June 1, 2026 (in 3 days): New York: 22 NYCRR Part 161 takes effect, system-wide AI policy for all UCS courts

Lopez Hernandez v. Lundy

U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California · E.D. Cal. · California bar guidance

Court sanction

Verified April 26, 2026

Citation
Lopez Hernandez v. Lundy, No. 1:25-cv-02007-SKO (E.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2026)
Decided
January 14, 2026

Summary

Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto denied a habeas petitioner's motion for a temporary restraining order and dismissed the § 2241 petition without prejudice. In a footnote, the court noted that petitioner's counsel cited Zepeda Rivas v. Jennings, No. 1:20-cv-02731-JLT, 2020 WL 2537748 (E.D. Cal. May 18, 2020) for the proposition that "Courts in this District have granted emergency relief on similar showings." The court flatly stated, "No such case exists," and observed that other filings by the same attorney of record suffer from similar non-existent case citations. The court declined to impose its own discipline because the broader citation problem is being addressed by Judge Chi Soo Kim in a separate case.

AI tool:
Unspecified generative AI
This case summary is informational only. Verify the underlying opinion or order against the primary source before relying on it in any filing or client matter.

What sanction did the court impose?

TRO denied and habeas petition dismissed without prejudice. The court identified the fabricated citation on the record but deferred sanctions proceedings to a parallel matter before Judge Chi Soo Kim addressing the same attorney's pattern of fabricated citations. No monetary sanction was imposed in this order.

Why does Lopez Hernandez v. Lundy matter for law firms using AI?

The notable feature of this order is the cross-reference: a magistrate judge in a routine habeas matter pauses to flag a fabricated citation, observes the attorney’s pattern across other filings, then defers discipline to a colleague handling the same lawyer’s broader misconduct. For a managing partner, the lesson is that fabricated citations now travel between dockets and judges. One judge’s footnote becomes another judge’s evidence, and a single lapse in citation verification can be aggregated into a multi-case sanctions proceeding before counsel realizes the trail exists.

Sources

Further reading

Source PDF is a Westlaw printout mirrored from the Damien Charlotin hallucination database. We are working to add the underlying court docket (PACER, CourtListener, or court website) as a second source.

Unverified claims:
  • Identity of the sanctioned attorney is not stated in this order; the related sanctions proceeding is before Judge Chi Soo Kim in a separate case not yet retrieved.
  • The order does not name the AI tool used; "unspecified generative AI" is inferred from the fabricated-citation pattern.