Clayman v. Bessant
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida · S.D. Fla. · Florida bar guidance
Conduct
Pro se plaintiff relied on a single fabricated case ('United States v. Bovio, 708 F. Supp. 2d 579 (E.D.N.Y. 2010)') in a Rule 59(e) motion; conceded the hallucination in his reply.
Consequence
Final warning; filing restrictions and sanctions reserved for next AI-hallucination incident. 59(e) motion denied. No monetary sanction.
Lesson
S.D. Fla. Matthewman: even a single hallucinated citation in an ancillary motion, when it is the second AI-citation offense, is a 'final warning' that puts filing restrictions on the table.
Verified May 14, 2026
- Citation
- Clayman v. Bessant, No. 9:25-cv-80890 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 21, 2025) (Matthewman, C.M.J.)
- Decided
- November 21, 2025
Summary
In a civil rights case seeking removal of "In God We Trust" from U.S. coins and currency (No. 9:25-cv-80890, West Palm Beach Division), pro se plaintiff David Morris Clayman filed a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend a prior order denying his request to have the Court protect "the Sacred Names of G-d in Court Filings and Records" (DE 40). The sole case Clayman cited in that motion was "United States v. Bovio, 708 F. Supp. 2d 579 (E.D.N.Y. 2010)," for the proposition that "Courts routinely release religious items after trial to their owners." Chief Magistrate Judge William Matthewman found the citation to be "an AI-generated hallucination and not an actual case." Clayman conceded the error and apologized in his Reply. The court noted that it had previously warned Clayman about his use of AI (DE 45 at 2) and issued a "final warning" that repeated AI hallucinations would result in filing restrictions or sanctions.
- AI tool:
- Generative AI (court found plaintiff's citation 'United States v. Bovio, 708 F. Supp. 2d 579 (E.D.N.Y. 2010)' was 'an AI-generated hallucination and not an actual case'; specific tool not named)
What sanction did the court impose?
59(e) motion denied on procedural grounds (no judgment entered so Rule 59(e) inapplicable; also denied under Rule 60(b) standard). No monetary sanction. Court stated: "Plaintiff is permitted to use AI to aid him in drafting his motions; however, he is responsible for properly overseeing the AI to ensure that he is not including hallucinated cases or law in his Court filings." Court warned that if Clayman "continues to improperly utilize artificial intelligence, the Court will consider restricting his filing in this case and imposing sanctions against him." Designated as "final warning" (prior warning was at DE 45 at 2).
Why does Clayman v. Bessant matter for law firms using AI?
Clayman v. Bessant is a narrower AI-citation order than most in the S.D. Fla. corpus. The AI conduct occurred in a single citation in a post-order 59(e) motion, not in a merits brief, and the plaintiff conceded the error immediately and apologized. Chief Magistrate Judge Matthewman nonetheless treated this as the basis for a “final warning,” because it was at least the second AI-citation incident in the same case (DE 45 contains a prior warning).
The case subject matter is unusual: Clayman seeks to have “In God We Trust” removed from U.S. currency on religious grounds. The AI hallucination surfaced in a sub-issue motion about protecting “Sacred Names of G-d” in court filings, where Clayman cited a nonexistent E.D.N.Y. case for the proposition that courts routinely release religious items after trial. The religious framing of the motion does not change the sanctions analysis; Matthewman evaluated the AI conduct separately from the merits of the underlying request.
The entry is notable for the explicit final-warning formulation: “Plaintiff should consider this his final warning.” This phrasing tracks the same warning escalation visible in Button v. McCawley (also before S.D. Fla. magistrates) and in California’s Noland-line cases. For firms tracking S.D. Fla. AI-citation exposure, the Matthewman docket on this case now carries an explicit trigger: the next hallucinated citation will draw filing restrictions or a sanctions motion.
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 opposing a pro se party with a documented AI-citation warning history (here: DE 45 prior warning, then DE 72 final warning), flag the warning record in any future sanctions motion. The Matthewman 'final warning' formulation is an explicit escalation marker.
- The citation error arose in a 59(e) motion, not the main merits brief, and was conceded by the plaintiff. The court still issued a final warning. S.D. Fla. (Matthewman) is treating ancillary and post-judgment motion filings as within the AI-citation monitoring scope.
- Chief Magistrate Judge Matthewman is one of the highest-volume AI-citation warning judges in S.D. Fla. alongside Magistrate Judge Augustin-Birch. Firms in the West Palm Beach Division should add a Matthewman-specific verification step to AI-assisted filings.
Sources
Primary sources
- AI tool used by Clayman is not named in the order; the court found the citation was 'an AI-generated hallucination' without identifying the specific tool.
- Prior warning at DE 45 at 2 has not been retrieved; the November 21, 2025 order states this is Clayman's 'final warning' and references a prior warning at Docket Entry 45, which is not in RECAP.