HomeCasesThomas Duncan v. Gridhawk et al.

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 81/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

Thomas Duncan v. Gridhawk et al.

W.D. Texas · Dec 6, 2025

TX / federalEditorial impact: mediumpro sefake citationsfabricated quotesemployment

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Valdez v. Joy Techs., 201 F.3d 447 (5th Cir. 2000)'; the court determined this case does not exist and the citation was fabricated. Outcome: Plaintiff's objections struck.

Why the court cared: Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Valdez v. Joy Techs., 201 F.3d 447 (5th Cir. 2000)'; the court determined this case does not exist and the citation was fabricated. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Cunningham v. Kansas City S. Ry. Co., 2005 WL 2033364, at 3 (S.D. Tex. 2005)'; the court determined this citation does not exist and was fabricated. || False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Taylor v. Brighton Corp., 616 F.2d 256, 258 (5th Cir. 1980) and attributed the quotation 'OSHA does not create a private cause of action' to it; the court found the case exists but does not contain that quoted language (false quote).
Why it matters now: This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in W.D. Texas, with the listed outcome: Plaintiff's objections struck.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in W.D. Texas, with the listed outcome: Plaintiff's objections struck.

Record details

TexasSingle-state evidence scope

Jurisdiction contextThe state marker is derived from the structured case record.

CourtW.D. Texas

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit5th Circuit

DateDec 6, 2025

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomePlaintiff's objections struck

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

Plaintiff's objections struck

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 | Plaintiff cited 'Valdez v. Joy Techs., 201 F.3d 447 (5th Cir. 2000)'; the court determined this case does not exist and the citation was fabricated.
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Cunningham v. Kansas City S. Ry. Co., 2005 WL 2033364, at 3 (S.D. Tex. 2005)'; the court determined this citation does not exist and was fabricated.
False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Taylor v. Brighton Corp., 616 F.2d 256, 258 (5th Cir. 1980) and attributed the quotation 'OSHA does not create a private cause of action' to it; the court found the case exists but does not contain that quoted language (false quote).

Questions this record answers

What happened in Thomas Duncan v. Gridhawk et al.?: Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Valdez v. Joy Techs., 201 F.3d 447 (5th Cir. 2000)'; the court determined this case does not exist and the citation was fabricated. Outcome: Plaintiff's objections struck.
Why does Thomas Duncan v. Gridhawk et al. matter for legal AI risk?: This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in W.D. Texas, with the listed outcome: Plaintiff's objections struck.
What does the public record establish about Thomas Duncan v. Gridhawk 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 Thomas Duncan v. Gridhawk 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.

David Thomas v. The Quikrete Companies, LLCW.D. Texas · Feb 26, 2026same court · fake citations + fabricated quotes Jason Stanford v. Behrooz P. Vida, et al.W.D. Texas · Sep 4, 2025same court · pro se + fake citations Thackston v. DriscollW.D. Texas · Aug 28, 2025same court · fake citations + fabricated quotes Rene Carbonell v. United States of AmericaW.D. Texas · Jun 30, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Ericka Holmes v. The University of Texas at AustinW.D. Texas · Feb 4, 2026same court · fake citations + employment John Hurt v. Ampcus, Inc.E.D. Texas · Jul 8, 2026same jurisdiction · 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 Open jurisdiction map

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 W.D. Texas, with the listed outcome: Plaintiff's objections struck.

Record details

TexasSingle-state evidence scope

Jurisdiction contextThe state marker is derived from the structured case record.

CourtW.D. Texas

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit5th Circuit

DateDec 6, 2025

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomePlaintiff's objections struck

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Valdez v. Joy Techs., 201 F.3d 447 (5th Cir. 2000)'; the court determined this case does not exist and the citation was fabricated.

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Cunningham v. Kansas City S. Ry. Co., 2005 WL 2033364, at 3 (S.D. Tex. 2005)'; the court determined this citation does not exist and was fabricated.

False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Taylor v. Brighton Corp., 616 F.2d 256, 258 (5th Cir. 1980) and attributed the quotation 'OSHA does not create a private cause of action' to it; the court found the case exists but does not contain that quoted language (false quote).

Questions this record answers

What happened in Thomas Duncan v. Gridhawk et al.?

Why does Thomas Duncan v. Gridhawk et al. matter for legal AI risk?

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in W.D. Texas, with the listed outcome: Plaintiff's objections struck.

What does the public record establish about Thomas Duncan v. Gridhawk et al.?

Which source supports this Thomas Duncan v. Gridhawk 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.