Holmes v. Cape Meadows
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Southeastern Division · E.D. Mo. · Missouri bar guidance
Conduct
A pro se tenant's TRO motion kept template placeholders like "[INSERT DATE]" and cited a nonexistent Ninth Circuit case.
Consequence
Here the court said the defects violated Rule 11(b) and justified striking the motion, but ruled on it as filed; the TRO was denied and the case dismissed without prejudice.
Lesson
In this case the court cited unfilled template brackets, together with a nonexistent case, as signs the motion appeared to be drafted with generative AI.
Verified September 29, 2026
- Citation
- Holmes v. Cape Meadows, No. 1:26-cv-00089-SNLJ, Memorandum and Order (E.D. Mo. July 10, 2026) (Limbaugh, J.), ECF No. 35
- Decided
- July 10, 2026
Summary
Shayla Holmes, representing herself, sued the apartment complex where she lives in Cape Girardeau, Missouri. She later filed an "Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order" that, in the court's words, "appears to have been drafted using generative artificial intelligence." The court pointed to text that still contained placeholder brackets where the litigant was supposed to fill in her own facts, such as "[THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS – 10,000 or more]," "[INSERT DATE]," and "[DATE OF UNAUTHORIZED ENTRY]," and to a citation to a nonexistent case, "Corrigan v. City of Scottsdale, 720 F.3d 513, 520 (9th Cir. 2013)." The motion sought emergency habitability repairs, rent abatement, return of fees, injunctive relief, and expedited discovery, and in the alternative offered to settle for $100 million and full ownership of the apartment complex. It also contained factual assertions (including alleged unauthorized entries into her unit on the unfilled "[DATE OF UNAUTHORIZED ENTRY]") that were not in her complaint.
- AI tool:
- Generative AI, tool not identified (the court states the TRO motion 'appears to have been drafted using generative artificial intelligence,' citing unfilled template brackets and a nonexistent case)
How did the court address the AI-related conduct?
In a footnote, Senior District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr. stated that these issues "are violations of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b) and justify the striking of this motion from the record," and that even self-represented litigants must follow the Federal Rules, but found "the best use of judicial resources is to address this motion as is so that the case can proceed." The court did not strike the motion or impose a sanction. It granted Holmes leave to proceed in forma pauperis, denied the TRO motion under the Dataphase factors, reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), and dismissed it without prejudice for failure to state a claim, directing that process not issue. Her motions to appoint counsel and to preserve evidence and electronically stored information were denied as moot, and the court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
Why does Holmes v. Cape Meadows matter for law firms using AI?
The order is a screening decision on a pro se housing complaint, and its AI discussion is brief. What makes it useful is the evidence the court relied on. Judge Limbaugh pointed to the motion’s unfilled placeholders, bracketed prompts where a litigant would insert her own facts (“[INSERT DATE],” “[DATE OF UNAUTHORIZED ENTRY],” a bracketed dollar range), and then to a citation to “Corrigan v. City of Scottsdale,” which he described as a nonexistent case. On that basis the court said the motion “appears to have been drafted using generative artificial intelligence.”
The court treated the defects as Rule 11(b) violations that would justify striking the motion, and it reminded the plaintiff that self-represented litigants must follow the Federal Rules. It then declined to strike, reasoning that deciding the motion as filed was the better use of judicial resources. The TRO failed on the Dataphase factors, and the complaint was dismissed on initial review under the in forma pauperis statute.
The order imposes no sanction and gives no separate warning. For firms, its value is as an example of a court drawing its AI observation from the face of the document: unfilled placeholders together with a case it described as nonexistent.
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.
- Review filings for leftover template placeholders before they are signed. Here the court cited bracketed prompts such as "[INSERT DATE]" as a sign of AI drafting.
- Verify every citation in emergency motions, where time pressure is greatest. The TRO motion here cited a Ninth Circuit reporter citation the court described as a nonexistent case.
- Consider that a court may note a Rule 11(b) violation without acting on it. Here the court said striking was justified but chose to decide the motion so the case could proceed.