Powhatan County School Board v. Skinger
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division · E.D. Va. · Virginia bar guidance
Conduct
Pro se defendant filed at least 42 fabricated or mischaracterized citations across six filings, admitted using ChatGPT.
Consequence
Six filings stricken; monetary sanctions declined as ineffective against judgment-proof litigant; right to refile preserved.
Lesson
When a litigant is judgment-proof, courts substitute filing-strike sanctions; the docket consequence still attaches.
Verified May 7, 2026
- Citation
- Powhatan Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Skinger, No. 3:24-cv-00874 (E.D. Va. June 2, 2025) (Payne, J.)
- Decided
- June 2, 2025
Summary
Pro se defendant Kandise Lucas, in an Individuals with Disabilities Education Act matter brought by the Powhatan County School Board against co-defendants Todd Skinger and Lucas, admitted at an April 2, 2025 hearing that she had used ChatGPT to draft at least one filing. Senior United States District Judge Robert E. Payne identified at least 42 citations to nonexistent or irrelevant cases across six separate filings (ECF Nos. 7, 9, 11, 22, 88, and 115), including fabricated Fourth Circuit, Second Circuit, Ninth Circuit, and E.D. Va. decisions, citations to reporter pages that do not exist, and case names with no plausible match in any reporter.
- AI tool:
- ChatGPT
What sanction did the court impose?
Six filings were stricken from the record (the answer and motion to dismiss, motion to recuse, response, opposition to preliminary injunction, motion for reconsideration, and pro se reply memorandum). The court declined to impose monetary sanctions on the ground that Lucas appeared to be judgment-proof and that monetary penalties would not deter the pattern of conduct. Lucas was permitted to submit replacement filings complying with procedural rules. In a subsequent opinion, the court declined to reconsider its findings, rejecting Lucas's contention that the citations were "contested" rather than fabricated and noting that the pervasive volume of nonexistent cases could only plausibly be explained by AI hallucination.
Why does Powhatan County School Board v. Skinger matter for law firms using AI?
Powhatan is the most-cited E.D. Va. AI-hallucination opinion to date. The order’s analytical contributions are: (1) treating filing-strike as the operative sanction when monetary penalties cannot deter a judgment-proof litigant, (2) cataloguing 42 specific citation defects to support a finding of fabrication rather than negligence, and (3) holding that pervasive volume of nonexistent citations alone supports an AI-fabrication inference, distinct from but reinforced by the litigant’s admission of ChatGPT use. The follow-on reconsideration opinion is also load-bearing: the court treated the AI-fabrication finding as a factual conclusion based on its own diligent research rather than an “assumption,” foreclosing the standard pro se “give-me-a-chance-to-correct” path where the volume of fabrication is large.
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 opposing AI-pattern filings from a judgment-proof pro se party, prioritize motions to strike over Rule 11 fee-shifting.
- Build the citation-fabrication record across multiple filings before moving; the Powhatan court counted across six filings to support striking.
- The Powhatan order is a leading E.D. Va. analytical template; cite it for the proposition that pervasive nonexistent citations alone support an AI-fabrication finding without a litigant admission, even when an admission is available.
Sources
Primary sources
Further reading
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.