Donte McClellon v. E. Rickard, Warden of FCI Otisville
U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York · S.D.N.Y. · New York bar guidance
Conduct
Incarcerated pro se petitioner cited at least three non-existent cases with fake quotations in reply briefing.
Consequence
Warning from S.D.N.Y. Magistrate Judge Moses; no monetary sanction or referral.
Lesson
Incarcerated pro se litigants get the same warning-first treatment as outside pro se litigants in S.D.N.Y. AI cases.
Verified May 7, 2026
- Citation
- McClellon v. Rickard, No. 1:24-cv-10053 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 11, 2026) (Moses, M.J.)
- Decided
- March 11, 2026
Summary
Pro se petitioner Donte McClellon, an inmate at FCI Otisville, filed a reply in his habeas/civil rights matter that cited at least three judicial opinions the court could not locate. Magistrate Judge Moses identified these as likely AI-generated fabricated cases and noted the presence of "fake quotes and citations" consistent with AI hallucination. The court issued a warning to the pro se petitioner.
- AI tool:
- Implied (Magistrate Judge identified hallmarks of AI-generated fabricated cases; specific tool not identified)
What sanction did the court impose?
Warning issued; no monetary sanction or formal disciplinary referral imposed.
Why does Donte McClellon v. E. Rickard, Warden of FCI Otisville matter for law firms using AI?
McClellon extends the S.D.N.Y. pro se warning pattern to incarcerated petitioners with limited research access. The court’s response (warning without monetary sanction) tracks the disposition in Tantaros, Anonymous v. NYC DOE, and Dukuray v. Experian, suggesting that S.D.N.Y. judges have converged on first-occurrence warning as the default pro se response across case types: civil rights, employment, consumer protection, and habeas.
For firms representing federal defendants in S.D.N.Y. prisoner-litigation matters, the operational point is that AI-fabricated citations are now common enough among incarcerated pro se filers (who often rely on prison-library chat tools or shared filings circulated among inmates) that cite-checking the opposition is worth the time. Surfacing fabrications in a response brief draws the court’s attention without requiring a separate motion to strike, and positions the firm’s client as the credible source on the legal record.
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.
- When responding to an incarcerated pro se petitioner's filings in S.D.N.Y., assume some citations may be AI-generated and verify each one before citing it back or distinguishing it on the merits.
- Fake quotation language is now an explicit category courts identify; verify quoted holdings against the cited opinion, not just the citation.
Sources
Primary sources
Further reading
- R&G's tracker attributes this order to Judge Vernon S. Broderick; Charlotin's database attributes it to Magistrate Judge Moses. The Charlotin attribution is used here as the more specific record. The case may have both a Magistrate Judge (Moses) handling pre-trial matters and a District Judge (Broderick) of record; the AI-related order specifically appears to be Magistrate Judge Moses's.
- Charlotin's filename uses the spelling 'McClennon' but the CourtListener docket and R&G use 'McClellon'. CourtListener docket 1:24-cv-10053 is the canonical reference.
- Order text was not extracted verbatim during this verification pass; Charlotin's CSV synopsis is the source for the substantive narrative.