Pamon v. United States Postal Service
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division · N.D. Tex. · Texas bar guidance
Conduct
A pro se plaintiff cited two Westlaw numbers the court could not match to the named cases, then withdrew the filing rather than supply copies of the cases.
Consequence
Here the district judge upheld the magistrate judge's finding and AI warning; a separate $610 Rule 37(d) discovery fine was also upheld.
Lesson
In this case withdrawing a challenged filing instead of producing the cited opinions left the nonexistent-case finding intact on review.
Verified September 29, 2026
- Citation
- Pamon v. United States Postal Service, No. 3:24-CV-2061-X-BK, Memorandum Opinion and Order (N.D. Tex. July 22, 2026), ECF No. 159
- Decided
- July 22, 2026
Summary
Dionne M. Pamon, representing herself in an action against the United States Postal Service and others, objected to a magistrate judge's order on non-dispositive motions. Among other rulings, that order found she had cited cases that do not exist and misrepresented the holdings of others, warned her about the use of AI, and fined her $610 under Rule 37(d) for failing to meet her discovery obligations. The district judge's order identifies two of the citations the magistrate judge flagged, "McCarty v. United States, 2015 WL 1543969" and "Harris v. Dallas Cnty. Hosp. Dist., 2022 WL 17830420," and states that the court "also did not find these cases associated with the corresponding Westlaw citation." The court gave Pamon an opportunity to supply PDF copies of the cited cases to show they existed. Instead she "withdrew" the notice that contained the citations and did not provide the copies. Pamon's five objections challenged the finding that she cited nonexistent cases, the AI warning, the $610 fine, the magistrate judge's reading of Local Rule 7.1(h), and alleged bias.
- AI tool:
- Unidentified (the order upholds a magistrate judge's warning about AI use after two cited cases could not be found; it names no tool and makes no finding that AI was used)
What did the court warn about?
Reviewing under Rule 72(a) for clear error, the district judge overruled all five objections and denied Pamon any relief from the underlying order. On the citations, the court held the magistrate judge's finding was not clearly erroneous because the two cases did not correspond to the Westlaw citations given and Pamon withdrew the filing rather than produce copies. On the AI warning, it held that for the same reasons "the warning regarding the use of AI was proper under the circumstances." The $610 fine was upheld as a Rule 37(d) discovery sanction for failing to complete discovery obligations without substantial justification; the order does not tie that fine to the citations. The court also found no clear error in the magistrate judge's application of the local rules and no bias, stating that Pamon's motions were denied because they "were unmeritorious and frivolous."
Why does Pamon v. United States Postal Service matter for law firms using AI?
This short order is a review of a magistrate judge’s non-dispositive ruling, and it shows the limited scope of that review. Pamon framed her challenge under Rule 72(b), but the district judge treated it under Rule 72(a), asking only whether the magistrate judge’s order was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. On that standard each objection failed.
The citation ruling turned on a simple test the court applied itself: the two Westlaw citations did not correspond to the cases Pamon named. The court then offered her the chance to supply PDF copies, and she withdrew the notice containing the citations instead. The district judge held the finding not clearly erroneous and that the warning regarding the use of AI “was proper under the circumstances.” The order does not find that Pamon used AI; it approves a warning.
The monetary piece of the underlying order is unrelated to the citations. The $610 fine rests on Rule 37(d)(1)(A)(i), for Pamon’s failure to complete discovery obligations without substantial justification, and the district judge rejected her argument that the Postal Service’s own discovery responses excused that failure.
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 that every Westlaw or Lexis number cited resolves to the named case. Here the court's check of the two database citations was the basis for the finding.
- Document the response when a court asks for copies of cited authority. The court treated Pamon's withdrawal of the notice, rather than production of the cases, as leaving the finding undisturbed.
- Review the standard of review before objecting to a magistrate judge's ruling. Here the court applied Rule 72(a) clear-error review to the non-dispositive order and noted that Pamon had erroneously cited Rule 72(b).
Sources
Primary sources
- AI attribution: the order refers only to a magistrate judge's 'warning regarding the use of AI' and finds no AI use. The tracker's AI coding is a Charlotin inference from that warning.
- The magistrate judge's underlying order (believed to be ECF No. 148, May 15, 2026, before Magistrate Judge Toliver) is not in the RECAP archive and was not read; its exact text, date, and the wording of the AI warning are unverified.