Which source supports this Mykhal Lloyd Polite v. TitleMax of Arizona 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.

HomeCasesMykhal Lloyd Polite v. TitleMax of Arizona

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 80/100. 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

Mykhal Lloyd Polite v. TitleMax of Arizona

D. Arizona · Jan 23, 2026

AZ / federal Editorial impact: low pro se fake citations contract trial None Adjudicated

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The court denied the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend because the proposed complaint was futile and failed to state a viable claim. The court also noted a history of the plaintiff submitting hallucinated case law attributed to AI, which had resulted in the denial of previous motions.

Why the court cared: Fabricated: Case Law
Why it matters now: This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. Arizona, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.

Why this matter is tracked

In this contract dispute, the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona denied the pro se plaintiff's motion for leave to file a third amended complaint. The court found the proposed amendment futile, noting that the plaintiff failed to state viable claims for breach of contract, negligence, or violations of the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act. The court specifically highlighted that the plaintiff's prior filings included hallucinated case law attributed to the use of artificial intelligence. Consequently, the court denied the motion with prejudice and issued a sua sponte order requiring the plaintiff to show cause why the remaining claims should not be dismissed under Rule 56(f)(3).

Operational lesson

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

Record details

ArizonaSingle-state evidence scope

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

CourtD. Arizona

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit9th Circuit

DateJan 23, 2026

AI toolAI (unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeThe court denied the plaintiff's motion for leave to file a third amended complaint and ordered the plaintiff to show cause why the case should not be dismissed.

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

implied

The court referenced prior use of hallucinated cases from purported AI use.

Procedural posture

The court denied the plaintiff's motion for leave to file a third amended complaint with prejudice and issued a show-cause order regarding potential sua sponte summary judgment.

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.

Fabricated: Case Law

Questions this record answers

What happened in Mykhal Lloyd Polite v. TitleMax of Arizona?: The court denied the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend because the proposed complaint was futile and failed to state a viable claim. The court also noted a history of the plaintiff submitting hallucinated case law attributed to AI, which had resulted in the denial of previous motions.
Why does Mykhal Lloyd Polite v. TitleMax of Arizona matter for legal AI risk?: This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. Arizona, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.
What does the public record establish about Mykhal Lloyd Polite v. TitleMax of Arizona?: 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 Mykhal Lloyd Polite v. TitleMax of Arizona 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.

Bathsheba Nichole Adams v. Kiewit Infrastructure West Company, et al.D. Arizona · Apr 29, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Perry v. Exeter Finance LLCD. Arizona · Feb 26, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Gerow v. FalconeD. Arizona · Feb 20, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Nima Ghadimi v. Arizona Bank & Trust, et al.D. Arizona · Oct 15, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations Gustafson v. Amazon.comD. Arizona · Apr 30, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations Transamerica Life v. WilliamsD. Arizona · Sep 6, 2024same 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 D. Arizona 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