Armstrong v. City of Milwaukee
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin · E.D. Wis. · Wisconsin bar guidance
Conduct
A represented county defendant filed a reply brief containing a fictitious case, then moved the same day to substitute a corrected brief.
Consequence
No sanction: the court allowed the corrected brief, finding no prejudice because the error was fixed the same day and the case was redundant of real authority.
Lesson
Here a same-day correction, and real authority already supporting the point, led the court to accept the fix without any sanction.
Verified September 29, 2026
- Citation
- Armstrong v. City of Milwaukee, No. 24-CV-1389-JPS, Order (E.D. Wis. May 11, 2026) (Stadtmueller, J.), ECF No. 51
- Decided
- May 11, 2026
Summary
William Louis Armstrong, III, proceeding pro se, sued the City of Milwaukee, two individual defendants, and Milwaukee County for civil rights violations, including a municipal-liability claim against the County. The County moved for judgment on the pleadings. Its original reply brief included a fictitious case, and the County moved the same day for leave to file a corrected reply brief. Armstrong's filing on that motion pointed out that the correction was necessitated by the fictitious citation. Judge J.P. Stadtmueller agreed with Armstrong's assessment that the motion "was necessitated by the inclusion of a fictitious case," but stated that the court "does not have more information as to why that happened." The order does not identify the case, does not name the County's counsel, and does not mention artificial intelligence. The issue arose as a preliminary matter in a 21-page order that also resolved the County's motion on the merits, Armstrong's motion for default judgment, and his motion to stay the proceedings.
- AI tool:
- Unidentified (the order notes a fictitious case in the County's original reply brief but says the court "does not have more information as to why that happened"; it does not mention AI)
How did the court address the AI-related conduct?
The court granted the County's motion to file a corrected reply brief and considered the corrected brief in its analysis. It gave two reasons: "the County caught and corrected the error the same day, meaning that there is no prejudice in allowing the correction," and the original reply "included real case law in support of the proposition that the County sought to make, meaning that the fictitious case would be redundant even if it were real." No sanction, warning, or show-cause order issued on the citation. On the merits, the court granted the County's motion for judgment on the pleadings for failure to plead a Monell claim and dismissed the County with prejudice, denied Armstrong's motion for default judgment and his motion to stay, and directed the remaining parties to file a joint Rule 26(f) report within two weeks. Separately, it admonished Armstrong that further motions not complying with the court's protocols order may result in dismissal of his case without further warning.
Why does Armstrong v. City of Milwaukee matter for law firms using AI?
Armstrong is an example of a fictitious citation that did not lead to sanctions. The County’s original reply brief in support of judgment on the pleadings cited a case that does not exist, and the County moved the same day to substitute a corrected brief. Judge Stadtmueller agreed with the pro se plaintiff that a fictitious case prompted the correction, but did not pursue it further; the order says only that the court “does not have more information as to why that happened.”
The court’s reasons for allowing the correction are specific to this record: the error was caught and corrected the same day, so there was no prejudice, and the proposition was already supported by real case law, so the fictitious case “would be redundant even if it were real.” The court then decided the motion on the corrected brief and dismissed the County.
The order does not mention artificial intelligence, and the AI coding on this entry comes from the tracker. Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider that, in this case, how quickly the filer found and corrected the error was central to the court’s decision to allow the fix without further proceedings.
Implications for your firm
Operational steps a firm reading this case may wish to consider documenting. Strategic and rule-application calls belong to your firm's attorneys.
- Document a same-day correction process for filed briefs. Here the County's prompt motion to correct was a stated reason the court found no prejudice.
- Verify citations even in reply briefs against a pro se opponent. The County caught its own error the same day; the pro se plaintiff's response then pointed out that a fictitious case prompted the correction.
- Consider that a court may note it lacks any explanation for a fictitious citation. The order records that the court "does not have more information as to why that happened."
Sources
Primary sources
- AI attribution is a Charlotin tracker inference (coded 'implied'). The order refers only to 'a fictitious case' and expressly says the court does not know why it was included; it never mentions artificial intelligence.
- The fictitious case itself, and the identity of the County's counsel, are not stated in the order; the original reply brief, the motion to correct (ECF No. 44), and the corrected reply (ECF No. 45) were not reviewed.