Downing v. Brown
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 11th Cir. · Alabama bar guidance , Florida bar guidance , Georgia bar guidance
Conduct
Pro se appellant's brief quoted a nonexistent Eleventh Circuit case and attributed invented language to a real one.
Consequence
Dismissal affirmed; the Court disregarded the fictitious authorities and struck the portions of the brief containing them.
Lesson
In this unpublished opinion, the panel treated fabricated citations as a breach of the Rule 11(b) duty of candor by a pro se litigant and struck them.
Verified September 30, 2026
- Citation
- Downing v. Brown, No. 25-14133 (11th Cir. May 20, 2026) (per curiam) (unpublished)
- Decided
- May 20, 2026
Summary
Raquel Downing, proceeding pro se, sued in the Northern District of Georgia on behalf of her late father's estate, alleging Georgia wrongful-death, negligence, and related claims against his caregivers and medical providers. After a show-cause order on standing, the district court dismissed the complaint sua sponte, taking judicial notice of a marriage certificate and a Fulton County Probate Court order from a related case to find that her father had a surviving spouse and that another person had been appointed temporary administrator of his estate. On appeal Downing argued that the judicial notice was improper and denied her due process. The Eleventh Circuit found her argument "supported almost exclusively by fabricated legal authorities." She quoted United States v. Jones, 29 F.4th 1290, 1294 (11th Cir. 2022), a precedent that, with its quoted text, does not exist "in any of this Court's precedents in any form," and she attributed to the real decision In re Worldwide Web Sys., Inc., 328 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 2003), a due-process holding that the opinion, which addresses service of process, does not contain. The Court said it "need not consider Downing's argument to the extent it is based on fictitious authorities."
- AI tool:
- Unidentified (the opinion calls the authorities "fabricated" and "fictitious" but does not mention AI or any tool)
- Sanction amount:
- No monetary sanction; portions of the appellant's brief containing fabricated legal authorities struck as improper
What sanction did the court impose?
In an unpublished per curiam opinion, the panel affirmed the dismissal. It held that the district court properly addressed standing before the merits, did not abuse its discretion in taking judicial notice of the state-court records under Federal Rule of Evidence 201, and did not deny Downing an opportunity to be heard because she could have moved to reopen under Rules 59(e) or 60(b) after the dismissal without prejudice. Separately, the Court said that pro se litigants must conform to procedural rules, "which include the duty of candor to the court, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)," concluded that by "filing an appellate brief replete with fictitious cases and made-up quotations" Downing violated that obligation, and struck "those portions of her brief containing fabricated legal authorities as improper." No monetary sanction, fee award, or filing restriction was imposed.
Why does Downing v. Brown matter for law firms using AI?
Downing v. Brown is a short unpublished affirmance, and the fabricated authorities do two kinds of work in it. First, they weaken the merits: the panel opened its analysis by noting that Downing’s due-process argument was “supported almost exclusively by fabricated legal authorities,” gave two examples, and said it “need not consider Downing’s argument to the extent it is based on fictitious authorities.” It then addressed the argument anyway and rejected it on the law of judicial notice.
Second, they draw a separate ruling at the end of the opinion. Citing Albra v. Advan, Inc. and Loren v. Sasser for the rule that pro se litigants must follow procedural rules, the panel described those rules as including “the duty of candor to the court, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b),” and concluded that Downing violated that duty by “filing an appellate brief replete with fictitious cases and made-up quotations.” The remedy was limited to striking the offending portions of her brief. The opinion does not use the word “sanction,” does not mention AI, and imposes no fee or filing restriction.
The examples the Court chose are instructive for verification practice. One was a case that does not exist; the other was a real Eleventh Circuit decision, In re Worldwide Web Sys., to which the brief attributed a due-process quotation the opinion does not contain. Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider that a citation check confirming a case exists would have caught only the first.
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 quotations against the cited opinion, not only the citation. One of the two examples the Court gave was a real Eleventh Circuit case with a quotation it does not contain.
- Review briefs responding to pro se appellants for fabricated authority. The Court said it need not consider the argument to the extent it rested on fictitious authorities, then rejected it on the merits even considering it.
- Consider the candor framing. The Court tied the violation to the Rule 11(b) duty of candor and applied it notwithstanding the liberal construction given to pro se filings.
Sources
Primary sources
- AI attribution: the opinion does not mention artificial intelligence; it finds fabricated citations and made-up quotations. Attribution to AI is a Charlotin tracker inference.