HomeCasesThomas Carl Dodds, Jr. v. Carrie Bridges

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 90/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

Thomas Carl Dodds, Jr. v. Carrie Bridges

10th Cir. CA · Feb 11, 2026

/ federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsfabricated quotescriminal

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Dodds cited 'United States v. Mateo, 476 F.3d 179, 184 (3d Cir. 2007)' for a proposition and quotation; the reporter pages actually correspond to unrelated cases (In re O'Lexa and Wishkin v. Potter) and do not support the cited proposition. Outcome: Warning.

Why the court cared: Fabricated: Case Law | Dodds cited 'United States v. Mateo, 476 F.3d 179, 184 (3d Cir. 2007)' for a proposition and quotation; the reporter pages actually correspond to unrelated cases (In re O'Lexa and Wishkin v. Potter) and do not support the cited proposition. || False Quotes: Case Law | Dodds attributed a quotation to 'United States v. Farrow, 599 F.2d 154 (8th Cir. 1979)'; the citation points to an unrelated opinion and the correct Farrow (580 F.2d 1339) does not support the quoted proposition, so the quotation was misattributed. || Fabricated: Case Law | Dodds cited an apparently fictitious case 'United States v. Matthews, 7 F.3d 1552, 1555 (11th Cir. 1993)' and attributed a quotation to it; the panel found the citation to be entirely fictitious and the quotation fabricated.
Why it matters now: This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in 10th Cir. CA, with the listed outcome: Warning.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in 10th Cir. CA, with the listed outcome: Warning.

Record details

Court10th Cir. CA

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit10th Circuit

DateFeb 11, 2026

AI toolChatGPT

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeWarning

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

reported

ChatGPT 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 | Dodds cited 'United States v. Mateo, 476 F.3d 179, 184 (3d Cir. 2007)' for a proposition and quotation; the reporter pages actually correspond to unrelated cases (In re O'Lexa and Wishkin v. Potter) and do not support the cited proposition.
False Quotes: Case Law | Dodds attributed a quotation to 'United States v. Farrow, 599 F.2d 154 (8th Cir. 1979)'; the citation points to an unrelated opinion and the correct Farrow (580 F.2d 1339) does not support the quoted proposition, so the quotation was misattributed.
Fabricated: Case Law | Dodds cited an apparently fictitious case 'United States v. Matthews, 7 F.3d 1552, 1555 (11th Cir. 1993)' and attributed a quotation to it; the panel found the citation to be entirely fictitious and the quotation fabricated.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Thomas Carl Dodds, Jr. v. Carrie Bridges?: Fabricated: Case Law | Dodds cited 'United States v. Mateo, 476 F.3d 179, 184 (3d Cir. 2007)' for a proposition and quotation; the reporter pages actually correspond to unrelated cases (In re O'Lexa and Wishkin v. Potter) and do not support the cited proposition. Outcome: Warning.
Why does Thomas Carl Dodds, Jr. v. Carrie Bridges matter for legal AI risk?: This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in 10th Cir. CA, with the listed outcome: Warning.
What does the public record establish about Thomas Carl Dodds, Jr. v. Carrie Bridges?: 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 Thomas Carl Dodds, Jr. v. Carrie Bridges 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.

Chapter Kris Jackson v. Santander Consumer USA Inc., et al.10th Cir. CA · Jun 15, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Ryan-Michael Jarvis v. County of Teton Wyoming10th Cir. CA · Apr 24, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Kevin Lee Biglow v. Dell Technologies Inc.10th Cir. CA · Mar 24, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations David Angel Sifuentes, III v. Capital One10th Cir. CA · Feb 6, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Kusmin L. Amarsingh v. Frontier Airlines, Inc.10th Cir. CA · Feb 9, 2026same court · fake citations + fabricated quotes Gregory Ashley Moyer v. James V. Murray, et al.10th Cir. CA · Jul 1, 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

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

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

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in 10th Cir. CA, with the listed outcome: Warning.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

False Quotes: Case Law | Dodds attributed a quotation to 'United States v. Farrow, 599 F.2d 154 (8th Cir. 1979)'; the citation points to an unrelated opinion and the correct Farrow (580 F.2d 1339) does not support the quoted proposition, so the quotation was misattributed.

Fabricated: Case Law | Dodds cited an apparently fictitious case 'United States v. Matthews, 7 F.3d 1552, 1555 (11th Cir. 1993)' and attributed a quotation to it; the panel found the citation to be entirely fictitious and the quotation fabricated.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Thomas Carl Dodds, Jr. v. Carrie Bridges?

Why does Thomas Carl Dodds, Jr. v. Carrie Bridges matter for legal AI risk?

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in 10th Cir. CA, with the listed outcome: Warning.

What does the public record establish about Thomas Carl Dodds, Jr. v. Carrie Bridges?

Which source supports this Thomas Carl Dodds, Jr. v. Carrie Bridges 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.