Which source supports this Steven E. Hobbs, Sr. v. Igor Goncharko, et al. (2) 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.

HomeCasesSteven E. Hobbs, Sr. v. Igor Goncharko, et al. (2)

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

Steven E. Hobbs, Sr. v. Igor Goncharko, et al. (2)

N.D. Illinois · Jan 16, 2026

IL / federal Editorial impact: low pro se fake citations misrepresented authority civil rights Warning

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The court issued a formal warning to the pro se plaintiff regarding the inclusion of hallucinated and mis-cited case law in his filings. While the court declined to impose immediate sanctions, it explicitly cautioned that future submissions containing such errors could result in dismissal of the case with prejudice.

Why the court cared: Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff twice cited a non-existent case Lathan v. Brinkerhoff; court identified it as fictitious and previously warned about it. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff mis-cited 'City of Chicago v. Matchmaker' (court treated it as an incorrect/fictitious citation in plaintiff's brief). || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Oconomowoc v. Greenfield,' a mis-citation distinct from the real Oconomowoc Residential Programs precedent referenced by the court. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Vargas v. Cook Cnty. Sheriff' in his brief; court listed it among the mis-citations in the response. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff invoked Bloch v. Frischholz for the proposition that statistical evidence is not required; court explained Bloch does not support that conclusion and was misrepresented.
Why it matters now: This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in N.D. Illinois, with the listed outcome: Warning.

Why this matter is tracked

In a Fair Housing Act case, the pro se plaintiff repeatedly included hallucinated legal citations in his response brief, despite a prior court warning regarding the same conduct. Specifically, the plaintiff cited a fictitious case, 'Lathan v. Brinkerhoff,' and mis-cited several other authorities, including 'City of Chicago v. Matchmaker,' 'Oconomowoc v. Greenfield,' and 'Vargas v. Cook Cnty. Sheriff.' Additionally, the plaintiff misrepresented the holding of 'Bloch v. Frischholz.' The court identified these errors as fictitious or incorrect and explicitly warned the plaintiff that future submissions containing hallucinated citations could result in sanctions, including dismissal with prejudice. The court ultimately denied the Landlord Defendants' motion to dismiss on the merits while granting the motion of another defendant.

Operational lesson

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

Record details

IllinoisSingle-state evidence scope

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

CourtN.D. Illinois

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit7th Circuit

DateJan 16, 2026

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeThe court issued a warning to the plaintiff regarding the use of hallucinated citations and denied the Landlord Defendants' motion to dismiss, allowing the case to proceed.

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

implied

The court refers to the plaintiff's conduct as hallucinating citations.

Procedural posture

Memorandum Opinion and Order on defendants' motions to dismiss the plaintiff's second amended complaint.

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 twice cited a non-existent case Lathan v. Brinkerhoff; court identified it as fictitious and previously warned about it.
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff mis-cited 'City of Chicago v. Matchmaker' (court treated it as an incorrect/fictitious citation in plaintiff's brief).
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Oconomowoc v. Greenfield,' a mis-citation distinct from the real Oconomowoc Residential Programs precedent referenced by the court.
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Vargas v. Cook Cnty. Sheriff' in his brief; court listed it among the mis-citations in the response.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff invoked Bloch v. Frischholz for the proposition that statistical evidence is not required; court explained Bloch does not support that conclusion and was misrepresented.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Steven E. Hobbs, Sr. v. Igor Goncharko, et al. (2)?: The court issued a formal warning to the pro se plaintiff regarding the inclusion of hallucinated and mis-cited case law in his filings. While the court declined to impose immediate sanctions, it explicitly cautioned that future submissions containing such errors could result in dismissal of the case with prejudice.
Why does Steven E. Hobbs, Sr. v. Igor Goncharko, et al. (2) matter for legal AI risk?: This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in N.D. Illinois, with the listed outcome: Warning.
What does the public record establish about Steven E. Hobbs, Sr. v. Igor Goncharko, et al. (2)?: 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 Steven E. Hobbs, Sr. v. Igor Goncharko, et al. (2) 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.

Bettis v. GastonN.D. Illinois · Feb 9, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations United States of America v. SmithN.D. Illinois · Aug 7, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations BFG Corporation v. Pierce RE Holdings et al.N.D. Illinois · Jun 30, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Ifeoma Delliane Chinedu Obi v. Cook County, Illinois, et al. (2)N.D. Illinois · Jun 10, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Allison v. Shutterfly LifeTouch LLCN.D. Illinois · Jun 8, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Saqib Kafeel v. CJDropshippingN.D. Illinois · May 22, 2026same 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 Sep 10, 2026; latest tracked decision Sep 8, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Open N.D. Illinois 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