Cummins v. Becerra
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California · E.D. Cal. · California bar guidance
Verified October 1, 2026
- Citation
- Cummins v. Becerra, No. 1:25-cv-01853-DC-AC, 2026 WL 373336 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2026)
- Decided
- February 9, 2026
Summary
Petitioner's counsel Robert G. Cummings filed a motion to enforce and modify habeas relief and a reply that contained numerous citations to cases that either did not exist or did not support the propositions asserted, including Vuong, Arellano, Calderon, and Pham. After the court ordered counsel to appear and address the hallucinated citations, Cummings filed a notice of errata conceding the four cases did not appear in publicly available legal databases but did not address all of the erroneous citations. Judge Dena Coggins found the citations bore the hallmarks of generative AI hallucinations and also flagged the unauthorized appearance of uncertified law student Gina Herrera in violation of Local Rule 181.
- AI tool:
- Unspecified generative AI
How did the court address the AI-related conduct?
No sanction appears in the docket text available on CourtListener. On February 9, 2026 the court ordered Petitioner's counsel to explain by February 20, 2026 why sanctions or other disciplinary action should not issue for the inclusion of non-existent and erroneous citations and for the unauthorized appearance of an uncertified law student (ECF No. 35). No ruling on that order appears in the docket text available on CourtListener. On September 25, 2026 the court dismissed the petition without prejudice as moot and closed the case (ECF No. 45).
Why does Cummins v. Becerra matter for law firms using AI?
Cummins illustrates two compounding compliance failures a managing partner should treat as a single risk pattern: an attorney who files AI-generated citations without verification, and a supervised non-attorney appearing in federal court without local-rule certification. The order also notes that the same counsel had already been warned about the law student’s unauthorized appearances in a parallel case, underscoring that courts treat repeat conduct as an aggravating factor when calibrating sanctions.
Sources
Primary sources
Further reading
Source PDF is a Westlaw printout mirrored from the Damien Charlotin hallucination database. We are working to add the underlying court docket (PACER, CourtListener, or court website) as a second source.
- Two minute orders, ECF No. 36 (May 29, 2026) and ECF No. 43 (Aug. 26, 2026), have no public text on CourtListener. Whether either resolved the February 9, 2026 order to show cause, and how, is not verified; the classification as other rests on the docket text available.