Randel Edward Page, Jr. v. Apperson Crump
W.D. Tennessee · Mar 30, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- W.D. Tennessee
- Record ID
- randel-edward-page-jr-v-apperson-crump-2026-03-30
- Observed outcome
- The court denied the appellant's motions and issued a formal warning regarding the submission of fabricated case citations.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The court issued a formal warning to the pro se appellant after confirming he submitted three fabricated or misrepresentative case citations in a motion. The appellant admitted to using an AI tool to draft his filings, and the court cautioned that continued submission of such citations could lead to sanctions.
The court reasoned that under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(2), an unrepresented party certifies that legal contentions are warranted by existing law. Citing precedent, the court noted that failing to verify the existence and soundness of cited authority warrants sanctions, regardless of intent.
Three fabricated cites in one motion is now the norm — courts catch them on independent research.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Administrative
- Trial
- Warning
- AI attribution
- Admitted
- Recorded tool
- Unidentified
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Order denying appellant's objection, appeal, and related motions for recusal, disqualification, and stay, issued by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee.
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 appellant admitted to using an artificial intelligence tool.
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
- Implement mandatory verification protocols for all case citations generated by AI tools.
- Review all AI-assisted filings for accuracy and existence of cited authorities prior to submission.
- Ensure pro se litigants are aware of their obligations under Rule 11 regarding the validity of legal contentions.