AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Sep 10, 2026 · Latest decision Sep 8, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesSehra Waheed v. SM 1 MMS, LLC, et al.
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 80/100. 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

Sehra Waheed v. SM 1 MMS, LLC, et al.

S.D. New York · Oct 28, 2025

NY / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationscontracttrialNone Adjudicated
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The court identified a likely AI-generated hallucination in a pro se filing, specifically a non-existent case citation. While the court noted this as a potential AI hallucination, it did not impose a formal sanction, instead using the observation to support its recommendation to deny the plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunctive relief.

Why the court cared
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Hughes v. Tennessee Department of Corrections, No. 3:20-cv-00670 (M.D. Tenn. June 11, 2021)'; the court was unable to locate the case in research databases and suggested it may be an AI-generated hallucination.
Why it matters now
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in S.D. New York, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.

Why this matter is tracked

In a report and recommendation regarding a pro se plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunctive relief, the U.S. Magistrate Judge addressed the plaintiff's citation of 'Hughes v. Tennessee Department of Corrections, No. 3:20-cv-00670 (M.D. Tenn. June 11, 2021).' The court reported that it was unable to locate this case in any legal research database or the relevant district's electronic filing system. Noting that the plaintiff had also misstated the holdings of other cited cases, the court suggested that the citation was likely a hallucination generated by artificial intelligence. The court ultimately recommended denying the plaintiff's motion for interim monetary payments, finding that the plaintiff failed to meet the requirements for preliminary injunctive relief.

Operational lesson

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in S.D. New York, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.

Record details

New YorkSingle-state evidence scope
Explore NYOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtS.D. New York
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit2nd Circuit
DateOct 28, 2025
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeThe court recommended that the plaintiff's motions for preliminary injunctive relief be denied.
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

Report and Recommendation on Plaintiff's Emergency Motion for Interim Payments.

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.

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Hughes v. Tennessee Department of Corrections, No. 3:20-cv-00670 (M.D. Tenn. June 11, 2021)'; the court was unable to locate the case in research databases and suggested it may be an AI-generated hallucination.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Sehra Waheed v. SM 1 MMS, LLC, et al.?
The court identified a likely AI-generated hallucination in a pro se filing, specifically a non-existent case citation. While the court noted this as a potential AI hallucination, it did not impose a formal sanction, instead using the observation to support its recommendation to deny the plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunctive relief.
Why does Sehra Waheed v. SM 1 MMS, LLC, et al. matter for legal AI risk?
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in S.D. New York, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.
What does the public record establish about Sehra Waheed v. SM 1 MMS, LLC, et al.?
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 Sehra Waheed v. SM 1 MMS, LLC, et al. 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.

Sana Hazina Butler v. Fidelity Management & Research Company LLCS.D. New York · Apr 30, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsFecteau v. Safety National Casualty CorporationS.D. New York · Mar 25, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsAvalon Holdings Corp. v. Guy GentileS.D. New York · Jan 22, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsSaregama India Ltd. v. B.A., et al.S.D. New York · Dec 3, 2025same court · pro se + fake citationsTameer Peak v. Onika Tanya Maraj-Petty, et al.S.D. New York · Nov 26, 2025same court · pro se + fake citationsZero Point MGMT v. Chase Bank/JP Morgan Chase Co.S.D. New York · Nov 24, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations