Docket entry 114, 24 February 2026 · source · PDF · 11 pages
Docket text. OPINION AND ORDER by Judge Sara E Hill ; striking/withdrawing document(s); finding as moot 20 Motion to Quash; finding as moot 21 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; finding as moot 22 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Stat e a Claim; finding as moot 49 Motion to Strike; finding as moot 70 Motion to Strike Document(s); finding as moot 90 Motion to Strike; finding as moot 13 Motion to Dismiss (Re: 25 MOTION to Strike Document(s) , 2 MOTION to Compel Arbitration , 85 MOTION to Correct the Court Docket , 83 MOTION to Correct Docketing Error and for Clarification Regarding ECF 79, 88 MOTION to Transfer Case to Other District , 79 MOTION to Correct Docketing Error , 106 OBJECTION to Magistrate Judge's Order, 42 MOTION to Stay ) (Documents Terminated: 106 OBJECTION to Magistrate Judge's Order, 79 MOTION to Correct Docketing Error , 85 MOTION to Correct the Court Docket , 25 MOTION to Strike Document(s) , 42 MOTION to Stay , 2 MOTION to Compel Arbitration , 88 MOTION to Transfer Case to Other District , 83 MOTION to Correct Docketing Error and for Clarification Regarding ECF 79 ) (lmc, Chambers)
P. 11 and warned Petitioner that “continued fabricated citations to non-existent case quotations or other frivolous filings may result in sanctions including, without limitation, dismissal of [her] claims.” [ECF No. 47 at 2].
92 at 2]. Because Petitioner’s amended motion still contained fabricated citations and falsities, Judge Huntsman ordered Petitioner to show cause why her conduct did not violate Fed. R.
For example, Petitioner argues that Judge Huntsman erred in relying on some of the Court Clerk’s records, and that Judge Huntsman’s order violates her due process rights, her rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and her rights under the Rehabilitation Act with respect to her disability. But setting aside the substance of Petitioner’s arguments, and despite previous warnings, the objection contains non-existent, misleading, or otherwise inaccurate citations to authority. Case 4:25-cv-00297-SEH-SH Document 114 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 02/24/26 Page 3 of 11 4 The Court has identified at least the following two inaccurate citations in Petitioner’s objection.
Dec. 3, 2025) (recognizing the same in the context of an attorney who submitted briefs that contained hallucinated or fake case citations as a result of using generative AI technology). The Court’s inherent authority is not without limits, and the exercise of these powers “must be a ‘reasonable response to the problems and needs’ confronting the court’s fair administration of justice,” and such exercise “cannot be contrary to any express grant of or limitation on the district court's power contained in a rule or statute.” Dietz, 579 U.S. at 45.
The Court’s inherent authority is not without limits, and the exercise of these powers “must be a ‘reasonable response to the problems and needs’ confronting the court’s fair administration of justice,” and such exercise “cannot be contrary to any express grant of or limitation on the district court's power contained in a rule or statute.” Dietz, 579 U.S. at 45. Just as Judge Huntsman did, federal courts Case 4:25-cv-00297-SEH-SH Document 114 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 02/24/26 Page 5 of 11 6 regularly strike filings that contain fabricated or inaccurate citations or authority. See, e.g., Mattox v.