Rev. Heidi Grossman Lepp v. Conrad Mallett, Jr., et al.
E.D. Michigan · Jan 16, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- E.D. Michigan
- Record ID
- rev-heidi-grossman-lepp-v-conrad-mallett-jr-et-al-2026-01-16
- Observed outcome
- The court declined to consider the AI-generated documents and denied the plaintiff's motion for relief from judgment.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The court denied the plaintiff's motion for relief from judgment and refused to consider her AI-generated 'Legal Analysis Report.' The judge determined the report was unreliable because it contained fabricated citations and misstatements of law, specifically noting that the AI hallucinated the legal standing implications of the cited case law.
The court reasoned that the AI-generated report was unreliable because it contained factitious citations and misstatements of law. The court specifically noted that the cited case, Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, does not discuss standing, contrary to the report's assertions. The court emphasized that pro se litigants have an obligation to ensure the accuracy of their filings and that relying on generative AI to offset litigation disadvantages does not excuse the submission of erroneous or fabricated material.
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in E.D. Michigan, with the listed outcome: Arguments ignored.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Misrepresented Authority
- Civil Rights
- Trial
- None Adjudicated
- AI attribution
- Admitted
- Recorded tool
- OpenAI ChatGPT-4o
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Order denying pro se Plaintiff's motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).
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
Plaintiff admitted using OpenAI's ChatGPT-4o.
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.