California · Apr 14, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

Publisher document archive
The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.

Open recorded source Suggest a correction to this record

Public-record statuspublic record, not an allegation-only entry

Indexing eligibilitypublicly indexable with evidence status disclosed

Evidence-review statusprimary document verified

Published and maintained byManu Ayala · AI VortexIndependent legal AI risk intelligence

Evidence review recorded Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Sep 10, 2026; latest tracked decision Sep 8, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Open D. Hawai‘i profile Explore jurisdiction

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