Which source supports this Kamia Nellum v. Credit Acceptance Corporation 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.

HomeCasesKamia Nellum v. Credit Acceptance Corporation

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 85/100. 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

Kamia Nellum v. Credit Acceptance Corporation

S.D. Indiana · Nov 18, 2025

IN / federal Editorial impact: low pro se fake citations misrepresented authority contract Warning

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The court issued a formal warning to the pro se plaintiff for submitting hallucinated and misrepresented case law citations in her filings. The court clarified that pro se litigants are not exempt from procedural rules and cautioned that continued submission of fabricated authority could lead to sanctions.

Why the court cared: Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Messina v. N. Cent. Distrib., Inc., 821 N.E.2d 236 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005)'; court found the citation/method of attribution incorrect and that the proper decision appears as Messina v. N. Cent. Distrib., Inc., 821 F.3d 1047, 1050 (8th Cir. 2016). Court noted the case was not addressed by the Indiana Court of Appeals as plaintiff claimed. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Miller v. Credit Acceptance Corp., 2019 WL 2450930 (S.D. Ind. 2019)'; court found that citation does not exist (2019 WL 2450930 corresponds to an unrelated D. Utah decision) and that the Miller v. Credit Acceptance decisions found on Westlaw are from 2012 (N.D. Ohio).
Why it matters now: This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in S.D. Indiana, with the listed outcome: Warning.

Why this matter is tracked

In a contract dispute, the pro se plaintiff submitted filings containing fabricated and misrepresented case law. Specifically, the plaintiff cited 'Messina v. N. Cent. Distrib., Inc., 821 N.E.2d 236 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005)', which the court identified as a miscitation of an 8th Circuit decision, and 'Miller v. Credit Acceptance Corp., 2019 WL 2450930 (S.D. Ind. 2019)', a non-existent citation that corresponds to an unrelated habeas corpus case in the District of Utah. The court granted the defendant's motion to compel arbitration and issued a formal warning to the plaintiff, noting that pro se status does not excuse the submission of hallucinated citations and that such conduct may result in future sanctions.

Operational lesson

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in S.D. Indiana, with the listed outcome: Warning.

Record details

IndianaSingle-state evidence scope

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

CourtS.D. Indiana

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit7th Circuit

DateNov 18, 2025

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeThe court granted the defendant's motion to compel arbitration and issued a formal warning to the plaintiff regarding the submission of hallucinated citations.

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

reported

The source does not name a tool, but the nature of the errors implies automated generation.

Procedural posture

The court granted the defendant's motion to compel arbitration and stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of arbitration, while simultaneously issuing a warning regarding the plaintiff's citation practices.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Messina v. N. Cent. Distrib., Inc., 821 N.E.2d 236 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005)'; court found the citation/method of attribution incorrect and that the proper decision appears as Messina v. N. Cent. Distrib., Inc., 821 F.3d 1047, 1050 (8th Cir. 2016). Court noted the case was not addressed by the Indiana Court of Appeals as plaintiff claimed.
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Miller v. Credit Acceptance Corp., 2019 WL 2450930 (S.D. Ind. 2019)'; court found that citation does not exist (2019 WL 2450930 corresponds to an unrelated D. Utah decision) and that the Miller v. Credit Acceptance decisions found on Westlaw are from 2012 (N.D. Ohio).

Questions this record answers

What happened in Kamia Nellum v. Credit Acceptance Corporation?: The court issued a formal warning to the pro se plaintiff for submitting hallucinated and misrepresented case law citations in her filings. The court clarified that pro se litigants are not exempt from procedural rules and cautioned that continued submission of fabricated authority could lead to sanctions.
Why does Kamia Nellum v. Credit Acceptance Corporation matter for legal AI risk?: This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in S.D. Indiana, with the listed outcome: Warning.
What does the public record establish about Kamia Nellum v. Credit Acceptance Corporation?: 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 Kamia Nellum v. Credit Acceptance Corporation 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.

Tsupko v. Kinetic Advantage, LLCS.D. Indiana · Sep 17, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations Elbert Coleman, III; Elbert Coleman, IV v. Nexo Capital Inc.S.D. Indiana · Mar 31, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Jana James v. National Board of Osteopathic Examiners, Inc.S.D. Indiana · Mar 19, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Michael Platt v. Volunteers of America Ohio & IndianaS.D. Indiana · Mar 10, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Virgil v. Experian Information Solutions, et al.S.D. Indiana · Feb 12, 2026same court · fake citations + misrepresented authority William C. Maxwell v. Dakota Michael & Chelsey SmithS.D. Indiana · May 26, 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 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 S.D. Indiana 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