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
HomeCasesOluronke Briana Adusei v. Colleen Auer, et al.
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 81/100. 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

Oluronke Briana Adusei v. Colleen Auer, et al.

D. Arizona · Jan 20, 2026

AZ / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationstaxtrialWarning
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The court issued a formal warning to the pro se plaintiff regarding the inclusion of fabricated legal citations in her filings. The court explicitly cautioned that citing non-existent or misleading authorities is not excused by pro se status and may lead to case-terminating sanctions in future proceedings.

Why the court cared
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff relied on a cited authority 'Blessinger v. DPS' in support of a Title VI argument; the Court stated it was unable to locate the case and deemed the citation erroneous. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Ryan v. Cty. of Maricopa' in support of her reading of A.R.S. § 41-1463; the Court stated it was unable to locate the case and treated the citation as erroneous.
Why it matters now
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. Arizona, with the listed outcome: Warning.

Why this matter is tracked

In a civil action involving tax reporting disputes, the pro se plaintiff submitted filings containing citations to non-existent legal authorities, specifically 'Blessinger v. DPS' and 'Ryan v. Cty. of Maricopa.' The District Court for the District of Arizona noted its inability to locate these cases. While the court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss several counts with prejudice, it provided the plaintiff with leave to amend other claims. In its order, the court explicitly cautioned the plaintiff that while courts make allowances for pro se litigants, they do not tolerate the citation of fake or misleading authorities, noting that such conduct can result in case-terminating sanctions.

Operational lesson

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

Record details

ArizonaSingle-state evidence scope
Explore AZOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtD. Arizona
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit9th Circuit
DateJan 20, 2026
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeThe court granted motions to dismiss several counts with prejudice, dismissed others without prejudice, and issued a formal warning regarding the use of fabricated citations.
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

reported

AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.

Procedural posture

Order on Motions to Dismiss; claims dismissed with and without prejudice with leave to amend.

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.

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff relied on a cited authority 'Blessinger v. DPS' in support of a Title VI argument; the Court stated it was unable to locate the case and deemed the citation erroneous.
  2. Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Ryan v. Cty. of Maricopa' in support of her reading of A.R.S. § 41-1463; the Court stated it was unable to locate the case and treated the citation as erroneous.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Oluronke Briana Adusei v. Colleen Auer, et al.?
The court issued a formal warning to the pro se plaintiff regarding the inclusion of fabricated legal citations in her filings. The court explicitly cautioned that citing non-existent or misleading authorities is not excused by pro se status and may lead to case-terminating sanctions in future proceedings.
Why does Oluronke Briana Adusei v. Colleen Auer, et al. matter for legal AI risk?
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. Arizona, with the listed outcome: Warning.
What does the public record establish about Oluronke Briana Adusei v. Colleen Auer, et al.?
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 Oluronke Briana Adusei v. Colleen Auer, et al. 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.

Oliver Complot and Corina Tolamaa v. Credit Control, LLC and LVNV Funding LLCD. Arizona · Jun 23, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsPerry v. Merrick Bank CorporationD. Arizona · Jun 9, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsBathsheba Nichole Adams v. Kiewit Infrastructure West Company, et al.D. Arizona · Apr 29, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsDaniel D’Agostino v. Circle K Stores Incorporated, et al.D. Arizona · Apr 22, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsKevin D. Turnage v. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., et al.D. Arizona · Apr 2, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsFederal Trade Commission v. James D. Noland, Jr., et al.D. Arizona · Mar 31, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations