Which source supports this Roosevelt Hunt, Jr. v. True Sky Federal Credit Union 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.

HomeCasesRoosevelt Hunt, Jr. v. True Sky Federal Credit Union

Evidence review: primary document verified. The linked primary document was extracted and checked with page-level evidence locators.

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 81/100. It passes the current publication gate; that is not a legal-editorial review or a guarantee that every field has been independently verified.

Corpus matter record

Roosevelt Hunt, Jr. v. True Sky Federal Credit Union

D. Kansas · Feb 25, 2026

KS / federal Editorial impact: low pro se fake citations contract trial Warning

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The court issued a warning to a pro se litigant for citing a non-existent case, noting the potential for sanctions under Standing Order 26-01 if the litigant fails to verify the accuracy of future filings drafted or assisted by AI tools.

Why the court cared: Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Howard v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 2019 WL 1401348 (D. Kan. Mar. 28, 2019)', which the court found does not exist in Westlaw and for which no case number was provided.
Why it matters now: This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. Kansas, with the listed outcome: Warning.

Why this matter is tracked

In a pro se action against True Sky Federal Credit Union, the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas addressed a motion to dismiss. During the proceedings, the plaintiff cited 'Howard v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 2019 WL 1401348 (D. Kan. Mar. 28, 2019)' in support of his FCRA claim. The court determined that this case does not exist in Westlaw and that the plaintiff failed to provide a case number. Consequently, the court issued a warning regarding the plaintiff's obligation to comply with Standing Order 26-01, which mandates the review and verification of all content drafted or assisted by AI tools. Failure to adhere to these verification requirements in future filings may result in sanctions.

Operational lesson

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. Kansas, with the listed outcome: Warning.

Record details

KansasSingle-state evidence scope

Explore KSOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.

CourtD. Kansas

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit10th Circuit

DateFeb 25, 2026

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeThe court issued a warning to the plaintiff regarding the use of AI and the requirement to verify citations, noting that future violations could lead to sanctions.

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

implied

The court referenced its standing order on AI usage in response to the plaintiff's citation of a non-existent case.

Procedural posture

The court granted in part and took under advisement in part the defendant's motion to dismiss, while simultaneously issuing a warning regarding the plaintiff's citation of non-existent case law.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Howard v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 2019 WL 1401348 (D. Kan. Mar. 28, 2019)', which the court found does not exist in Westlaw and for which no case number was provided.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Roosevelt Hunt, Jr. v. True Sky Federal Credit Union?: The court issued a warning to a pro se litigant for citing a non-existent case, noting the potential for sanctions under Standing Order 26-01 if the litigant fails to verify the accuracy of future filings drafted or assisted by AI tools.
Why does Roosevelt Hunt, Jr. v. True Sky Federal Credit Union matter for legal AI risk?: This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. Kansas, with the listed outcome: Warning.
What does the public record establish about Roosevelt Hunt, Jr. v. True Sky Federal Credit Union?: 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.
Which source supports this Roosevelt Hunt, Jr. v. True Sky Federal Credit Union 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.

Ford v. Sherwin-WilliamsD. Kansas · Mar 31, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Zesiger v. Kansas et al.D. Kansas · Mar 17, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Robby Mendez v. City of Topeka, et al.D. Kansas · Jan 16, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations McLain v. Board of County Commissioners of Sedgwick County, Kansas, et al.D. Kansas · Dec 11, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations Borsody v. Frontier Heritage CommunitiesD. Kansas · Nov 4, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations Douglas Stuart Queen v. Kansas City et al.D. Kansas · Oct 7, 2025same 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 Suggest a correction to this record

Public-record statuspublic record, not an allegation-only entry

Indexing eligibilitypublicly indexable with evidence status disclosed

Evidence-review statusprimary document verified

Published and maintained byManu Ayala · AI VortexIndependent legal AI risk intelligence

Evidence review recorded Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Aug 17, 2026; latest tracked decision Aug 13, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Open D. Kansas profile Explore jurisdiction

Evidence boundary

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.

Read methodology