Docket entry 39, 10 September 2026 · source · PDF · 18 pages
Docket text. FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE: This action should be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE sua sponte for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Alternatively, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice, Doc. 14, should be GRANTED. Further, Carroll should be admonished that any further failure to comply with the notice requirements set out in Local Civil Rule 7.2(f)(1)-(3) or filing of pleadings with citations to nonexistent cases, in violation of FED. R. CIV. P. 11, may result in sanctions, including the striking of filings, the imposition of filing restrictions and monetary penalties. (Ordered by Magistrate Judge Renee Harris Toliver on 9/10/2026) (mcrd)
Because of these and other inaccurate and/or non-existent legal sources, the Court also ordered Carroll to show cause as to why she should not be sanctioned. Specifically, the misrepresented legal authority appeared indicative of reliance on large language models or other kinds of generative artificial intelligence (AI).5 “It is no secret that generative AI programs are known to ‘hallucinate’ nonexistent cases, and with the advent of AI, courts have seen a rash of cases in which both counsel and pro se litigants have cited such fake, hallucinated cases in their briefs.” Sanders v. United States, 176 Fed.
Apr. 1, 2025) (Kernodle, J.) (“Plaintiff’s citation to a hallucinatory case was likely generated via artificial intelligence and violates this Court’s Local Rule . . . which makes clear that ‘generative artificial intelligence tools may produce factual and legal inaccuracies and reminds attorneys that they must verify the information that 5 “Generative AI is a specific subset of artificial intelligence that ‘essentially mimics the human brain, to think rather than simply follow rules as most machines do.’” In re Nwaubani, No. 25- 9517, 2026 WL 687194, at *1, n.1 (4th Cir.
384, 393 (1990). Carroll’s filings—obviously built on non-existent AI-generated cases—are “the epitome of baseless.” Willis v. U.S.
And that conduct violates Rule 11. Accordingly, Plaintiff should be admonished that going forward, failing to comply with 17 the notice requirements set out in Local Civil Rule 7.2(f)(1)-(3) or filing pleadings with citations to nonexistent cases may result in the imposition of sanctions, including the striking of filings, the imposition of filing restrictions, monetary penalties, or dismissal of this action. IV.
14, should be GRANTED. Further, Carroll should be admonished that any further failure to comply with the notice requirements set out in Local Civil Rule 7.2(f)(1)-(3) or filing of pleadings with citations to nonexistent cases, in violation of FED. R.