Rashonna Moore v. City of Del City
10th Cir. CA · Dec 3, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- 10th Cir. CA
- Record ID
- rashonna-moore-v-city-of-del-city-2025-12-03
- Observed outcome
- District court judgment affirmed; appeal dismissed as a sanction for misuse of GenAI; future disclosure and verification requirements imposed under penalty of perjury.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The 10th Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the appellant's claims and, alternatively, dismissed the appeal as a sanction for the appellant's misuse of generative AI. The court ordered the appellant to disclose future GenAI use and verify the accuracy of all case citations under penalty of perjury in subsequent filings.
Fabricated: Case Law | Eleven case citations in Moore's appellate brief could not be located on Westlaw; court concluded they appear fabricated and ordered Moore to produce copies or explain their origin. || Fabricated: Case Law | Moore cited 'Cohen v. United States, 201 F.3d 109'; court found this citation fabricated (the reporter page corresponds to Kalwasinski v. Morse, 201 F.3d 103) and treated it as an AI-generated hallucination. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Moore misrepresented Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 (2006), claiming it supported a particular principle; court found the representation inaccurate and that the case did not state the proposition she attributed to it. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Moore cited Gilday v. Mecosta County, 124 F.3d 760 (6th Cir. 1997) as supporting 'equitable access principles'; court found Gilday does not contain or use that language or principle and deemed the citation mischaracterized.
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in 10th Cir. CA, with the listed outcome: District court judgment affirmed; alternatively appeal dismissed as a sanction for misuse of GenAI; Future disclosure of GenAI use and verification of citations ordered, under penalty of perjury..
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Misrepresented Authority
- Employment
- Appellate
- Case Dismissed
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- GenAI (unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Appellate review of a district court's Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of employment discrimination claims.
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 identified the use of a GenAI tool as the source of the hallucinations.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify each cited authority, quotation, and proposition against the underlying source before filing.
- Confirm that every authority actually supports the proposition for which it is offered.
- Ensure required disclosures are accurate and timely.
- Escalate and correct a suspect filing promptly, with a documented response.