Harris v. Pinnacle Bank
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Mississippi, Oxford Division · N.D. Miss. · Mississippi bar guidance
Conduct
A pro se plaintiff's opposition to consolidation cited a non-existent Fifth Circuit case and attributed language to a real case that does not contain it.
Consequence
Here the court found a Rule 11(b) violation, declined sanctions at this time, warned that further violations would bring sanctions up to dismissal, and required certifications.
Lesson
In this case the Rule 11 finding and warning, with no sanction, became part of the record for the later dismissal with prejudice.
Verified September 29, 2026
- Citation
- Harris v. Pinnacle Bank, No. 3:25-cv-157-DMB-RP (consolidated with No. 3:25-cv-158-MPM-JMV), Order (N.D. Miss. Dec. 2, 2025) (Percy, M.J.), ECF No. 41
- Decided
- December 2, 2025
Summary
Joshua Harris, representing himself, sued Pinnacle Bank (FCRA and breach-of-contract claims) and filed a second action; the two were consolidated. According to the court's May 7, 2026 memorandum opinion in the same case, Harris's response opposing consolidation cited a non-existent case, "United States v. Mississippi Power & Light Co., 714 F.2d 1366, 1371 (5th Cir. 1983)," and attributed language to Dupont v. Southern Pac. Co., 366 F.2d 193 (5th Cir. 1966), that does not appear in that opinion. The May 2026 opinion recounts that on October 30, 2025 Pinnacle's counsel notified Harris that the response contained fictitious, AI-generated, or hallucinated citations and asked him to correct it; when he declined, Pinnacle moved to strike. On November 24, 2025, per the docket text, Harris filed a notice withdrawing his reply in further opposition to consolidation (Doc. 29) as erroneous, attaching a corrected reply and a Rule 11 certification (Doc. 37). The opinion states that "[o]nce the Court learned that Plaintiff's response likely contained AI-generated legal citations, it ordered Plaintiff to appear and show cause" (Doc. 35, November 17, 2025). The first show-cause hearing was held on December 2, 2025, and Magistrate Judge Roy Percy entered an order the same day (Doc. 41).
- AI tool:
- Not mentioned in the order (the order refers only to "fictitious legal authorities"; the court's later May 7, 2026 opinion says the show cause issued after the court learned the filing "likely contained AI-generated legal citations")
What did the court warn about?
The December 2, 2025 order states that, "[a]s stated from the bench at the conclusion of the hearing, the court finds that the plaintiff's citation of fictitious legal authorities constitutes a violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b); the court declines to impose sanctions against the plaintiff at this time; and the court admonishes the plaintiff against any further violations, the commission of which will result in sanctions up to and including dismissal of this action." It also required Harris "to include in all further filings in this action a signed certification that he has personally verified the existence and accuracy of all legal citations contained in said filing." According to the court's May 7, 2026 opinion, Harris's motion to compel, emailed before the hearing, also contained fictitious authority and led to a second show-cause order the next day, and a later motion to vacate the stay cited non-existent local rules. On May 7, 2026 the district judge dismissed all of his claims with prejudice, relying in part on the Rule 11 finding and warning in this order; that decision has its own entry.
Why does Harris v. Pinnacle Bank matter for law firms using AI?
This entry records the first formal ruling in Harris v. Pinnacle Bank on fictitious citations. After a show-cause hearing, Magistrate Judge Roy Percy found that the plaintiff’s “citation of fictitious legal authorities constitutes a violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b),” declined to impose sanctions “at this time,” and admonished him that further violations “will result in sanctions up to and including dismissal of this action.” The order also required a signed certification in every further filing that he “has personally verified the existence and accuracy of all legal citations.” The order itself does not mention AI.
The sequence that followed is set out in the court’s later opinion. Harris’s motion to compel, emailed to the court before the hearing and docketed after it, cited four non-existent authorities and prompted a second show-cause order the next day. Pinnacle then moved to dismiss as a sanction, and the case was stayed. On May 7, 2026 the district judge dismissed all claims with prejudice, reasoning from the plaintiff’s “repeated submission of fabricated authorities after prior warnings and Rule 11 findings”; see Harris v. Pinnacle Bank (May 2026). Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider that, here, a Rule 11 finding with no sanction became part of the record the court later relied on.
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.
- Document any request from opposing counsel to correct a filing. Here Pinnacle's October 2025 request, which Harris declined, preceded the court's show-cause order.
- Review what a court-ordered citation certification requires; here it covered 'the existence and accuracy of all legal citations' in every further filing.
- Consider that a warning with no sanction can anchor later, harsher relief; the court's May 2026 dismissal with prejudice relied in part on this Rule 11 finding and warning.
Sources
Primary sources
- AI attribution: the December 2, 2025 order does not mention AI; it refers only to "fictitious legal authorities." The court's May 7, 2026 opinion says the show cause issued after the court learned the response "likely contained AI-generated legal citations," and records Harris's admission at an April 29, 2026 hearing that he submitted AI-generated citations. The order PDF's embedded document title mentions AI, but that is file metadata, not the order's text.
- Doc. 37 (November 24, 2025) is described only from its CourtListener docket text ('NOTICE of Withdrawal of Erroneous Pleadings by Joshua Harris re (29) Reply in Further Opposition', with a corrected reply and a Rule 11 certification attached); the filing was not read, the fictitious citations the May 2026 opinion identifies were in a response in opposition rather than necessarily Doc. 29, and the December 2 order does not mention the withdrawal.
- Pro se status is taken from the May 7, 2026 opinion ('Plaintiff is proceeding pro se'); the December 2 order does not state it.