Alzado-Lotz v. Bock
U.S. District Court, District of Colorado · D. Colo. · Colorado bar guidance
Verified May 14, 2026
- Citation
- Alzado-Lotz v. Bock, No. 1:20-cv-02928-DDD-CYC, ECF No. 112 (D. Colo. Jan. 16, 2026) (Chung, M.J.)
- Decided
- January 16, 2026
Summary
In a magistrate judge's Order and Recommendation on a motion to dismiss, Magistrate Judge Cyrus Y. Chung flagged that defendant Thomas Bock (proceeding pro se) cited a non-existent Tenth Circuit decision, "Hinzo v. State of N.M., 79 F.4th 1164, 1175 (10th Cir. 2023)," for the proposition that a court must grant an unopposed motion to dismiss. In a footnote the court explained the citation does not exist: "79 F.4th 1164 refers to the middle of Anderson v. DelCore, 79 F.4th 1153 (10th Cir. 2023). The last case in the Tenth Circuit with 'Hinzo' and 'New Mexico' somewhere in the title is Hinzo v. Williams, 563 F. App'x 639 (10th Cir. 2014). It has nothing to do with a failure to respond to a motion to dismiss." The court did not expressly attribute the fabrication to generative AI, but the pattern (real-sounding caption with real reporter volume mapped to a different case, plausible page pin-cite, fabricated proposition) matches the standard hallucination signature.
- AI tool:
- Implied (undisclosed; fabricated citation hallmarks)
- Sanction amount:
- None
What sanction did the court impose?
No sanction imposed. The court identified the fabricated citation in a footnote, rejected the legal proposition Bock attached to it, and proceeded to analyze the motion to dismiss on the merits. The court recommended granting Bock's motion in part (dismissing Claim 5 and the Securities Exchange Act portion of Claim 7 without prejudice) and denying it as to service of process and statute of repose.
Why does Alzado-Lotz v. Bock matter for law firms using AI?
Alzado-Lotz illustrates the lower-stakes end of the AI-hallucination spectrum: a court catches a fabricated citation, calls it out in a footnote with the corrected citation trail, and moves on without sanctions. For a managing partner the takeaway is twofold. First, even pro se filings now routinely carry hallucinated authority that judges are increasingly willing to identify on the record by name and reporter volume. Second, the absence of a sanction here is not a safe harbor: the court still rejected the legal proposition Bock attached to the bad cite, and the public order now memorializes the fabrication. A practicing attorney in the same posture would face a Rule 11 problem, not just a credibility one.
Sources
Further reading
Source PDF is a Westlaw printout mirrored from the Damien Charlotin hallucination database. We are working to add the underlying court docket (PACER, CourtListener, or court website) as a second source.