Morales Jimenez v. Shanahan
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York · E.D.N.Y. · New York bar guidance
Conduct
Here a habeas petitioner's counsel cited cases by name only, relied on an abrogated Supreme Court case, and cited at least one case the court said does not exist.
Consequence
No sanction or warning. The court denied the petition and wrote that counsel had not served the client well, calling for zealous advocacy rather than cut-and-paste lawyering.
Lesson
Here the court's criticism of counsel appeared in the merits decision itself, noting the client would at least have had liberal construction as a pro se litigant.
Verified September 30, 2026
- Citation
- Morales Jimenez v. Shanahan, No. 2:26-cv-01501 (BMC), Memorandum Decision and Order (E.D.N.Y. May 12, 2026) (Cogan, J.), ECF No. 9
- Decided
- May 12, 2026
Summary
Henri Giovani Morales Jimenez, a Honduran national detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement under a reinstated removal order, petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus seeking release or a bond hearing. His petition argued that his earlier removal proceedings denied due process and that his detention without a bond hearing was unconstitutional; his reply brief shifted to a Fourth Amendment challenge to the stop and arrest that led to his detention. Judge Cogan held that the court lacked jurisdiction over challenges to the removal proceedings, that the petitioner was detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1231 rather than § 1226 and so was not entitled to a bond hearing within the removal period, and that the Fourth Amendment argument was both improperly raised for the first time in reply and an indirect challenge to the removal order that the court could not review.
- AI tool:
- Unidentified (the decision does not mention artificial intelligence; it states that petitioner's counsel relied on "at least one nonexistent case")
- Amount or terms:
- None; the court criticized counsel's briefing in its decision but imposed no sanction and issued no warning
How did the court address the AI-related conduct?
In a Memorandum Decision and Order dated May 12, 2026, the court denied the petition. "As a final matter," it wrote that "petitioner's counsel has not served him well. She glazed over the facts of the case. She offered broad-ranging propositions without case support. When she did reference cases, she provided only their names – no citations. And she relied on an abrogated Supreme Court case and at least one nonexistent case." The court added that petitioner "would've had the benefit of liberal construction had he proceeded pro se," and that "[i]ndividuals in petitioner's position need zealous advocates, not 'cut-and-paste lawyering,'" quoting Tuba Pulla v. Lyons (S.D.N.Y. 2026). It did not identify the cases at issue, impose a sanction, or direct any warning or further action to counsel.
Why does Morales Jimenez v. Shanahan matter for law firms using AI?
Morales Jimenez is an immigration habeas decision in which the court’s criticism of counsel is the last substantive paragraph. The petition failed on jurisdictional and statutory grounds: the challenge to earlier removal proceedings was barred, the petitioner was detained under the reinstated-removal statute and within the removal period, and a new Fourth Amendment theory appeared only in the reply brief.
Judge Cogan then added “[a]s a final matter” that counsel had “glazed over the facts,” offered propositions without case support, named cases without citing them, and relied on an abrogated Supreme Court case and at least one nonexistent case. The court observed that the petitioner would at least have received liberal construction had he proceeded without a lawyer. The decision imposes no sanction and does not mention artificial intelligence.
Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider that here the court’s assessment of counsel’s work, including a nonexistent citation, is recorded in a public merits decision even though no sanction or warning followed.
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.
- Verify every authority in a habeas filing, including whether it has been abrogated. Here the court noted reliance on an abrogated Supreme Court case and at least one nonexistent case.
- Document full citations for every case referenced. The court criticized briefing that named cases without citing them.
- Consider that a court may record criticism of counsel in a public merits decision even without a sanction. Here the decision states that counsel had not served the client well.
Sources
Primary sources
- AI attribution is a tracker inference: the decision does not mention artificial intelligence. It does not identify the abrogated case or the nonexistent case.
- Petitioner's counsel is not named in the decision and is not named here. The caption prints the docket number as 26-cv-1501 (BMC); the docket lists the case as 2:26-cv-01501.
- The decision is dated May 12, 2026; the docket shows it entered May 13, 2026.