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 filed fictitious and AI-generated citations in three filings, the last after a Rule 11 finding and repeated dismissal warnings.
Consequence
All claims dismissed with prejudice under Rule 41(b) and the court's inherent authority; defendant allowed to seek fees.
Lesson
Here a prior Rule 11 finding with no sanction, followed by repeated warnings, set up dismissal with prejudice when fictitious citations kept coming.
Verified September 29, 2026
- Citation
- Harris v. Pinnacle Bank, No. 3:25-cv-157-RPC-RP (consolidated with No. 3:25-cv-158-RPC-RP), Memorandum Opinion and Order (N.D. Miss. May 7, 2026), ECF No. 59
- Decided
- May 7, 2026
Summary
Joshua Harris, representing himself, sued Pinnacle Bank under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and for breach of contract in two actions that the court consolidated. His opposition to consolidation cited a non-existent case, "United States v. Mississippi Power & Light Co.," and attributed language to a real Fifth Circuit case that does not appear in it; he declined Pinnacle's request to correct the filing. At a first show-cause hearing on December 2, 2025, the Magistrate Judge found that he violated Rule 11 by citing fictitious authority, declined to sanction him, warned that further violations could lead to dismissal, and required a signed certification in all future filings that he had personally verified his citations. A motion to compel and for sanctions, emailed to the court before that hearing and docketed after it, cited four non-existent authorities, including two local rules and a Supreme Court case, leading to a second show-cause order. Pinnacle then moved to dismiss as a sanction, and the case was stayed. The day before a third show-cause hearing, Harris moved to vacate the stay, citing non-existent "Local Rule 9-9" and "Local Rule 2-21" and misdescribing three Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
- AI tool:
- Generative AI, tool not named (the plaintiff "admitted that he had submitted incorrect, fictitious, and AI-generated legal citations to the Court on numerous separate occasions")
- Sanction amount:
- Dismissal of all claims with prejudice; defendant permitted to move for fees and costs within fourteen days
What sanction did the court impose?
At the April 29, 2026 hearing, Harris admitted submitting "incorrect, fictitious, and AI-generated legal citations" across three filings, conceded that he had not completely verified them, and agreed that dismissal was an appropriate sanction. The court found a clear pattern of delay, contumacious conduct, and disregard of its orders; found actual prejudice to Pinnacle; concluded that he acted "at minimum, with reckless disregard" and that his conduct "was willful and in bad faith"; and held that lesser sanctions would not suffice after prior Rule 11 findings and warnings. Under Rule 41(b) and its inherent authority, it dismissed all of his claims with prejudice. Pinnacle's motion to dismiss or for sanctions and Harris's motion to vacate the stay were denied as moot. The court allowed Pinnacle to file, within fourteen days, a separate motion for additional relief, including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and said a final judgment would issue under Rule 58 if no fee request was made.
Why does Harris v. Pinnacle Bank matter for law firms using AI?
Harris is a study in escalation against a self-represented litigant. The record moved from a request by opposing counsel to correct the filing, to a Rule 11 finding without sanction and a verification-certification requirement, to a second show-cause order, to a stay, and finally to dismissal with prejudice. Each step is documented in the order, and the court relied on that record in finding “a clear pattern of delay, contumacious conduct, and disregard for the Court’s orders.”
The court’s legal framework was Rule 41(b) and inherent authority rather than Rule 11 alone. Under the standards the court applied, dismissal with prejudice requires a clear record of delay or contumacious conduct and a finding that lesser sanctions would not serve justice, plus at least one aggravating factor. The court found delay “attributable solely to Plaintiff’s continued submission of fabricated legal authority,” actual prejudice to Pinnacle, and bad faith, reasoning from “Plaintiff’s repeated submission of fabricated authorities after prior warnings and Rule 11 findings.” It also noted that Harris had not responded to Pinnacle’s motion despite being told the stay did not excuse a response, and that “Plaintiff’s response is now approximately four months overdue,” and that Harris himself conceded at the hearing that dismissal was appropriate.
The fictitious authorities were not limited to cases: four local rules that do not exist appear across two filings, and the final motion cited real Federal Rules for propositions they do not contain. Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider that, in this case, the opponent’s early request to correct the filing and its later motion for dismissal as a sanction both became part of the record the court 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.
- Track each court warning to a litigant who files fictitious citations. Here the court's dismissal rested on its own record of four warnings (Docs. 35, 41, 43, 52) and three show-cause hearings.
- Consider moving for dismissal as a sanction when fictitious citations recur after a court finding; Pinnacle's motion prompted a stay while the court addressed the pattern (the court ultimately dismissed on its own and denied the motion as moot).
- Verify local-rule citations as well as case law. Two of the four non-existent authorities in the motion to compel were local rules, and the later motion to vacate cited two more.