Yasmani Gurri Rubio v. Markwayne Mullin, et al.
D. Maryland · May 1, 2026 · Adam B. Abelson
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- D. Maryland
- Record ID
- yasmani-gurri-rubio-v-markwayne-mullin-et-al-2026-05-01
- Observed outcome
- The court granted the government's motion to remand and issued a formal warning to the plaintiff regarding the use of fabricated citations.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The court issued a formal warning to the pro se plaintiff regarding his repeated use of fabricated case law quotations in his filings. The judge explicitly cautioned that such conduct is unacceptable and may result in future sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.
The court reasoned that the plaintiff's inclusion of nonexistent quotations violated the certification requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b), which requires that legal contentions be warranted by existing law and formed after reasonable inquiry.
This case illustrates the judicial response to pro se litigants submitting AI-generated or otherwise fabricated legal authorities. It highlights the court's reliance on Rule 11 to maintain the integrity of filings and the potential for formal warnings to precede more severe sanctions.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Fabricated Quotes
- Administrative
- Trial
- Warning
- AI attribution
- Unspecified
- Recorded tool
- AI (implied, unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Memorandum opinion resolving multiple pending motions, including a motion for recusal, Rule 60(b) motions, and a government motion to remand to USCIS.
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 record does not name a specific tool, but the nature of the errors is consistent with AI-generated hallucinations.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
- Compare every quoted passage and pincite directly with the underlying opinion or filing.
- Apply the same source-checking controls to AI (implied, unspecified) output as to any other research input.
- Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.