Thomas Carl Dodds, Jr. v. Carrie Bridges
10th Cir. CA · Feb 11, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- 10th Cir. CA
- Record ID
- thomas-carl-dodds-jr-v-carrie-bridges-2026-02-11
- Observed outcome
- The court affirmed the district court's judgment and issued a formal warning to the petitioner regarding the use of fabricated citations.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The Tenth Circuit issued a formal warning to a pro se litigant for including fabricated case citations and misattributed quotations in his appellate brief. The court declined to impose further sanctions, such as dismissal, but emphasized the duty of all litigants to verify that cited authorities are real and support the propositions for which they are offered.
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.
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in 10th Cir. CA, with the listed outcome: Warning.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fabricated Case Law
- False Quotations
- Misattributed Legal Authority
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Fabricated Quotes
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- ChatGPT
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Appellate review of a district court's denial of a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus application.
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 noted the petitioner's misuse of generative AI.
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.