AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Sep 10, 2026 · Latest decision Sep 8, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesMcDowell et al. v. Turpen
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

McDowell et al. v. Turpen

D. Colorado (Bankruptcy) · Feb 17, 2026

CO / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationscontracttrialNone Adjudicated
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The court issued a formal warning to a pro se defendant for including AI-generated prompts and a fabricated case citation in a motion to dismiss. The court emphasized that pro se parties are subject to Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9011 and that failure to verify the existence and accuracy of legal citations may result in sanctions.

Why the court cared
Fabricated: Case Law | Pro se defendant cited a non-existent case 'In re Raspanti, 414 B.R. 263 (Bankr. D. Colo. 2009)'; the Court identified the citation as fake and warned about AI-generated content and Rule 9011 compliance.
Why it matters now
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. Colorado (Bankruptcy), with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.

Why this matter is tracked

In a bankruptcy adversary proceeding, the pro se defendant, James Turpen, filed a motion to dismiss containing AI-generated prompts and a fabricated legal citation, 'In re Raspanti, 414 B.R. 263 (Bankr. D. Colo. 2009).' The court denied the motion in part and granted it in part regarding other claims. Regarding the AI usage, the court issued a formal warning to the defendant, noting that pro se litigants are held to the same standards as attorneys under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9011. The court cautioned that the use of AI for research or drafting is subject to Rule 9011 compliance and that submitting non-existent citations may be sanctionable.

Operational lesson

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. Colorado (Bankruptcy), with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.

Record details

ColoradoSingle-state evidence scope
Explore COOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtD. Colorado (Bankruptcy)
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit10th Circuit
DateFeb 17, 2026
UN
AI toolunspecified generative AI
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeThe court denied the motion to dismiss in part and granted it in part, while issuing a formal warning to the defendant regarding AI usage and Rule 9011 compliance.
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

explicitly recorded

The court identified the presence of AI prompts in the motion.

Procedural posture

Order granting in part and denying in part a motion to dismiss in a bankruptcy adversary proceeding.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | Pro se defendant cited a non-existent case 'In re Raspanti, 414 B.R. 263 (Bankr. D. Colo. 2009)'; the Court identified the citation as fake and warned about AI-generated content and Rule 9011 compliance.

Questions this record answers

What happened in McDowell et al. v. Turpen?
The court issued a formal warning to a pro se defendant for including AI-generated prompts and a fabricated case citation in a motion to dismiss. The court emphasized that pro se parties are subject to Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9011 and that failure to verify the existence and accuracy of legal citations may result in sanctions.
Why does McDowell et al. v. Turpen matter for legal AI risk?
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. Colorado (Bankruptcy), with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.
What does the public record establish about McDowell et al. v. Turpen?
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 McDowell et al. v. Turpen 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.

Keirton Inc. v. Mersad RahmanovicD. Colorado (Bankruptcy) · Mar 19, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsIn re: Avi SchwalbD. Colorado (Bankruptcy) · Dec 2, 2025same court · pro se + fake citationsIn re: Sherry Ann McGannD. Colorado (Bankruptcy) · Oct 27, 2025same court · pro se + fake citationsIn re MascioD. Colorado (Bankruptcy) · Aug 22, 2025same court · pro se + fake citationsLabonte v. Bokf, et al.D. Colorado · Feb 10, 2026same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citationsNonnie Berg v. United Airlines, Inc. (2)D. Colorado · Jan 28, 2026same jurisdiction · pro se + fake citations