Thomas Duncan v. Gridhawk et al.
W.D. Texas · Dec 6, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- W.D. Texas
- Record ID
- thomas-duncan-v-gridhawk-et-al-2025-12-06
- Observed outcome
- The court struck the plaintiff's objections for Rule 11 violations and granted the motion to remand the case to state court.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The court struck the pro se plaintiff's objections to a magistrate judge's report after finding the filing contained fabricated case law and misattributed quotations, which the court identified as AI-generated content violating Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.
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).
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in W.D. Texas, with the listed outcome: Plaintiff's objections struck.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Fabricated Quotes
- Employment
- Trial
- Struck Filing
- AI attribution
- Explicitly Recorded
- Recorded tool
- AI (unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- The court reviewed a magistrate judge's report and recommendation regarding a motion to remand, considered the plaintiff's objections, struck those objections for Rule 11 violations, and ultimately granted the motion to remand to state court.
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 identified the errors as hallmarks of 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.