Hardy v. Whitaker
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan · E.D. Mich. · Michigan bar guidance
Conduct
Pro se Plaintiff filed summary-judgment briefing with four fake AI-generated citations after a 20-year history of vexatious litigation.
Consequence
R&R recommending Rule 41(b) dismissal with prejudice and an injunction barring future filings in the district.
Lesson
First E.D. Mich. case using AI-generated fake citations as a contributing factor for a vexatious-litigant injunction.
Verified May 7, 2026
- Citation
- Hardy v. Whitaker, No. 1:24-cv-11270 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 12, 2026) (Stafford, M.J.)
- Filing date
- January 12, 2026
Summary
Pro se Plaintiff Gregory Hardy, a serial pro se filer with a 20-year history of litigation in Michigan federal courts, filed a motion for summary judgment in his § 1983 case against Flint Police Officer DeShawn Perry that included four fake citations: Patel v. City of Ferndale, 308 F.3d 511 (6th Cir. 2002); Thompson v. City of Lebanon, 813 F.3d 318 (6th Cir. 2016); Spurlock v. Satterfield, 167 F.3d 915 (5th Cir. 1999); and Wesley v. Rigney, 860 F.3d 931 (6th Cir. 2017). Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford inferred AI use as the source of the fabricated citations and issued a Report and Recommendation to dismiss the action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) and to enjoin Hardy from filing new actions in the district.
- AI tool:
- Generative AI (specific tool not identified; Magistrate Judge Stafford inferred AI use from four fake citations in Plaintiff's summary-judgment briefing)
What is the current procedural posture?
Report and Recommendation issued recommending dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(b) and an injunction barring Plaintiff from filing new actions in the Eastern District of Michigan without leave of court. The case was simultaneously stayed pending the District Judge's decision on the R&R. The R&R cites Smart v. The Professional Group, 2025 WL 3091139 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 5, 2025), and the Damien Charlotin AI hallucinations catalog as part of the rationale for treating the conduct as warranting injunctive relief.
Why does Hardy v. Whitaker matter for law firms using AI?
Hardy v. Whitaker is the first E.D. Michigan case to treat AI-generated fake citations as a contributing factor in an analysis recommending a vexatious-litigant injunction under the All Writs Act. Magistrate Judge Stafford’s report and recommendation walks through Hardy’s 20-year history of frivolous filings in Michigan federal courts, including multiple prior dismissals and warnings, and uses the four fake citations in his summary-judgment briefing as the most recent escalation. The doctrinal frame is that AI-enabled volume amplifies the underlying vexatiousness: a litigant who could once file three or four motions per case can now file fifteen or twenty, each containing fabricated citations that opposing counsel and the court must spend resources verifying.
The R&R cites the Damien Charlotin AI hallucinations database directly by URL, treating the catalog as authoritative on the scope of the problem. It also includes the unusual observation, sourced to the E.D. Michigan Court Administrator’s office, that non-prisoner pro se filings have exceeded prisoner filings in the district for the first time in recent years, with the increase attributed in part to AI availability. For firms representing institutional defendants in pro se matters, the practical takeaway is that vexatious-litigant injunction motions are more likely to succeed when paired with documented AI hallucinations, and that the Stafford Hardy v. Whitaker R&R now provides the doctrinal template for the argument. The case is the third in the Stafford chambers cluster (alongside Hardy v. Jones and Killebrew v. McKiddy) and the most fully developed published treatment.
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.
- AI hallucinations are now a contributing factor in vexatious-litigant injunction analysis when paired with a long history of frivolous filings.
- Stafford's R&R cites the Charlotin database directly by URL; firms can reference the catalog as primary authority for district-wide AI misuse trends.
- The R&R notes that non-prisoner pro se filings now exceed prisoner filings in E.D. Mich. for the first time in recent years, attributed in part to AI availability; firms representing institutional defendants should expect Rule 12(b)(6) motions in pro se matters to invoke this trend.