Cherleatha B. v. Bisignano
U.S. District Court, District of South Carolina · D.S.C. · South Carolina bar guidance
Conduct
Pro se SSA plaintiff cited at least one fabricated case in briefing; action filed before exhausting administrative remedies.
Consequence
Case dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. Rule 11 warning issued; no monetary sanction.
Lesson
SSA disability cases are a notable AI-citation lane; pro se plaintiffs unfamiliar with exhaustion often use AI briefing.
Verified May 14, 2026
- Citation
- Cherleatha B. v. Bisignano, No. 8:25-cv-00654-SAL (D.S.C. Dec. 29, 2025) (Lydon, J.)
- Decided
- December 29, 2025
Summary
Cherleatha B. (full name redacted to first name and last initial per the federal judiciary's privacy guidelines for Social Security cases; the case caption on the docket reads Bogan v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration), a pro se plaintiff, filed a Social Security disability action against Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, on February 4, 2025. The plaintiff sought judicial review of an SSA disability determination but had not first exhausted the SSA's administrative remedies. After a magistrate judge's report recommended dismissal, District Judge Sherri A. Lydon issued a December 29, 2025 order adopting the report and dismissing the action without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. The order separately addressed citation patterns in the plaintiff's filings that suggested generative AI use, noting that "generative AI programs are known to 'hallucinate' nonexistent cases" and finding that at least one citation in the plaintiff's briefing appeared to be fabricated.
- AI tool:
- Generative AI implied; the order describes generative AI programs that "hallucinate" nonexistent cases
What sanction did the court impose?
Case dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction (the plaintiff had not exhausted SSA administrative remedies before filing in federal court, and the Administrative Procedure Act does not independently confer jurisdiction in Social Security disability cases). The court issued a Rule 11 warning rather than a formal sanction, cautioning the plaintiff that future submissions of fake legal authority could result in "striking of filings, the imposition of filing restrictions, monetary penalties, or the dismissal of her action."
Why does Cherleatha B. v. Bisignano matter for law firms using AI?
Cherleatha B. v. Bisignano is the first of two AI-citation orders authored by Judge Sherri A. Lydon in a six-week window (the second is Bruce v. United States, decided February 9, 2026). The case caption presents a useful research note: the docket index lists the plaintiff as “Bogan v. Commissioner” (using her surname), while the order text and judiciary privacy practice for Social Security cases identify her as “Cherleatha B.” The Charlotin tracker uses the order-caption form (“Cherleatha B. v. Bisignano”) but the underlying PDF filename uses “Bogan_v._Comm” because that is the docket-name convention. This entry uses the order’s preferred caption to match the form a reader would see if pulling the order text directly. Lydon’s two orders both apply parallel language about generative AI programs that “hallucinate” cases and treat the AI finding as a Rule 11 warning rather than a formal sanction trigger. Cross-reference: Bruce v. United States (D.S.C. Feb. 9, 2026) (Lydon, J.); Sevilla v. Ross (D.S.C. Dec. 31, 2025) (Austin, 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 SSA Commissioner against pro se plaintiffs who file before exhausting administrative remedies, screen the plaintiff's briefing for AI-citation patterns; the Lydon order treats Social Security pro se filings as a notable AI-citation lane.
- Document the firm's protocol for parallel jurisdictional and AI-citation rulings; the Lydon order dismisses on the merits (failure to exhaust) and issues the Rule 11 warning in the same order, illustrating that the AI finding does not require a separate proceeding.
- Train associates that the federal judiciary's Social Security privacy convention (first name plus last initial) can complicate case-name lookups; the plaintiff here surfaces variously as 'Cherleatha B.,' 'Cherleatha Bogan,' and 'Bogan' across sources.
Sources
Primary sources
Further reading
- The case caption presents a discrepancy between sources: the CourtListener docket caption is 'Bogan v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration' (the case index uses the plaintiff's last name 'Bogan'), while the order text uses 'Cherleatha B.' per the judiciary's Social Security privacy convention (first name plus last initial). The Charlotin tracker entry uses 'Cherleatha B. v. Bisignano' but the underlying PDF filename reads 'Bogan_v._Comm.' This entry uses the order's caption (Cherleatha B.) for the case_name field consistent with how the order itself styles the matter.