HomeCasesRyan Adam Dixon v. MultiCare Health System (1)

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 81/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

Ryan Adam Dixon v. MultiCare Health System (1)

W.D. Washington · Mar 4, 2026

WA / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsmisrepresented authoritycontract

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Mazza v. Washoe Cnty.; the Court identified this as a non-existent case cited by the plaintiff. Outcome: Warning.

Why the court cared: Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Mazza v. Washoe Cnty.; the Court identified this as a non-existent case cited by the plaintiff. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Shirley v. Precision Castparts Corp.; the Court identified this citation as non-existent. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Bounds v. Smith to support a proposition; the Court found the case did not support the proposition offered. || Fabricated: Legal Norm | Plaintiff relied on regulatory and plan citations that the Court noted do not exist as cited (plaintiff later characterized them as typographical errors). || Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Ecological Rights Foundation v. Pacific Lumber Co.; the Court found the case did not support the proposition for which it was offered.
Why it matters now: This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in W.D. Washington, with the listed outcome: Warning.

Why this matter is tracked

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Mazza v. Washoe Cnty.; the Court identified this as a non-existent case cited by the plaintiff. Outcome: Warning.

Operational lesson

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

Record details

WashingtonSingle-state evidence scope

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

CourtW.D. Washington

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit9th Circuit

DateMar 4, 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.

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Mazza v. Washoe Cnty.; the Court identified this as a non-existent case cited by the plaintiff.
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Shirley v. Precision Castparts Corp.; the Court identified this citation as non-existent.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Bounds v. Smith to support a proposition; the Court found the case did not support the proposition offered.
Fabricated: Legal Norm | Plaintiff relied on regulatory and plan citations that the Court noted do not exist as cited (plaintiff later characterized them as typographical errors).
Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Ecological Rights Foundation v. Pacific Lumber Co.; the Court found the case did not support the proposition for which it was offered.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Ryan Adam Dixon v. MultiCare Health System (1)?: Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Mazza v. Washoe Cnty.; the Court identified this as a non-existent case cited by the plaintiff. Outcome: Warning.
Why does Ryan Adam Dixon v. MultiCare Health System (1) matter for legal AI risk?: This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in W.D. Washington, with the listed outcome: Warning.
What does the public record establish about Ryan Adam Dixon v. MultiCare Health System (1)?: 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 Ryan Adam Dixon v. MultiCare Health System (1) 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.

Ryan Adam Dixon v. MultiCare Health System (2)W.D. Washington · Mar 26, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Ward v. Amazon.com Services LLCW.D. Washington · Apr 3, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Merz v. City of KalamaW.D. Washington · Feb 13, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Valve Corporation v. Rothschild et al.W.D. Washington · Feb 9, 2026same court · fake citations + misrepresented authority Dana Serine Greene v. GSK PLCW.D. Washington · Jan 29, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Collins v. Nova Association Management Partners LLCW.D. Washington · Jan 13, 2026same court · fake citations + misrepresented authority

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

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

Record details

WashingtonSingle-state evidence scope

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

CourtW.D. Washington

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit9th Circuit

DateMar 4, 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 Mazza v. Washoe Cnty.; the Court identified this as a non-existent case cited by the plaintiff.

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Shirley v. Precision Castparts Corp.; the Court identified this citation as non-existent.

Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Bounds v. Smith to support a proposition; the Court found the case did not support the proposition offered.

Fabricated: Legal Norm | Plaintiff relied on regulatory and plan citations that the Court noted do not exist as cited (plaintiff later characterized them as typographical errors).

Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Ecological Rights Foundation v. Pacific Lumber Co.; the Court found the case did not support the proposition for which it was offered.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Ryan Adam Dixon v. MultiCare Health System (1)?

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Mazza v. Washoe Cnty.; the Court identified this as a non-existent case cited by the plaintiff. Outcome: Warning.

Why does Ryan Adam Dixon v. MultiCare Health System (1) matter for legal AI risk?

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

What does the public record establish about Ryan Adam Dixon v. MultiCare Health System (1)?

Which source supports this Ryan Adam Dixon v. MultiCare Health System (1) 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.