Moorehead v. Goodwill Industries of Northeast Texas
E.D. Texas · Nov 18, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- E.D. Texas
- Record ID
- moorehead-v-goodwill-industries-of-northeast-texas-2025-11-18
- Observed outcome
- The court denied the defendant's motion to stay discovery and issued a formal warning to the plaintiff regarding the submission of AI-hallucinated citations.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The court issued a formal warning to a pro se litigant after identifying that she submitted multiple fabricated and misattributed case citations in her briefing, which the court attributed to the use of generative AI. The court cautioned that further filings containing such inaccuracies would result in sanctions.
Fabricated: Case Law | Court found no record of Turner v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc., 2023 WL 4567762 (E.D. Tex. 2023); the citation appears nonexistent and was identified as an AI-generated hallucination. || Fabricated: Case Law | Court found no In re Caterpillar Inc. decision that matches the cited authority or supports the plaintiff's proposition; the particular citation (67 F.3d 815 (5th Cir. 1995)) does not correspond to a controlling or supportive Fifth Circuit decision as used by plaintiff. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Waguespack v. Medtronic, Inc., 2020 WL 8673953, but the court located Waguespack at 185 F. Supp. 3d 916 (M.D. La. 2016) and the Westlaw link provided actually pointed to Renner v. Morris, 2020 WL 8673953; the authority and quoted language were misattributed and do not support the claimed proposition in the Fifth Circuit.
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in E.D. Texas, with the listed outcome: Warning.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fabricated_case_law
- Misattributed_authority
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Fabricated Quotes
- Misrepresented Authority
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- generative artificial intelligence
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Memorandum Opinion and Order denying defendant's motion to stay discovery and issuing a warning to the plaintiff regarding the use of AI-generated citations.
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
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 court identified the use of generative artificial intelligence.
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: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify each cited authority, quotation, and proposition against the underlying source before filing.
- Confirm that every authority actually supports the proposition for which it is offered.