Boggess v. Chamness
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division · E.D. Tex. · Texas bar guidance
Conduct
A pro se plaintiff's objections cited a Second Circuit case that does not exist; the reporter cite belonged to an unrelated contract case.
Consequence
No sanction. Here the court called the citation a Local Rule CV-11(g) violation and "sanctionable" and dismissed the case with prejudice on immunity grounds.
Lesson
Here the court applied Local Rule CV-11(g) and Rule 11 to a pro se litigant's likely AI-generated citation, without imposing a sanction.
Verified September 28, 2026
- Citation
- Boggess v. Chamness, No. 6:25-cv-64-JDK-JDL, Order Adopting Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (E.D. Tex. Apr. 1, 2025) (Kernodle, J.), ECF No. 7
- Decided
- April 1, 2025
Summary
Larysa Boggess, proceeding pro se, sued Smith County District Attorney T. Heath Chamness and others. Magistrate Judge John D. Love recommended dismissal with prejudice, finding the prosecutor defendants entitled to absolute immunity. In her objections, Boggess cited "Brown v. McCormick, 201 F.3d 159 (2d Cir. 2000)" to argue that prosecutorial immunity should be overcome. District Judge Jeremy D. Kernodle found that "such a case does not exist": the reporter citation points to Retrofit Partners I, L.P. v. Lucas Industries, Inc., a Second Circuit contract and Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act case about retrofitting aircraft engines that has nothing to do with prosecutorial immunity. The court wrote that her "citation to a hallucinatory case was likely generated via artificial intelligence and violates this Court's Local Rule CV-11(g)," and that "[j]ust like an attorney, a pro se litigant remains bound by the Court's rules and the standards articulated under Rule 11."
- AI tool:
- Suspected (the court said the citation "was likely generated via artificial intelligence"; no tool identified and no admission)
What did the court warn about?
The court held that Boggess's "false statement of law in her objections is sanctionable and provides no basis to overcome prosecutorial immunity," and overruled the objection. The court reviewed the objected-to findings of Magistrate Judge Love's March 3, 2025 report de novo. It also overruled her second objection, concerning the prosecutor's alleged handling of a defense witness, holding that the conduct related directly to the prosecutor's advocacy role and was shielded by absolute immunity. The court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation and dismissed the case with prejudice. Although the order describes the conduct as sanctionable and a violation of Local Rule CV-11(g), it imposes no sanction and sets no further requirement; the entry codes it as a warning for that reason.
Why does Boggess v. Chamness matter for law firms using AI?
Boggess is a short order in which a single invented citation is disposed of in one paragraph. Judge Kernodle checked the reporter citation Boggess gave for “Brown v. McCormick,” found an unrelated Second Circuit contract case at 201 F.3d 155, and concluded that the cited case does not exist. He then tied the problem to Local Rule CV-11(g), which the order, quoting Gauthier v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., describes as making clear that “generative artificial intelligence tools may produce factual and legal inaccuracies and reminds attorneys that they must verify the information that they submit to the court.”
The AI attribution is hedged. The court said the citation was “likely generated via artificial intelligence”; the order records no admission of AI use and names no tool. The court’s holding is that the false statement of law is sanctionable and gives no basis to overcome immunity, but no sanction was imposed and the case was dismissed with prejudice on the merits of the immunity question.
For practitioners, the order shows a court applying Local Rule CV-11(g) to a self-represented party in the course of ordinary de novo review of objections. Judge Kernodle used nearly identical language a month later in an unrelated pro se case, Wilt v. Department of the Navy.
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.
- Verify that a reporter citation resolves to the named case. Here the court looked up 201 F.3d and found an unrelated aircraft-engine contract dispute at that location.
- Note that the court here treated a pro se litigant as bound by Local Rule CV-11(g) and Rule 11 'just like an attorney.'
- Review objections to magistrate judge recommendations with the same care as briefs. Here the unsupported citation appeared in objections reviewed de novo.
Sources
Primary sources
- AI use is the court's inference ('likely generated via artificial intelligence'), not an admission or a finding; no tool is identified.