Mitchell Taylor Button et al. v. John Jimison (2)
W.D. Washington · Jan 20, 2026
What happened in this matter?
The court struck the plaintiffs' filings (Dkt. Nos. 23, 27) because they contained fictitious case law and inaccurate quotations, violating a prior court order that mandated verification of all cited authorities and required a certification of accuracy for all future submissions.
- Why the court cared
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited a Sixth Circuit case for the proposition courts may strike 'entire documents where scandalous or irrelevant matter dominates'; the court was unable to locate that case. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited a case purportedly condemning efforts to label individuals as serial litigants; the court could not find the cited authority supporting that proposition. || Fabricated: Case Law | In a supplemental filing, plaintiffs cited a district court case for the proposition that a 'notice of unavailability' is not recognized in federal practice; the court was unable to locate the cited authority and the citation provided led to a different case. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited two Ninth Circuit opinions for the proposition that Rule 12(b) motions must be filed before a responsive pleading; the court found the quoted language does not appear in the cited opinions and was unable to locate the authorities. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited a district court case allegedly stating that striking an answer 'does not resuscitate' waived defenses; the court could not locate the cited case or quote. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs attributed a quotation to a Ninth Circuit case claiming Rule 12(c) requires 'closed pleadings'; the court found that quote does not appear in the cited opinion.
- Why it matters now
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in W.D. Washington, with the listed outcome: Struck filings.
Why this matter is tracked
In a tort action, the plaintiffs repeatedly submitted filings containing fabricated case law and non-existent quotations, despite prior judicial warnings and a court-ordered certification requirement. The court previously admonished the plaintiffs regarding the use of artificial intelligence for legal research and mandated that all future filings include a certification of accuracy. Upon discovering that the plaintiffs continued to cite non-existent authorities in subsequent pleadings, the court struck those specific filings pursuant to its prior order. The court further noted that the plaintiffs had been similarly admonished by other district courts for submitting fictitious citations and cautioned that continued non-compliance could result in formal sanctions.
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in W.D. Washington, with the listed outcome: Struck filings.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The court explicitly advised the plaintiffs not to rely on artificial intelligence programs for research.
The court issued an order granting the defendant's special motion for expedited relief and striking the plaintiffs' subsequent filings for failure to comply with a prior order regarding citation accuracy.
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
6 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited a Sixth Circuit case for the proposition courts may strike 'entire documents where scandalous or irrelevant matter dominates'; the court was unable to locate that case.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited a case purportedly condemning efforts to label individuals as serial litigants; the court could not find the cited authority supporting that proposition.
- Fabricated: Case Law | In a supplemental filing, plaintiffs cited a district court case for the proposition that a 'notice of unavailability' is not recognized in federal practice; the court was unable to locate the cited authority and the citation provided led to a different case.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited two Ninth Circuit opinions for the proposition that Rule 12(b) motions must be filed before a responsive pleading; the court found the quoted language does not appear in the cited opinions and was unable to locate the authorities.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited a district court case allegedly stating that striking an answer 'does not resuscitate' waived defenses; the court could not locate the cited case or quote.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiffs attributed a quotation to a Ninth Circuit case claiming Rule 12(c) requires 'closed pleadings'; the court found that quote does not appear in the cited opinion.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Mitchell Taylor Button et al. v. John Jimison (2)?
- The court struck the plaintiffs' filings (Dkt. Nos. 23, 27) because they contained fictitious case law and inaccurate quotations, violating a prior court order that mandated verification of all cited authorities and required a certification of accuracy for all future submissions.
- Why does Mitchell Taylor Button et al. v. John Jimison (2) matter for legal AI risk?
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in W.D. Washington, with the listed outcome: Struck filings.
- What does the public record establish about Mitchell Taylor Button et al. v. John Jimison (2)?
- 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 Mitchell Taylor Button et al. v. John Jimison (2) 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.