Moore v. City of Del City
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 10th Cir. · Colorado bar guidance , Kansas bar guidance , New Mexico bar guidance , Oklahoma bar guidance , Utah bar guidance , Wyoming bar guidance
Conduct
Pro se appellant filed Title VII / ADEA appellate briefing with fabricated case citations and misrepresented authority.
Consequence
Affirmed on time-bar grounds; appeal alternatively dismissed as sanction. Future filings require sworn AI-use declaration.
Lesson
Tenth Circuit will dismiss alternatively as sanction and impose per-litigant declaration regimes for AI-fabricated citations.
Verified May 8, 2026
- Citation
- Moore v. City of Del City, No. 25-6002 (10th Cir. Dec. 3, 2025) (Tymkovich, Baldock, Phillips, JJ.)
- Decided
- December 3, 2025
Summary
Pro se plaintiff Moore appealed the district court's dismissal of her Title VII and ADEA claims against the City of Del City, Oklahoma. The Tenth Circuit panel (Tymkovich, Baldock, Phillips) affirmed on the merits, finding that Moore had not timely filed an EEOC charge within the 300-day statutory window. Separately, the court determined that Moore's appellate briefing contained fabricated case citations and authority that misrepresented the underlying holdings. As a sanction, the court alternatively dismissed the appeal and ordered that any future filing in any Tenth Circuit matter from Moore include a sworn declaration under penalty of perjury confirming whether AI was used and certifying that all citations and authority had been verified for accuracy.
- AI tool:
- Generative AI (no specific tool named in the order)
What sanction did the court impose?
Dismissal of Title VII and ADEA claims affirmed on time-bar grounds. Appeal alternatively dismissed as sanction for AI-fabricated citations. Penalty-of-perjury AI-use declaration ordered for any future Moore filing in the Tenth Circuit.
Why does Moore v. City of Del City matter for law firms using AI?
Moore matters less for what it dismissed than for what it imposed prospectively. The Tenth Circuit had ample time-bar grounds to affirm; it could have stopped there. Instead, the panel layered a separate sanctions analysis on top, alternatively dismissing the appeal for the AI-fabricated citations and ordering that any future Moore filing in any Tenth Circuit matter include a sworn declaration under penalty of perjury describing AI use and certifying citation verification. That declaration regime is broader than the standing orders some federal magistrates have adopted; it follows a single litigant across all future appeals, not just matters before this panel.
The verbatim line “Fabricating case citations and clearly misrepresenting what a case stands for are the antithesis of citing to supporting authority” reads as a baseline statement of the bar’s position, not an artifact of the AI hallucination moment specifically. For a Pennsylvania or other-jurisdiction firm with adverse pro se opposition that has shown signs of AI-assisted briefing in earlier filings, Moore is useful citation in any motion arguing for a per-litigant disclosure regime as a tailored remedy, before invoking the more drastic dismissal-as-sanction posture the court adopted here.
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 Tenth Circuit pro se filings against the firm for AI-hallucination markers; the court is using alternative dismissal as a remedy.
- Document the sworn-declaration regime that may apply to specific litigants in 10th Cir. matters; per-litigant orders coexist with chambers-wide standing orders.
Sources
Primary sources
Further reading
- Document mirror (Damien Charlotin hallucination database, Westlaw printout)
- Justia (legal aggregator)
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.