Van Etten v. Fattman
U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts · D. Mass. · Massachusetts bar guidance
Conduct
Pro se plaintiff in a family court collateral attack matter appeared to rely on generative AI for statements of law and cited unsupported authority.
Consequence
Court issued a footnote warning about AI-generated statements of law; no sanction imposed; underlying matter dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Lesson
Family court collateral-attack pro se litigation is a notable AI-hallucination context in D. Mass.
Verified May 14, 2026
- Citation
- Van Etten v. Fattman, No. 4:24-cv-40113-MRG (D. Mass. Mar. 6, 2026) (Guzman, D.J.)
- Decided
- March 6, 2026
Summary
Gregory J. Van Etten, proceeding pro se, brought an action against Stephanie K. Fattman, multiple Massachusetts Probate and Family Court officials, and other defendants in the District of Massachusetts. In a March 6, 2026 Memorandum and Order adopting Magistrate Judge David H. Hennessy's reports and recommendations and dismissing the action, District Judge Margaret R. Guzman included a footnote warning that plaintiff appeared to rely on generative AI for statements of law, noting that AI can produce incorrect or made-up citations and should not be relied upon without review. The order imposed no sanction. The Charlotin tracker classifies the matter as a pro se litigant with implied AI use producing one fabricated item categorized as "other" (rather than case-law citation, exhibit, or quote).
- AI tool:
- Generative AI implied; the order addresses fabricated content characteristic of AI hallucination output
What sanction did the court impose?
No sanction was imposed. The March 6, 2026 Memorandum and Order (ECF No. 149) overruled plaintiff's objections, adopted Magistrate Judge Hennessy's reports and recommendations (ECF Nos. 116, 118 in full; ECF No. 136 in part), granted the defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and the Eleventh Amendment, struck the amended complaint, and terminated the action. The AI issue was addressed only in a footnote warning to the pro se plaintiff. The First Circuit appellate dockets 72651678 and 71136926 reflect post-judgment appellate activity.
Why does Van Etten v. Fattman matter for law firms using AI?
Van Etten v. Fattman is one of three District Judge Margaret R. Guzman AI-related orders surfaced on the Charlotin tracker in March 2026. The Charlotin classification of the fabrication as “other” (rather than case-law, exhibit, or quote) is unusual; the underlying matter is a pro se collateral attack on Massachusetts Probate and Family Court orders, which involves multiple state-actor defendants and a complex family-law factual record. The March 6, 2026 Memorandum and Order (ECF No. 149) is the dismissal order itself: it adopts Magistrate Judge David H. Hennessy’s reports and recommendations, dismisses the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rooker-Feldman and the Eleventh Amendment, and terminates the case. The AI issue appears only in a footnote warning that the pro se plaintiff seemed to rely on generative AI for statements of law and cited authority that did not support his propositions. No sanction was imposed. Cross-reference: Souza v. City of Fitchburg (D. Mass. Mar. 30, 2026) (Guzman, D.J.) for the same chambers’ fabricated-exhibit matter, 24 days later. The two Guzman March 2026 orders are paired in this database as the “Guzman chambers cluster” demonstrating diverse AI-hallucination conduct types in a single chambers.
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.
- Pro se collateral attacks on Massachusetts Probate and Family Court orders are an emerging AI-hallucination context; the Van Etten matter shows how AI tools amplify pro se tendency to file complex multi-defendant federal civil rights actions targeting state-court actors.
- Track District Judge Guzman's emerging chambers practice on AI-hallucinated content; she has multiple Charlotin-tracked orders concentrated in March 2026 across different conduct types (citations, exhibits, 'other' submissions).
Sources
Primary sources
Further reading
- The specific 'other' fabrication category is not extracted by type in this entry; the Charlotin tracker classifies the fabrication as 'other' rather than the more common case-law / exhibit / quote categories.