Lowrey v. City of Rio Rancho
U.S. District Court, District of New Mexico · D.N.M. · New Mexico bar guidance
Conduct
Pro se plaintiff cited 2 fabricated cases (Cornell v. Precision; Baldwin v. Perdue Farms) plus 11 misrepresented authorities in remand motion.
Consequence
Remand denied. Explicit warning that future violations will face sanctions including monetary penalties or dismissal.
Lesson
Robbenhaar identifies the chambers practice of ordering litigants to produce copies of cited cases as a verification mechanism.
Verified May 14, 2026
- Citation
- Lowrey v. City of Rio Rancho, No. 1:25-cv-00849 JFR/LF (D.N.M. Nov. 5, 2025) (Robbenhaar, M.J.)
- Decided
- November 5, 2025
Summary
Jarrod Lowrey, a pro se plaintiff, filed a civil rights action against the City of Rio Rancho, the Rio Rancho Police Department, and various city and school district officials concerning the treatment of a child with disabilities. After the case was removed to federal court, Lowrey filed an Emergency Motion to Remand whose briefing contained citations to authorities the court could not locate. Magistrate Judge John F. Robbenhaar issued a November 5, 2025 order denying the remand motion and addressing the citation defects. The order identified two entirely fabricated cases: Cornell v. Precision Valve & Automation, Inc., 2011 WL 1420182 (D.N.M. 2011) and Baldwin v. Perdue Farms, Inc., 569 F. Supp. 2d 754 (E.D. Va. 2008). The court observed that "[g]iven the rise of artificial intelligence and its use in court proceedings, courts have begun ordering litigants suspected of citing to AI-hallucinated cases" to produce copies of authorities they cite.
- AI tool:
- Generative AI implied; the order references AI tools producing hallucinated citations
What sanction did the court impose?
Emergency Motion to Remand denied. The court issued an explicit Rule 11 warning rather than a formal sanction, emphasizing that "a plaintiff proceeding pro se is not excused from complying with rule 11's requirements." The order placed Lowrey on notice that "he will face sanctions, ranging from monetary penalties up to and including dismissal of his case, if his future legal filings contain nonexistent cases." No monetary penalty was imposed.
Why does Lowrey v. City of Rio Rancho matter for law firms using AI?
Lowrey v. City of Rio Rancho is one of three D.N.M. AI-citation orders issued in the fall of 2025 (the others being Tomlin v. State of New Mexico, Sept. 30, 2025, and Maturin v. T-Mobile USA, Nov. 25, 2025). The Robbenhaar order is notable for articulating a verification mechanism: where a pro se litigant’s filing contains citation patterns suggesting AI use, the court can order the litigant to produce paper copies of every cited authority. The mechanism shifts the burden of proof from the opposing party (which would otherwise have to demonstrate non-existence by negative search) onto the litigant claiming the citation. The order also emphasizes that pro se status does not excuse Rule 11 compliance, citing parallel D.N.M. case law for that proposition. Cross-reference: Tomlin v. State of New Mexico (D.N.M. Sept. 30, 2025) (Browning, J.); Maturin v. T-Mobile USA, Inc. (D.N.M. Dec. 15, 2025) (Yarbrough, M.J.).
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 the emerging chambers practice of ordering pro se litigants to produce paper copies of cited authorities; this is a low-friction verification technique that courts in this district reference as a model for handling AI-citation suspicion.
- When responding to a pro se emergency motion that is procedurally suspect (e.g., remand after removal), screen the cited authorities for AI-hallucination patterns before drafting the response; identifying nonexistent cases by name in the opposition is now a standard surfacing mechanism.
- Document the firm's protocol for naming fabricated citations specifically (rather than generally alleging unspecified hallucinations) when surfacing AI defects to a magistrate judge; the Robbenhaar order treats the named-citation approach as the proper trigger for a Rule 11 warning.