Loading AI Vortex evidence…
Preparing the requested public record.
Public trackerEvidence checked Jul 23, 2026 · Latest decision Jul 21, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 85/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Parra v. United States
Court of Federal Claims · Jun 27, 2025
/ federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationscivil rightstrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited a nonexistent case, which the Court traced to a page within Grapevine Imports, Ltd. v. United States, 71 Fed. Cl. 324, 326 (2006); the Court confirmed no such 'Tucker v. United States' exists. Outcome: Warning. Plaintiff Ravel Ferrera Parra, proceeding pro se, filed a lawsuit against the United States alleging financial harm due to misconduct by various judicial and governmental entities.…
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Warning; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving Unidentified with Warning in Court of Federal Claims, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited a nonexistent case, which the Court traced to a page within Grapevine Imports, Ltd. v. United States, 71 Fed. Cl. 324, 326 (2006); the Court confirmed no such 'Tucker v. United States' exists. Outcome: Warning. Plaintiff Ravel Ferrera Parra, proceeding pro se, filed a lawsuit against the United States alleging financial harm due to misconduct by various judicial and governmental entities. The court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, as the claims were not within the court's purview.The court noted that Plaintiff's filings appeared to be assisted by AI, as evidenced by the rapid filing of responses tell-tale language ("Would you like additional affidavits, supporting exhibits, or further refinements before submission?"), the inclusion of fabricated case citations. "While Plaintiff’s use of AI, by itself, does not violate this Court’s Rules, Plaintiff’s citation to fake cases does."The court further pointed out that:"“It is no secret that generative AI programs are known to ‘hallucinate’ nonexistent cases.” Sanders, 176 Fed. Cl. at 169 (citation omitted). That appears to have happened here. When searching the Federal Claims Reporter for “Tucker v. United States, 71 Fed. Cl. 326 (2006),” Plaintiff’s citation brings the Court to the third page of Grapevine Imports, Ltd. v. United States, 71 Fed. Cl. 324, 326 (2006), a real tax case from this Court. Similarly, the AI used by Plaintiff in Sanders v. United States, 176 Fed. Cl. 163, 169 (2025) also made up a citation to a case called Tucker v. United States. Perhaps both AI programs hallucinated this case name based on the Tucker Act, this Court’s jurisdictional statute. Regardless, here, as in Sanders, the citation to a case called Tucker v. United States does not exist."The court warned Plaintiff about the risks of using AI-generated content without verification but did not impose sanctions.
Operational lesson
This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving Unidentified with Warning in Court of Federal Claims, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
CourtCourt of Federal Claims
Jurisdictionfederal
CircuitNot recorded
DateJun 27, 2025
UN
AI toolUnidentified
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeWarning
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary
What the record establishes about AI use
not established
The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.
Procedural posture
Warning
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.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited a nonexistent case, which the Court traced to a page within Grapevine Imports, Ltd. v. United States, 71 Fed. Cl. 324, 326 (2006); the Court confirmed no such 'Tucker v. United States' exists.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff referenced a nonexistent Ninth Circuit decision in multiple exhibit pages attached to his filings; the Court stated the case does not exist.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Parra v. United States?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited a nonexistent case, which the Court traced to a page within Grapevine Imports, Ltd. v. United States, 71 Fed. Cl. 324, 326 (2006); the Court confirmed no such 'Tucker v. United States' exists. Outcome: Warning. Plaintiff Ravel Ferrera Parra, proceeding pro se, filed a lawsuit against the United States alleging financial harm due to misconduct by various judicial and governmental entities.…
- Why does Parra v. United States matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving Unidentified with Warning in Court of Federal Claims, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about Parra v. United States?
- The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
- Which source supports this Parra v. United States 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.