Patrick C. Shaltry, I v. Brent Benzing, et al.
E.D. Michigan · Mar 27, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- E.D. Michigan
- Record ID
- patrick-c-shaltry-i-v-brent-benzing-et-al-2026-03-27
- Observed outcome
- The court denied the plaintiff's motions for sanctions and issued a formal warning regarding the accuracy of future filings.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The court issued a formal warning to the pro se plaintiff regarding the inclusion of fabricated citations and false quotations in his filings. The court explicitly cautioned that further misrepresentations of fact or law would result in a recommendation for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.
The court reasoned that the plaintiff is responsible for the accuracy of all filings under Rule 11, regardless of whether the content was generated by AI or the plaintiff's pro se status. The court found the cited authorities were either non-existent or did not support the propositions for which they were cited.
Quoted passages contradicting the cited case's holding are red flags — read the opinion, not just the pincite.
Failure modes and consequences
- Hallucinated_case_law
- Fabricated_citations
- False_quotes
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Fabricated Quotes
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- AI (unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Order denying plaintiff's motions for sanctions and striking plaintiff's motion for default judgment.
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 noted the plaintiff's misquotes may have been generated by AI.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
- Compare every quoted passage and pincite directly with the underlying opinion or filing.
- Apply the same source-checking controls to AI (implied, unspecified) output as to any other research input.
- Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.