June 1, 2026 (in 3 days): New York: 22 NYCRR Part 161 takes effect, system-wide AI policy for all UCS courts →

Bruce v. United States

U.S. District Court, District of South Carolina · D.S.C. · South Carolina bar guidance

Pro-se party

Conduct

Pro se FTCA plaintiff filed briefing with citation patterns characteristic of AI-generated content alleging deputy clerk negligence.

Consequence

Case dismissed and terminated. Rule 11 warning issued covering future filings; no monetary sanction.

Lesson

FTCA negligence cases can surface AI-citation patterns even when underlying claim involves clerical conduct, not legal complexity.

Other

Verified May 8, 2026

Citation
Bruce v. United States, No. 2:25-cv-04020-SAL (D.S.C. Feb. 9, 2026) (Lydon, J.)
Decided
February 9, 2026

Summary

Nelson L. Bruce, a pro se plaintiff, filed a Federal Tort Claims Act action against the United States alleging that a deputy clerk had failed to docket his notice of appeal in a prior matter. The complaint attached as exhibits prior court opinions and a notice of appeal, but the briefing in support contained citation patterns the court found "characteristic of briefs generated by artificial intelligence (AI) programs." District Judge Sherri A. Lydon issued a February 9, 2026 opinion noting that "generative AI programs are known to 'hallucinate' nonexistent cases" and citing Sanders v. United States for the proposition that courts have seen "cases in which both counsel and pro se litigants have cited such fake... hallucinated cases." The court terminated the case on February 9, 2026.

AI tool:
Generative AI implied; the order references generative AI programs that "hallucinate" cases
This case summary is informational only. Verify the underlying opinion or order against the primary source before relying on it in any filing or client matter.

What sanction did the court impose?

Case dismissed and terminated. The court issued a Rule 11 warning rather than a formal sanction, cautioning Bruce that submitting fabricated legal authority "wastes judicial resources" and that future violations could result in "striking of filings, the imposition of filing restrictions, monetary penalties, or the dismissal of his action." No monetary penalty was imposed, but the termination of the underlying FTCA matter ended the litigation on the existing record.

Why does Bruce v. United States matter for law firms using AI?

Bruce v. United States is the second of two AI-citation orders authored by Judge Sherri A. Lydon in a six-week window (the other is Cherleatha B. v. Bisignano, decided December 29, 2025). Both orders use parallel language about generative AI programs that “hallucinate” nonexistent cases and cite the same Sanders v. United States authority for the proposition that courts have observed AI-citation patterns from both counsel and pro se litigants. The Bruce order is procedurally simpler than Cherleatha B. because the underlying FTCA matter terminates with the AI-citation finding embedded in the dismissal; in Cherleatha B. the dismissal is jurisdictional (failure to exhaust SSA administrative remedies), and the AI warning is a separate component of the order. Cross-reference: Cherleatha B. v. Bisignano (D.S.C. Dec. 29, 2025) (Lydon, J.).

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.

  • When defending the United States or a federal agency in an FTCA matter brought by a pro se plaintiff, screen the plaintiff's briefing for AI-citation patterns even when the underlying claim sounds in negligence rather than complex statutory interpretation; the Bruce order treats simple FTCA claims as a notable AI-citation lane.
  • Document the firm's protocol for citing parallel AI-citation case law (e.g., Sanders v. United States) when responding to a suspected AI-generated brief; courts in this district expect the responding party to identify the pattern explicitly rather than waiting for the court to surface it sua sponte.
  • Train associates that case termination on the merits is itself an AI-citation consequence; the Bruce order ends the litigation without a separate sanctions hearing, illustrating that the citation defects can be addressed in the dispositive ruling rather than a follow-on motion.

Related on this site

Topic guides

  • Supervised AI Use: ABA Model Rule 5.1, Rule 5.3, and the state opinions that translate them into firm-side duties to supervise AI tools and the people using th…

Sanctions cases

From the blog

Sources

Primary sources

Further reading

Unverified claims:
  • The order references the AI-citation pattern in general terms ('characteristic of briefs generated by artificial intelligence') without enumerating specific fabricated case names. The Charlotin tracker classifies this case under 'fabricated case law and misrepresented legal norms' but does not list the specific citations.
  • The case docket lists the assigned judge as Bruce Howe Hendricks with referrals to Magistrate Judges Mary Gordon Baker and Paige J. Gossett at various points; the February 9, 2026 termination order is signed by Sherri A. Lydon. The R&G data is correct that Lydon authored the AI-related order, while the case's overall judicial assignment was more complex than a single-judge matter.