Public trackerCorpus refreshed Aug 15, 2026 · Latest decision Aug 11, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesZack Jones v. Target Corporation
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 85/100. 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

Zack Jones v. Target Corporation

D. Oregon · Mar 6, 2026

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The court recommended granting terminating sanctions and dismissing the case due to the pro se plaintiff's persistent failure to comply with discovery orders, failure to appear for depositions, and reliance on fabricated case law and unverifiable medical documentation.

Why the court cared
Fabricated: Case Law | Court observed that the pro se plaintiff 'relied on "hallucinated" case citations' in his filings; the opinion does not identify or analyze any specific fabricated citation.
Why it matters now
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. Oregon, with the listed outcome: Recommended granting terminating sanctions and dismissal of the case.

Why this matter is tracked

In this employment litigation, the pro se plaintiff repeatedly failed to comply with discovery obligations, court orders, and local rules. The court noted the plaintiff's failure to produce documents, refusal to appear for in-person depositions, and reliance on questionable medical documentation from overseas providers. Furthermore, the court observed that the plaintiff relied on hallucinated case citations in his filings. Despite multiple extensions and warnings, the plaintiff failed to meaningfully participate in the discovery process or substantiate his claims. Consequently, the magistrate judge recommended that the defendant's motion for terminating sanctions be granted and the case be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders.

Operational lesson

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. Oregon, with the listed outcome: Recommended granting terminating sanctions and dismissal of the case.

Record details

OregonSingle-state evidence scope
Explore OROpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtD. Oregon
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit9th Circuit
DateMar 6, 2026
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeThe court recommended granting the defendant's motion for terminating sanctions and dismissing the case.
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

Findings and Recommendation issued by a Magistrate Judge recommending dismissal; later adopted by the District Court.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | Court observed that the pro se plaintiff 'relied on "hallucinated" case citations' in his filings; the opinion does not identify or analyze any specific fabricated citation.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Zack Jones v. Target Corporation?
The court recommended granting terminating sanctions and dismissing the case due to the pro se plaintiff's persistent failure to comply with discovery orders, failure to appear for depositions, and reliance on fabricated case law and unverifiable medical documentation.
Why does Zack Jones v. Target Corporation matter for legal AI risk?
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in D. Oregon, with the listed outcome: Recommended granting terminating sanctions and dismissal of the case.
What does the public record establish about Zack Jones v. Target Corporation?
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 Zack Jones v. Target Corporation summary?
The recorded source is websitedc.s3.amazonaws.com. It is classified as secondary or other linked source; 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.