AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Sep 10, 2026 · Latest decision Sep 8, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesWilt v. Department of the Navy
Evidence review: primary document verified. The linked primary document was extracted and checked with page-level evidence locators.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 86/100. It passes the current publication gate; that is not a legal-editorial review or a guarantee that every field has been independently verified.
Corpus matter record

Wilt v. Department of the Navy

E.D. Texas · May 2, 2025

TX / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationstorttrialWarning
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The court issued a formal warning to the pro se plaintiff regarding the submission of AI-generated fabricated case law. The court explicitly stated that such conduct violates Local Rule CV-11(g) and cautioned that the use of fabricated citations will not be tolerated in future filings.

Why the court cared
The court reasoned that the plaintiff's citations were non-existent and likely AI-generated, violating Local Rule CV-11(g), which mandates that litigants verify the accuracy of information submitted to the court.
Why it matters now
Courts now openly label plausible-but-nonexistent FTCA and Title VII cites as AI-generated on the face of the pleading.

Why this matter is tracked

In a pro se action against the Department of the Navy, the plaintiff submitted objections to a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation that included two fabricated legal citations: Sanchez v. United States, 803 F. Supp. 1066 (N.D. Tex. 1992) and Wilkerson v. University of N. Tex., 878 F.2d 276 (5th Cir. 1989). The District Court for the Eastern District of Texas determined these cases do not exist and were likely generated by artificial intelligence. The court noted that the submission violated Local Rule CV-11(g), which requires verification of information submitted to the court. The court cautioned the plaintiff that fabricated citations will not be tolerated, though it ultimately dismissed the underlying claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Operational lesson

Courts now openly label plausible-but-nonexistent FTCA and Title VII cites as AI-generated on the face of the pleading.

Record details

TexasSingle-state evidence scope
Explore TXOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtE.D. Texas
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit5th Circuit
DateMay 2, 2025
UN
AI toolUnidentified
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeThe court dismissed the plaintiff's claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and issued a formal warning regarding the use of AI-generated fabricated citations.
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

explicitly recorded

The court identified the citations as likely generated by AI but did not name a specific tool.

Procedural posture

Order Adopting Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, granting Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Sanchez v. United States to claim FTCA permits redress for systemic negligence; the court found no such N.D. Tex. 1992 case at 803 F. Supp. 1066 and said it appears AI-generated.
  2. Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Wilkerson v. University of N. Tex. to allow substitution of the proper Title VII defendant; the court found no such 1989 Fifth Circuit case at 878 F.2d 276 and said it appears AI-generated.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Wilt v. Department of the Navy?
The court issued a formal warning to the pro se plaintiff regarding the submission of AI-generated fabricated case law. The court explicitly stated that such conduct violates Local Rule CV-11(g) and cautioned that the use of fabricated citations will not be tolerated in future filings.
Why does Wilt v. Department of the Navy matter for legal AI risk?
Courts now openly label plausible-but-nonexistent FTCA and Title VII cites as AI-generated on the face of the pleading.
What does the public record establish about Wilt v. Department of the Navy?
The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
Which source supports this Wilt v. Department of the Navy 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.

McCormick v. Texakoma FinancialE.D. Texas · Jun 11, 2026same court · fake citations + tortDavid R. Pete v. United States Department of Justice, et al.E.D. Texas · Oct 10, 2025same court · pro se + fake citationsPete v. Houston Methodist HospitalE.D. Texas · Sep 3, 2025same court · pro se + fake citationsJohn Hurt v. Ampcus, Inc.E.D. Texas · Jul 8, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsDavid R. Pete v. Greg Abbott, et al.E.D. Texas · Jun 15, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsFabian Antonio Thomas v. Officer Skylar Sillivent, et al.E.D. Texas · Mar 2, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations