Scott M. Boger v. City of Harrisonburg, Virginia, et al.
W.D. Virginia · Dec 9, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- W.D. Virginia
- Record ID
- scott-m-boger-v-city-of-harrisonburg-virginia-et-al-2025-12-09
- Observed outcome
- The court denied the plaintiff's motions and issued a formal warning regarding the use of AI-generated false citations.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The court issued a formal warning to the pro se plaintiff regarding the submission of fabricated and misrepresented legal citations, which the court attributed to the likely use of generative AI. The court explicitly stated that future instances of such conduct may trigger Rule 11 sanction proceedings.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Snider Int’l Corp. v. City of Norfolk, 739 F.3d 140, 150 (4th Cir. 2014)'; the court could not identify a case by that name and noted the reporter corresponds to Snider Int’l Corp. v. Town of Forest Heights, Md., 739 F.3d 140, which does not support plaintiff's assertion. || False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff quoted language he attributed to Connelly v. Steel Valley Sch. Dist., 706 F.3d 209, 216 (3d Cir. 2013); the court found the quoted language appears to have been fabricated and does not appear in that opinion.
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in W.D. Virginia, with the listed outcome: Warning.
Failure modes and consequences
- Hallucinated_case_law
- Fabricated_quotes
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Fabricated Quotes
- Misrepresented Authority
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- Generative artificial intelligence (unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Memorandum opinion denying plaintiff's motion to alter or amend judgment and motions for leave to file third and fourth amended complaints.
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 attributed the errors to generative artificial intelligence.
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.