HomeCasesPizzimenti v. City of Detroit, et al.

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 90/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

Pizzimenti v. City of Detroit, et al.

E.D. Michigan · Mar 27, 2026

MI / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsfabricated quotesmisrepresented authority

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Opulent Life Church, 697 F.3d 279 in support of fines/Eighth Amendment/retaliation arguments, but the court noted that Opulent Life Church does not involve fines nor those claims and was thus misapplied. Outcome: Warning.

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: Misapplied real cases are as damaging as fake ones — confirm the cited opinion actually addresses your proposition.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

Misapplied real cases are as damaging as fake ones — confirm the cited opinion actually addresses your proposition.

Record details

MichiganSingle-state evidence scope

Jurisdiction contextThe state marker is derived from the structured case record.

CourtE.D. Michigan

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit6th Circuit

DateMar 27, 2026

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeWarning

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

Warning

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

5 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Opulent Life Church, 697 F.3d 279 in support of fines/Eighth Amendment/retaliation arguments, but the court noted that Opulent Life Church does not involve fines nor those claims and was thus misapplied.
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Williams v. City of Cleveland, No. 1:18-CV-2911, 2019 WL 5485190 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 25, 2019),' which the court and R&R found does not exist in Westlaw or under that docket.
False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff quoted language attributed to Jensen v. Utah Cnty., 2025 WL 2208257 (D. Utah Aug. 4, 2025), but the quoted passage does not appear in that opinion.
Fabricated: Case Law | Complaint referenced 'Thaxton v. City of Pontiac, No. 298862, 2011 WL 522951 (Mich. Ct. App. Feb. 15, 2011),' a citation the court says does not exist.
Fabricated: Case Law | Complaint referenced 'Smith v. State, 26 N.E.3d 1167 (Ind. 2015),' which the court was unable to locate or identify as relevant.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Pizzimenti v. City of Detroit, et al.?: Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Opulent Life Church, 697 F.3d 279 in support of fines/Eighth Amendment/retaliation arguments, but the court noted that Opulent Life Church does not involve fines nor those claims and was thus misapplied. Outcome: Warning.
Why does Pizzimenti v. City of Detroit, et al. matter for legal AI risk?: Misapplied real cases are as damaging as fake ones — confirm the cited opinion actually addresses your proposition.
What does the public record establish about Pizzimenti v. City of Detroit, et al.?: 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 Pizzimenti v. City of Detroit, 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.

Patrick C. Shaltry v. Donna Collins, et al.E.D. Michigan · Jun 2, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Eric Tobler v. Stephen Tobler, et al.E.D. Michigan · May 7, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Patrick C. Shaltry, I v. Brent Benzing, et al.E.D. Michigan · Mar 27, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Evans, et al. v. Robertson et al. (3)E.D. Michigan · Nov 20, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations Ali v. IT People CorporationE.D. Michigan · Sep 19, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations Rev. Heidi Grossman Lepp v. Conrad Mallett, Jr., et al.E.D. Michigan · Jan 16, 2026same 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

Publication statusevidence baseline passed

Published by AI Vortex · Manu Ayala
Page updated Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Jul 23, 2026; latest tracked decision Jul 21, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Cases from this court Open jurisdiction map

Evidence boundary

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.

Read methodology

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

Misapplied real cases are as damaging as fake ones — confirm the cited opinion actually addresses your proposition.

Record details

MichiganSingle-state evidence scope

Jurisdiction contextThe state marker is derived from the structured case record.

CourtE.D. Michigan

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit6th Circuit

DateMar 27, 2026

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeWarning

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Tracked discrepancy record

5 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Williams v. City of Cleveland, No. 1:18-CV-2911, 2019 WL 5485190 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 25, 2019),' which the court and R&R found does not exist in Westlaw or under that docket.

False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff quoted language attributed to Jensen v. Utah Cnty., 2025 WL 2208257 (D. Utah Aug. 4, 2025), but the quoted passage does not appear in that opinion.

Fabricated: Case Law | Complaint referenced 'Thaxton v. City of Pontiac, No. 298862, 2011 WL 522951 (Mich. Ct. App. Feb. 15, 2011),' a citation the court says does not exist.

Fabricated: Case Law | Complaint referenced 'Smith v. State, 26 N.E.3d 1167 (Ind. 2015),' which the court was unable to locate or identify as relevant.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Pizzimenti v. City of Detroit, et al.?

Why does Pizzimenti v. City of Detroit, et al. matter for legal AI risk?

Misapplied real cases are as damaging as fake ones — confirm the cited opinion actually addresses your proposition.

What does the public record establish about Pizzimenti v. City of Detroit, et al.?

Which source supports this Pizzimenti v. City of Detroit, 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.