Which source supports this Tellez v. Proiettii summary?

The recorded source is law.justia.com. It is classified as docket or legal-document mirror; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.

HomeCasesTellez v. Proiettii

Evidence review: source unavailable. The linked source could not be retrieved during the latest evidence pass. This page preserves the structured corpus baseline and states the gap explicitly.

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 85/100. It is publicly indexable with its documented evidence gaps stated on-page; the linked source and evidence boundary remain controlling.

Corpus matter record

Tellez v. Proiettii

E.D. California · Aug 4, 2025

CA / federal Editorial impact: low pro se fake citations misrepresented authority trial Warning

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

In Hunter Tellez v. Proiettii, an E.D. California court dismissed a pro se action without leave to amend. The order found one cited authority appeared fictitious, other authorities were wrongly cited or did not support the argument, and warned that filing a fictitious case citation and summary could warrant Rule 11 sanctions.

Why the court cared: The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Warning; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
Why it matters now: This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in E.D. California, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in E.D. California, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

CaliforniaSingle-state evidence scope

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

CourtE.D. California

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit9th Circuit

DateAug 4, 2025

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

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Fabricated
Misrepresented: Case Law
Misrepresented: Case Law

Questions this record answers

What happened in Tellez v. Proiettii?: In Hunter Tellez v. Proiettii, an E.D. California court dismissed a pro se action without leave to amend. The order found one cited authority appeared fictitious, other authorities were wrongly cited or did not support the argument, and warned that filing a fictitious case citation and summary could warrant Rule 11 sanctions.
Why does Tellez v. Proiettii matter for legal AI risk?: This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in E.D. California, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about Tellez v. Proiettii?: The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded link is a legal-document or docket mirror. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
Which source supports this Tellez v. Proiettii summary?: The recorded source is law.justia.com. It is classified as docket or legal-document mirror; 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.

Kimberly A. Graves v. Pacific Gas and Electric CompanyE.D. California · Jul 24, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Shaw v. City of Portola, et al.E.D. California · Apr 14, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Lohbeck v. CSL Plasma Inc.E.D. California · Jul 16, 2026same court · pro se + misrepresented authority Pyle v. Glenn County Sheriff's DepartmentE.D. California · May 12, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Gamez v. County of FresnoE.D. California · Apr 6, 2026same court · fake citations + misrepresented authority Teniah Tercero v. Sacramento Logistics, LLC, et al.E.D. California · Sep 9, 2025same court · fake citations + misrepresented authority

Linked evidence record

law.justia.com

Docket or legal-document mirror
The recorded link is hosted by a legal document repository or mirror.

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 statussource unavailable

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 E.D. California profile Explore jurisdiction

Evidence boundary

The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded link is a legal-document or docket mirror. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.

Read methodology