Aught v. Roe
U.S. District Court, District of Nevada · D. Nev. · Nevada bar guidance
Conduct
Self-represented plaintiff's amended complaint appeared AI-drafted; no fabricated citations were identified.
Consequence
Complaint dismissed with leave to amend; filings must certify whether AI was used, and AI-generated false authority may bring sanctions up to case termination.
Lesson
Here a court attached an AI-use certification to one litigant at screening, before any hallucinated citation was found.
Verified September 28, 2026
- Citation
- Aught v. Roe, No. 2:25-cv-00854-RFB-MDC, Order Screening Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (ECF No. 21) and Denying Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 22) (D. Nev. July 2, 2026) (Couvillier, M.J.), ECF No. 23
- Decided
- July 2, 2026
Summary
Self-represented plaintiff Phillip Charles Aught, Jr., proceeding in forma pauperis, filed an amended civil rights complaint against municipal defendants, a judge, court personnel, and prosecutors. At the 28 U.S.C. section 1915 screening stage, Magistrate Judge Maximiliano D. Couvillier III found the complaint "difficult to follow," alleging "a host of different unrelated events," and observed that it "appears to be drafted with artificial intelligence." The order does not identify any fabricated citation in the plaintiff's filings.
- AI tool:
- Suspected, not found (the court said the amended complaint "appears to be drafted with artificial intelligence"; no tool identified)
- Amount or terms:
- None imposed. Case-specific directive: every filing by the plaintiff must include a certification stating whether AI was used to prepare it
What did the court warn about?
The court dismissed the amended complaint without prejudice, with leave to amend by August 3, 2026, and denied appointment of counsel without prejudice. It also directed that "[a]ll filings must include the following certification from plaintiff disclosing whether or not Artificial Intelligence (AI) was used to prepare or assist in preparing such filing," placed immediately above the signature line, and warned that omitting the certification "may result in sanctions" and that "[s]ubmission of documents with false or non-existent facts or legal authorities generated by AI drafting tool may result in sanctions, including case terminating sanctions." The directive cites Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 and LR IA 7-3.
Why does Aught v. Roe matter for law firms using AI?
Aught v. Roe illustrates a litigation event that falls between a sanctions decision and a chambers rule. Magistrate Judge Couvillier, screening a self-represented plaintiff’s amended complaint, observed that it appeared to be drafted with AI and, in the same order, required an AI-use certification on all of the plaintiff’s filings. No sanction was imposed and no fabricated citation was identified. The directive is individual: it is entered in this case and addressed to this plaintiff (the order does not state a broader scope), and it is backed by an express warning that AI-generated false facts or authorities “may result in sanctions, including case terminating sanctions.”
The same judge maintains a chambers-wide rule on AI, the Second Amended Standing Order and Chambers Practices, which applies to every filer in his cases. The screening order does not cite it; the directive refers to Rule 11 and District of Nevada Local Rule IA 7-3 only as the standards that citations and factual assertions must meet. Firms with matters before Judge Couvillier may wish to track both the chambers rule and any case-specific directive entered in a particular matter, since the two can differ in scope and wording.
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.
- Review case-specific orders for AI certification directives. Here the requirement was imposed in a screening order in one matter, separate from the judge's chambers-wide standing order.
- Consider that an AI certification directive can issue without any finding of fabricated authority; the court said only that the complaint 'appears to be drafted with artificial intelligence.'