The passages in which the court addresses the fabricated authority, verbatim, by document. A bracketed ellipsis marks where a passage was cut for length; nothing else is changed.
Docket entry 58, 21 May 2026 · source · PDF · 5 pages
Docket text. ORDER RE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE signed by Magistrate Judge Chi Soo Kim on 5/10/2026. The Court exercises its discretion to discharge the OSC 49 and declines to impose sanctions on Petitioner's counsel Cummings or law student Herrera for counsel 's failure to fully comply with the Court's January 13, 2026 order. The Court repeats its admonishment that while AI and generative AI tools can assist counsel and parties, these tools must be used responsibly. They should not be used to verify legal authority and citations, especially when generative AI tools were used to generate or identify the legal authority and citations being checked. (Deputy Clerk LMS)
Petitioner was ordered to provide in his OSC response signed declarations from Petitioner’s counsel, law student Gina Herrera, and any and all other staff who assisted Petitioner’s counsel regarding compliance with the Court’s January 13, 2026 Order; a detailed description of how the hallucinated citations were included in Petitioner’s reply brief at ECF No.
1:25-cv-2004-CSK, organized by filing, including (1) the verbatim citation in Petitioner’s filing, the ECF number of the filing, and the page number of the filing on which the authority is cited; (2) identification of whether each citation is an accurate citation or whether it is a hallucinated or fictitious citation; and (3) for each citation, if the citation is an accurate citation for an actual case, a complete copy of the actual case/decision cited attached to the table of authorities.
12) and Petitioner’s consolidated opposition (ECF No. 34) that contained hallucinated citations, submission of the ChatGPT history used for drafting this reply brief; (3) the ChatGPT history used for drafting Petitioner’s consolidated opposition (ECF No. 34); and (4) a copy of the Notice of Errata referenced by Petitioner’s counsel to identify incorrect or hallucinated citations in another one of counsel’s cases.
55.) II. DISCUSSION On January 13, 2026, the Court ordered Petitioner’s counsel to order the transcript from the January 13, 2026 hearing where the hallucinated citations in Petitioner’s TRO reply brief was addressed, provide the transcript to law student Herrera and any staff who assist him, require the law student and any staff who assist counsel to read the transcript, and provide written confirmation to the Courtroom Deputy of compliance within two months of the January 13, 2026 hearing. (ECF No.
(ECF No. 18) Counsel was also required to review his other immigration habeas cases filed in this district to see if those cases also had hallucinated citation issues, and if so, to bring those issues to the attention of the district court. At the April 17, 2026 OSC hearing, counsel and the law student confirmed that they both receive CM/ECF notifications of all court filings, including the January 13, 2026 minutes that summarized the Court’s order in writing.
(See ECF No. 50.) Counsel and the law student reviewed their other immigration habeas cases filed in this district and identified one other case with hallucinated citations, and filed a Notice of Errata in this case. 4/15/2026 Robert Cummings Decl. ¶¶ 10-11 (ECF No.
Though the Court finds troubling that the table of authorities provided in the OSC response (ECF No. 50) did not follow the Court’s instructions where it incorrectly identified certain hallucinated citations as accurate 2 and did not include the verbatim citation for certain citations identified as hallucinated, the Court accepts Ms. Herrera’s explanation and concludes that these errors were not intended to mislead the Court.
Docket entry 49, 9 April 2026 · source
Docket text. MINUTE ORDER issued by Magistrate Judge Chi Soo Kim on 4/9/2026: By 1:00 p.m. on April 15, 2026, Petitioner's counsel is Ordered to Show Cause (OSC) why sanctions should not issue for failure to comply with the Court's January 13, 2026 Order (ECF No. 18). See also 1/9/2026 Order (ECF No. 13); 1/21/2026 Order at 5-6 n.5 (ECF No. 20). The OSC response must include signed declarations from Petitioner's counsel, law student Gina Hererra, and any and all other staff who assist Petitioner's counsel regarding compliance with the Court's January 13, 2026 Order. The OSC response must also include a detailed description of how the hallucinated citations were included in Petitioner's reply brief at ECF No. 12; and as discussed at the January 13, 2026 hearing, a detailed description of what steps were taken to confirm whether counsel's filings in other immigration habeas cases filed in the Eastern District of California also contained hallucinated citations and what steps were taken to bring those issues to the district court's attention. Petitioner's counsel's OSC response must also include a table of authorities of all cases Petitioner has cited in all of Petitioner's filings in this action, Case No. 1:25-cv-2004-CSK, organized by filing, including (1) the verbatim citation in Petitioner's filing, the ECF number of the filing, and the page number of the filing on which the authority is cited; (2) identification of whether each citation is an accurate citation or whether it is a hallucinated or fictitious citation; and (3) for each citation, if the citation is an accurate citation for an actual case, a complete copy of the actual case/decision cited attached to the table of authorities. An in-person hearing is scheduled for April 17, 2026 at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 25 (CSK) before Magistrate Judge Chi Soo Kim where Petitioner's counsel and law student Gina Hererra must appear in-person. (Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk AW) (Entered: 04/09/2026)
The OSC response must also include a detailed description of how the hallucinated citations were included in Petitioner's reply brief at ECF No.
1:25-cv-2004-CSK, organized by filing, including (1) the verbatim citation in Petitioner's filing, the ECF number of the filing, and the page number of the filing on which the authority is cited; (2) identification of whether each citation is an accurate citation or whether it is a hallucinated or fictitious citation; and (3) for each citation, if the citation is an accurate citation for an actual case, a complete copy of the actual case/decision cited attached to the table of authorities.
Docket entry 47, 9 April 2026 · source · PDF · 14 pages
Docket text. ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Chi Soo Kim on 4/9/2026 DENYING the 28 First Amended Petition and DENYING respondent's 32 motion to dismiss as moot. CASE CLOSED. (Deputy Clerk KLY)
IV. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER AND HALLUCINATED LEGAL CITATIONS The Court notes with serious concern that Petitioner again filed a brief with the court that contains incorrect citation to legal authority, which again appear to have been the result of the improper or irresponsible use of generative artificial intelligence (also referred to as “GenAI”). (See ECF No.
21, 2025).” (ECF No. 34 at 2; see id. at 3.) This citation bears the marking of a hallucinated citation where the Westlaw citation is for a completely different case, from a different district, issued on a different date: Esmail v. Noem, No.
1:25-cv-01102-EPG. The Court has serious concerns because, earlier in this action, Petitioner submitted a brief with hallucinated citations from what appeared to be the improper or irresponsible use of generative artificial intelligence. See 1/9/2026 Order (ECF No.
20). On January 9, 2026, in advance of the January 13, 2026 hearing on Petitioner’s first motion for a temporary restraining order, the Court provided written notice to Petitioner’s counsel regarding hallucinated citations and that counsel should “be prepared to address the legal authority cited in Petitioner’s briefing. For example, Petitioner cites to the following cases in his reply on p.2 that the Court is not able to locate and appear to be hallucinated citations: Phan v.
16 at 1-2.) Counsel also noted that Petitioner’s future filings would comply with Local Rule 181 regarding law students. (Id. at 2.) At the January 13, 2026 hearing, the Court addressed the hallucinated citations in Petitioner’s reply brief. The Court informed Petitioner’s counsel that when hallucinated citations are submitted in a court filing, courts typically issue an Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) regarding the hallucinated citations.
The Court decided not to issue an OSC because a law student had been listed on all of Petitioner’s filings, including the reply brief with the hallucinated citations, and the Court determined that a more lenient approach was warranted given the potential involvement of a law student.
Petitioner’s counsel may not continue to use the excuse that he failed to check his briefs before they were filed with the court, or that he was not aware that his law student may be using generative artificial intelligence. It is not this Court or any court’s responsibility to hunt for and find the correct citations for legal authority, or attempt to figure out if there is an actual real case for a hallucinated citation submitted in a court filing by a party, let alone by counseled parties. A separate Order to Show Cause will issue regarding Petitioner’s counsel’s failure to comply with the Court’s January 13, 2026 order and Petitioner’s opposition filed at ECF No.
Docket entry 13, 9 January 2026 · source
Docket text. MINUTE ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Chi Soo Kim on 1/9/2026: The parties were ordered to indicate in their briefing whether they are amenable to converting Petitioners motion for temporary restraining order into a motion for preliminary injunction without additional briefing. (12/29/2025 Minute Order (ECF No. 10 ) The government indicated that the motion can be converted without additional briefing, but Petitioner has not provided the required information in his reply (see ECF No. 12 ).The Court schedules a hearing on Petitioners motion for temporary restraining order (ECF No. 2 ) for Tuesday 1/13/2026 at 9:30 a.m. by Zoom, and Zoom instructions will be provided separately. At the hearing, petitioner must inform the Court whether his motion can be converted into a motion for preliminary injunction without additional briefing and should also be prepared to address the legal authority cited in Petitioners briefing. For example, Petitioner cites to the following cases in his reply on p.2 that the Court is not able to locate and appear to be hallucinated citations: Phan v. Barr, No. 1:19-cv-01451, 2019 WL 7758773 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2019); Flores v. Barr, No. 1:20-cv-00491, 2020 WL 1939565 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2020). In addition, a law student is listed on Petitioners filings with Petitioners counsel, but it is unclear whether all the requirements of Local Rule 181 for Certified Students have been satisfied as the required Certified Student designation is missing. If the law student intends to appear at the hearing or continue to be listed on future filings, Petitioners counsel must ensure that all the requirements of Local Rule 181 have been satisfied.(Text Only Entry) (Deputy Clerk AW) (Entered: 01/09/2026)
At the hearing, petitioner must inform the Court whether his motion can be converted into a motion for preliminary injunction without additional briefing and should also be prepared to address the legal authority cited in Petitioners briefing. For example, Petitioner cites to the following cases in his reply on p.2 that the Court is not able to locate and appear to be hallucinated citations: Phan v. Barr, No.